Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Claudio Carvalho 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")

Coventry With this feature, Amicus Studios (a British production company founded merely to cash in on the huge success of contemporary competitor Hammer, though with lower budgets and mainly specializing in anthology films) attempted to present its very own adaptation of the legendary and numerously retold novel "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", by Robert Louis Stevenson. However, "I, Monster" turned out to be a rather curious movie and I honestly can't say for sure what it was that Amicus wanted to achieve and whether or not they succeeded in their effort. At first I assumed "I, Monster" was going to be only loosely inspired by the classic story, since there already are so many reminiscent versions available on the market and even more so because the screenplay changes the names of the protagonist from Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde into Dr. Marlowe and Mr. Blake. But then it rapidly becomes obvious that this is actually one of the faithful adaptations of Stevenson's story, so that can't be an option. On a slightly off-topic note, in case you are looking for an offbeat and extremely loose interpretation of the same story, you can turn to the aforementioned Hammer again and check out "Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde". Maybe the original mission was to make the very first 3-D version of "Jekyll and Hyde", but that idea got abandoned in a fairly early stage as well and it's only still noticeable in some minor visual and cinematographic details. So, basically, all that remains is another redundant but nevertheless worthwhile re-enactment of a fantastic tale, once more pairing two of the greatest horror actors ever (Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee) and competently directed by one of the youngest filmmakers of that time. Stephen Weeks was still in his early twenties in 1971. I bet it must be a truly unique experience to give Lee and Cushing instructions on a film set on that age...Lee and Cushing don't deliver their greatest performances here (far from it actually), but even at their most mediocre they nonetheless remain a joy to behold. Lee stars as Dr. Marlowe, a successful psychiatrist and devoted disciple of Sigmund Freud's theories. He firmly believes that mental illnesses can be caused by the repression of the true human nature (which is vile, mean and aggressive) and that both sides of the personality can easily be separated. He develops a drug, experiments on himself and gradually turns into a more relentless and incurable monster after each injection. His friends, including Peter Cushing as his attorney, want to help Dr. Marlowe but they automatically assume this mysterious Mr. Blake is an entirely different persona. The overall story is commonly known and this version doesn't feature any noteworthy differences. The doctor's transformations - mentally as well as physically - grow more monstrous, but the remarkable thing is he is the scariest during the earliest phases! Near the film's climax, Christopher Lee looks unrecognizable and heavily deformed but after the first couple of drug dosages he simply puts on a menacing and genuinely unsettling Joker-type of smile. Can you imagine Christopher Lee with a big smile like that? Now, THAT is scary stuff!

MartinHafer 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".

ferbs54 The makers of the "deluxe" "I, Monster" DVD apologize on screen at the film's beginning for the quality of the presentation, explaining that they used the best video and audio sources available. And an apology certainly is in order, as the look of this eagerly awaited release (it was released for the first time on DVD in January '05) is quite grainy, revealing what was most likely lousy 16mm print sources. Flesh tones are uneven, sound quality is so-so, and the crisp look that DVD viewers have come to expect is wholly lacking. Extras on this "deluxe" release are comprised of one trailer (in execrable shape) and five or six stills. Anyway, that's the bad news. The better news is that the movie itself turns out to be not half bad. Christopher Lee plays Charles Marlowe, a psychotherapist in 1906 London who injects himself with a serum to wipe out his superego inhibitions. Only problem is, he keeps turning into a progressively ugly and more violent beast (one called "Mr. Blake") every time he does so. Sound familiar? Yes, this IS Stevenson's Jekyll & Hyde tale repeated again for the umpteenth time. So why not just call it Jekyll & Hyde? Who knows? Stevenson IS credited, after all! Anyway, Lee is darn good in his dual role, and Peter Cushing is dependable as always as his suspecting friend. Some very unusual music by Carl Davis adds some strange atmosphere, and a very streamlined screenplay avoids unnecessary clutter (such as characterizations). There's really not much to this movie, actually, besides Lee going bonkers, and without his and Cushing's presence, it certainly would be less than watchable. Still, I suppose we should be grateful for what little we have here, as any opportunity to see Cushing and Lee together is one that all fans of classic horror should pounce upon. Just don't expect anything on the order of "Horror Express"!