While I enjoyed Paul Massie and the Hammer version of the "Jekyll and Hyde" story ("The Two Faces Of Dr. Jekyll"), I admit that this version from Amicus Studios may actually be the better film. I suppose it depends on what you are looking for in your "Jekyll/Hyde" adaptation. "I,Monster" is pretty subtle (for a horror film) in its approach to telling the story. The director lets events unfold in an unhurried, meticulous way that allows the viewer to gather all the details without ever being sensationalist or lurid. Everything is present - the debate about the true inner nature of man; the London surroundings; the increasingly violent and degenerate deeds of the good doctor's alter ego; and the sad end. (I won't say "tragic", because this doesn't have the "feel" of a tragedy to me - it feels like a cautionary tale, and the protagonist is hardly a hero undone by fate.)Here's how good and solid the movie is: "Marlowe" (this movie's name for Jekyll) doesn't actually inject himself until nearly 30 minutes into the movie, and when he does...well, you haven't seen "unsettling" until you've seem post-transformation Christopher Lee puttering around his lab with a huge smile of malicious glee on his face, and then picking up a lab mouse with one hand and a scalpel in the other.The copy I saw (on YouTube) was a bit blurry and smeared, but it wasn't bad enough to keep me from noting some really nice camera work, costumes and scenery that reinforced and sometimes foreshadowed the developments in the movie...especially the scene in the daffodil laden park when "Marlowe's" ugly alter ego reasserts itself without the drug. Peter Cushing is a definite 2nd fiddle in this, but he's still a class act. And the rest of the cast keeps up nicely, especially the actor who play's Lee's mentor.This was a fine, fine example of what Amicus could do at its best and would reward the time spent by anyone who has a taste for British horror from previous decades.

Milton Subotsky obviously thought Robert Louis Stevenson's story had passed it's Box Office sell-by date, as he changed the principle character's name to Dr. Marlowe and his evil alter-ego to Edward Blake, and added a Freudian layer to the tale. The result is not always successful but generally watchable, and of course, will be fondly remembered for featuring the august presences of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing.It's Lee who plays the experimenting Doctor, and while the build-up to his first change is quite effective once Blake takes to the streets there doesn't seem much for him to do. Poor Mike Raven, in having to tell of Blake's ruthless stamping upon a young girl is forced to sound like he's reading from a book. We are then shown this in a dream sequence which is far more convincing.Peter Cushing is on hand to lend his probing of the Marlowe/Blake conundrum a dignified air, and Christopher Lee himself delivers a very good performance as Blake disintegrates into a fiend and wretched specimen. It's interesting that writer Subotsky plays up the pathos element largely when Blake's on screen and keeps Marlowe as a stiff upper lip type most of the way. A very young Steven Weeks directs nicely, but he was to make a far better British horror film with 1974's Ghost Story.Sadly, the film's 77 minute running time does not exactly fly over - especially during the central section which is rather bland. It has a nicely judged climax though, and remains a decent if not great entry in the colossal Jekyll and Hyde corpus. Rouben Mamoulian's 1931 version is still the best version of the tale for this reviewer.

Amicus takes on the Jekyll & Hyde theme with Christopher Lee portraying a scientist, Dr. Marlowe, experimenting with a serum which might separate the distinct personalities of good and evil, creating an ability to fulfill our innermost desires and break down the barriers of the unconscious without feelings of guilt or conscience. Instead Marlowe creates a drug which enhances the evil side in him to the point that it overpowers the good. Marlowe is a psychiatrist whose practice derives from the teachings of Freud which heavily influence his desire to experiment. Lee gets the chance to actually play essentially two roles, the cold, mild-mannered, evenly tempered scientist and the hot-headed heel, with a voracious appetite for all things carnage. We see the evil side motivate Lee to steal a cane, engage in a knife fight with street punk, frighten a poor kid with glee in his eyes. As the scientist Lee shows that, while he does have a drawer with nude photos and believes we shouldn't be hindered by oppressing our inhibitions, he is far more civilized and even keeled that the hell spawn he has slowly unraveled upon an unprepared London. Soho will never be the same thanks to the devilish fiend lurking in their midst. Leisurely paced to say the least and dialogue heavy but a showcase for Lee to try his hand at a variation on the creation(s)of Robert Louis Stevenson. Peter Cushing is Marlowe's colleague, Frederick Utterson, concerned for his friend's association with the mysterious Dr. Edward Blake. My favorite scene could be when Utterson is discouraged by his client Marlowe's will and Lee reveals an almost admiration for Blake's abilities to commit evil without the anguishing conflicts which often accompany a life of crime..it's a scene where Lee allows us to see the pent-up disdain for "fashionable" behavior in their aristocracy. As the film continues, Marlowe is consumed by Blake, the ugliness not only in action but through physical transformation. When Blake feels threatened as Marlowe's friends fear for their colleague's safety and well being, the monster will respond by any means necessary to protect himself. To be honest I,MONSTER is mostly noteworthy as a vehicle for another Lee and Cushing collaboration, as Blake will come after Utterson who knows too much due to his snooping for a troubled client in a fight at the climax. Out of all the Jekyll & Hyde movies you can get your hands on, I, MONSTER isn't exactly at the top of the class, but I was glad to finally get my hands on a copy. I think the detriment to this film ultimately is the lack of a decent print which would provide better visual stimulation ..I don't discredit the DVD company, because to simply have a chance to see it was appreciated, but it's a shame that there aren't better elements to yield a more pleasurable viewing experience(we are as horror fans spoiled these days).

This film is the 7312th remake of the classic story "Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde" and frankly I was left asking myself if the whole thing was even necessary. After all, with so many versions out there, does this one merit yet another? Plus, the Frederic March version of the 1930s was awfully good--is this one any better? Well, in only one way does it seem perhaps better. Instead of the doctor doing his experiments for no clearly defined reason, here the doc is an analytic therapist and he finds the serum unleashes inhibitions--meaning some patients might become violent, some sexual and some infantile. This could have been interesting, but unfortunately it ultimately wasn't since it wasn't done all that well.What wasn't all that good? Well, first, for some totally unknown reason, the names were all changed. Although it clearly is about Jeckyl and Hyde, these names were inexplicably changed. Also, mostly due to too many versions, this film manages to be rather dull--something that DOESN'T happen with Christopher Lee's vampire movies. Too bad--I was really hoping this wouldn't be just "same old, same old".