BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

BA_Harrison Is man born evil or is society to blame? Dr. Marlowe (Christopher Lee) believes that every man has both good and evil sides to their personality, and, influenced by Freud's theories about the id, ego and super-ego, he cooks up a serum to test the notion. After using a couple of his patients as guinea pigs, Marlowe injects himself with the drug and turns from dedicated doctor to leering loon Mr Blake, for whom crime is a source of pleasure.I, Monster is Amicus' take on the oft-filmed Robert Louis Stevenson classic Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, except in this version it's Dr Marlowe and Mr Blake. As adaptations of Stevenson's famous work go, this is certainly one of the most consistently entertaining, thanks to a fun central performance from Lee, who revels in the wickedness of Mr Blake, a solid supporting turn from Peter Cushing as Marlowe's concerned lawyer Utterson, a reasonably faithful script, and effective direction from Steven Weeks.I do, however, have an issue with the fact that none of the characters identify Blake as Marlowe, not even those who share his home. Towards the very end, as the monster within takes control and Blake becomes truly ugly, this is understandable, but during the earlier stages, where the physical changes are slight and Blake is still easily recognisable as Marlowe, it is difficult to swallow. The level of suspension of disbelief required is just a little too high for me to rate the film any higher than 6/10.

Red-Barracuda I, Monster is a version of Robert Louis Stevenson's 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' made by Amicus Studios, who were most famous as the horror anthology specialists of British horror. This is one of their standalone entries. Their bigger contemporaries Hammer Studios had in fact released their own version of the famous novella also in 1971, namely Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde. Even just going by the title of the latter it's obvious that Hammer were going off on a clearly different angle with their adaption. As far as Amicus version is concerned, it's seemingly one of the most faithful versions of the story ever made. Interestingly, despite the source novella being in the public domain, both the title and character names are quite different. But when you see it, it's pretty obviously the same story. It's not clear why they chose to do this, although it may have been to give the film a slightly fresher feel.The story has a doctor called Marlowe developing a drug that releases his patient's inhibitions, for example, turning a sexually repressed woman into a nymphomaniac. To further test it he starts taking it himself. It turns him into Mr. Blake an evil man who grows increasingly more physically repulsive the more times he takes a dose. Marlowe is ordinarily a very inhibited and cold man, whereas Blake is libidinous and carefree. Needless to say he is also murderous too and soon there is a manhunt on to discover who is responsible for these crimes.Amicus made a fairly commendably earnest adaption here it has to be said. The production benefits from some authentic Victorian England locations and like other costume horrors from Britain from the period, its low budget is hidden quite well by the sets and costuming. It also has the two British stalwarts of the genre at its disposal in Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Lee has a fair bit to sink his teeth into in this dual role as Marlowe/Blake and he puts in a very good performance. Cushing is solid as he ever is but his role is very run-of-the-mill for him really and he doesn't get to do much beyond what we've seen him do umpteen times. Despite being quite faithful to the original source there are some amendments that have been added to make it slightly more modern such as Freudian theory underpinning things or the fact that Marlowe uses an intravenous drug as opposed to drinking a potion. On the whole though, like lots of these Amicus/Hammer period horrors, this one is solid more than great. There consequently isn't anything too surprising but if you are a fan of the sub-genre then this is certainly a good enough example.

TheFinalAlias Most analyse's of Stevenson's famous story 'Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde' mention the psycho-sexual undercurrents in the story, and argue that the book is nothing more than a condemnation of those who seek to slip below the scale of Victorian(Christian)morality. While it is true that Jekyll creates his alter-ego to carry out his baser instincts, it is often overlooked that Jekyll's real goal was to let his evil self die out by releasing it so that once he was purged of all remotely evil instincts; he would become the perfect man; a god. However, as everyone knows, his experiment did the exact opposite.Using that point-of View; that makes this film from Amicus studios the most faithful adaption of DJ&MH. It attempts grandeur ie. Creating the most faithful adaption ever of the famous novel; in 3-D no less,; but ultimately destroys itself in the very area it could have succeeded. But, like Jekyll himself through of the results of his experiment; the results were indeed interesting.This film had the perfect opportunity to remain faithful to the novel. For those who have not read the book; it is actually a mystery that sets itself up as a blackmail thriller, only in the last two chapters is it revealed that Jekyll & Hyde are the same man. Now, apart from the ending of 'The Empire Strikes Back'; this is probably the most well-known ending in history. So much that nearly all versions have dropped the mystery format altogether and instead substituted a romantic subplot that drives Jekyll insane and follows him from beginning to end. 'I, Monster' had the perfect opportunity to re-institute the original novel's mystery plot: It would change the names of Jekyll & Hyde; and since the majority of the books characters are never present in film adaptations, it wouldn't make audiences suspicious! And it would also keep people from learning the ending by not titling the film with either alter-ego's name; but with a generic(but cool)title.Seems the perfect way to re-use the original plot without it becoming obvious, right? Yes, it was the perfect way. But instead; the film uses the traditional route of following Jekyll from beginning to end with no mystery. And the intent to film in 3-D was dropped.; making the film look washed out and dull with hazy characters cast in opposing red & blue filters.Such a waste. But in spite of that, this still remains the most faithful adaption of the novel and still adds some new twists. Here, Marlowe(the Jekyll figure, played by Christopher Lee)tests his serum on animals and patients. The results are amusing: A suicidal, repressed young woman becomes a nymphomaniac and beds the Doctor, a short-fused businessman becomes a whimpering sissy and in a moving scene, Marlowe's cat attacks him and he kills it hesitantly. Mention is made of Freud and that gives the film an air of authenticity. The actions of Blake(the Hyde figure, also Lee)progress from simple vandalism to murder in a believable pattern. Lee hams it up as Blake, and his makeup is minimal; but it captures the description of Hyde in the novel as being an ugly, but normal man who simply gives the feel of being repulsive and deformed even though he isn't.The film, apart from the already mentioned changes and the subplot of Marlowe/Jekyll first experimenting on patients, still follows the book quite well other than the climatic ending and elimination of the Carew murder in favor of the murder of a prostitute who mocks Blake. It even includes the infamous 'marked door', the trampling of the little girl, and even Utterson's nightmares. All the characters are here; Enfield, Lanyon, the Soho landlady. And all the actors do a great job. Lee is fantastic as Marlowe and even makes us feel some pity for Blake himself!!!! Peter Cushing is the first on screen portrayal of Utterson, and he fits the role well, particularly the character's 'radiant eyes'. The ending even leaves him in a position almost as tragic as Marlowe/Blakes.Although very low-key, the film is definitely worth a watch; Second only to the Fredric March version('Dr. Jekyll & Sister Hyde' and the Jack Palance film are also good). It may seem slow paced, but it accurately matches the aura of despair and spiritual decay. Cushing is always watchable, most of the supporting actors are good; and Lee gives his second-best performance after De Richleau in 'The Devil Rides Out'.It's definitely a treat to watch in light of his recent Knighthood. Three cheers for SIR Christopher Lee! I just KNOW that this film will look even better in light of that, and the upcoming Keanu Reeves film that I can just feel is going to be a travesty.~

lordzedd-3 I heard this this is one the most loyal versions of the Strange case of Doctor Jekyl and Mister Hyde ever made. First complaint, why not name the character Jekyl and Hyde if it's based on the story? Second, complaint, it's so damn dull, an hour into the movie and nothing was happening. Nothing, just lots of talking about evil. I hope the book isn't this dull. The performances were good and the make up effects worked. But it's so damn boring it was putting me to sleep. I had trouble keeping my eyes open. I know British films can be dull but this has to be slow even for a British flick. Not even Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee could save this movie, do not operate heavy machinery or drive while watching I, MONSTER. I must give the movie THE NOOSE!