Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Just so...so bad

hyped garbage

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

In the Nineteenth Century, in London, the psychologist Charles Marlowe (Christopher Lee) researches a new drug capable to release inhibitions and uses his patients as guinea pigs. He discusses the principles of Freud with his friend Dr. Lanyon (Richard Hurndall) and decides to experiment his drug in himself. He becomes the ugly and evil Edward Blake and his friend and lawyer Frederik Utterson (Peter Cuhsing) believes Blake is another person that might be blackmailing Charles. Meanwhile Charles loses control of his transformation."I, Monster" is another version of the classic story of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. The art direction is very beautiful and the great attractions are certainly Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. My vote is six.Title (Brazil): "O Soro Maldito" ("The Damned Serum")

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.

I, MONSTER is a British horror movie adaptation of the novel, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, written by Robert Louis Stephenson. It was produced by Amicus - who along with its competitors - Hammer and Tigon - dominated the British horror movie industry in the 1960s and early 1970s.Amicus are today best known for their excellent anthology horror movies. But they also made some non-portmanteau movies that were every bit as good - if not better - than their competitors were producing during this period. I, MONSTER is a great example of such a movie. Others include THE BEAST MUST DIE and MADHOUSE.I, MONSTER is arguably the best adaptation of the movie as one reviewer has already suggested on this site. The only key difference is that the names of the characters have changed from Jekyll and Hyde to Marlowe and Blake. In my humble opinion, this magnificent piece of work falls just short of perfect.The plot for those unaware of the story is as follows - a scientist experiments with drugs meant to release inhibitions. He witnesses a series of different effects - one patient behaves like a child and another craves for sexual attention. He decides to further his work by experimenting these drugs on himself. Initially he shows a hint of cruelty, preparing to use a scalpel on a mouse. But each time he injects himself, he becomes more monstrous, both in physical appearance and personality. This leads to murder and blackmail. The "split personality" theme is the main focus of the story and the movie is consistent with this.The movie expands upon the original story by involving Sigmund Freud. It also removes the "hero and villain" mentality associated with previous adaptations by presenting the scientist as a curious and dedicated man who simply but gradually loses control of himself. The story revolves predominately around this psychological concept with one man as the focus and the supporting characters merely bystanders who either try to help or become affected in some way by the situation.The reviewer who slated this movie for being a mere re-hash of the Hammer Dracula franchise couldn't be more wrong. The characters of Lee and Cushing are actually friends here - not adversaries as was the case in the aforementioned franchise. This movie is not about "good" versus "evil". It is instead a carefully crafted exploration into what causes "evil", how "evil" may be a necessary part of human nature, how the lines between "good" and "bad" can become blurred, and how science can have negative as well as positive consequences.Sir Christopher Lee and the late great Peter Cushing - perhaps the top two horror actors Britain has ever known or will ever see - invest every ounce of talent they have in their characters. Their performances here are amongst the best they have done. This movie is definitely one of their best pairings. Christopher Lee's overly ambitious and open-minded scientist contrasts perfectly with Peter Cushing's overly cautious and skeptical scientist. One scene they share is particularly moving and this the true testament of their performances here.Mike Raven seems to enjoy himself with a supporting role as yet another scientist. He held my attention in every scene he was in and I also enjoyed his performance in the movie, CRUCIBLE OF TERROR, a very unfairly maligned movie. He came across as a very professional actor despite the negative comments I have read about him. I was highly surprised to learn that he was in fact a DJ!The producers have clearly used imagination here. As another reviewer has pointed out, the movie is not set in the foggy Gothic settings associated with Hammer horror. Instead, this Victorian setting looks realistically grim with drunken people, prostitutes, street thugs, run-down pubs and even empty cans lying on the cobbles! There is no "sugar-coating" here!Direction by Stephen Weeks capitalises on the superbly atmospheric setting, excellent usage of camera-work, razor-sharp editing and the effectiveness of Christopher Lee's "Mr. Blake" characterisation to utilise some excellent horror. There is hardly any blood or gore here. This is a psychologically twisted situation that makes the viewer wonder who they should care about - Dr. Marlowe or the potential victims of Mr. Blake. The viewer can easily associate with the characters on the streets because Mr. Blake - with his wicked smile - was a truly scary creation - who anyone would quickly want to run away from. At the same time, the viewer can also relate to Dr. Marlowe - a scientist with good intentions who struggles to fight this inner demon known as Mr. Blake. Some great humour is also thrown in for good measure, helping to add more impact to the shocking moments, the details of which I will not spoil. Without revealing much, I can say that my favourite scene was the one where Mr. Blake visits a run-down inn to seek accommodation. Watch the movie and you'll soon find out what I mean.I, MONSTER has only one flaw I could find - its running time is slightly too short. A few extra scenes could have gone further in exploring Dr. Marlowe's fight with the inner demon in the second half. Instead, the second half seemed a little rushed, and the ending was both too abrupt and simply too predictable. However, these factors do very little to detract from the highly entertaining viewing experience of the movie as a whole.I, MONSTER is overall a magnificent movie by Amicus and certainly the best work they produced outside of the anthologies. I especially recommend it for all fans of movies made during the heyday of British horror movies in the 1960s and 1970s. Remember also to check out DR. JEKYLL AND SISTER HYDE, another excellent Jekyll and Hyde adaptation made by Amicus's rival, Hammer, just a few months later.

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".