User reviews

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.

This odd adaption of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde was originally shot in a rare form of 3-D which depends on a complicated camera move, much to the annoyance of star Christopher Lee. But it was all worth it, Mr. Lee, because it stands now as your only 3-D movie for us to enjoy today! The 3-D only works when the camera is moving left to right or right to left and you need special glasses (with the right lens slightly darkened) to enjoy it. But in 3-D, the creeping camera moves and slow editing all make sense because the scenes spring to life with deep focussed 3-dimensional action. Now you know why Christopher Lee is always walking up and down his laboratory behind all the chemical glassware!

This is an enjoyable as well as lurid chiller , including a fine portrayal of the notorious double-identity , very authentic-seeming Victorian settings , savoir faire performances and results to be a pretty nice rendition . Dr Marlowe (Christopher Lee who tackles a double role of the title character , and gives one of his best acting) is obsessed with Freudian theories , the nature of the id , the ego and the superego and whether they can be separated within an individual . Marlowe uses his experiments with intravenous drugs that are supposed to release inner inhibitions , causing Pulfrich effect , it leads to his metamorphosis development , some good and evil sides to his personality . He transforms into Mr. Blake (Christopher Lee) who prowls the seedy slums of Victorian London -Soho- to satisfy his dark instincts and nasty desires . Then his friend Frederick Utterson (Peter Cushing) suspects when take place grisly killings .

This is a largely faithful reworking of Robert Stevenson's classic story , tiring at times , though . The character names may have changed but this is still ¨Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde¨. Although given the source novel, it is unclear why the names of the central character have been changed . Very good acting by Christopher Lee as Dr Marlowe who injects himself with his secret formula and is transformed into Mr Blake . Lee gives one of the best interpretations that the cinema of horror has offered him in a 60-year career . Frequent co-protagonist Peter Cushing is top-notch as usual , playing as his colleague and friend . Adequate and atmospheric cinematography , filmed in Shepperton studios , originally in 3D , some clever camera work and choreography that keeps the foreground moving to the right and the background moving left makes this possible. Thrilling and atmospheric musical score by Carl Davis . The film was efficiently produced by Max J. Rosenberg and Milton Subotsky from Amicus factory , they were usual producers of terror genre .

The motion picture was well directed by Stephen Weeks , though Peter Duffell refused the offer to direct this project . Weeks was one of two young British directors to emerge in the terror field in the late sixties , the other , Michael Reeves died at 25 . He began his professional film career at age 17, directing a series of short films . He made his film cinema short film, 'Moods of a Victorian Church' (1967) at age 19, and his first cinema drama, a film set in the First World War in France '1917' . Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde was Stephen's second picture at age of 22 and he realized other horror films such as ¨Madhouse mansion¨ or ¨Ghost story¨(1979) and adventure movie such as ¨Gawain and the Green Knight¨ (1973) and its remake ¨Sword of the valiant¨ (1983) also with Peter Cushing . Rating : 6,5/10 . Well worth watching for Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing fans .

Other pictures based or inspired on ¨Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde¨ novel are the followings : 1920 silent retelling and first American one by John Robertson with John Barrymore ; 1932 retelling by Robert Mamoulian with Frederic March , Miriam Hopkins ; 1941 version by Victor Fleming with Spencer Tracy , Ingrid Bergman , Lana Turner , Donald Crisp ; 1968 TV take on by Charles Jarrott with Jack Palance , Denholm Elliott , Oscar Homolka ; 1973 adaptation by David Winters with Kirk Douglas , Donald Pleasence , Michael Redgrave , Susan George ; 1971 ¨Dr Jekyll and sister Hyde¨ by Roy Ward Baker with Ralph Bates and Martine Beswick ; 1971 ¨Dr Jekyll and Wolfman¨ by Leon Klimovsky with Paul Naschy , Shirley Corrigan , Jack Taylor ¨Edge of sanity¨(1989) by Gérard Kikoïne with Anthony Perkins , Glynis Barber and most latter-day recounting as 1995 ¨Dr Jekyll and Miss Hyde¨ by David Price with Timothy Daly , Sean Young , Lysette Anthony and ¨Mary Reilly¨ (1996) by Stephen Frears with John Malkovich , Julia Roberts , Michael Gambon . Furthermore , comical films such as ¨The Nutty Professor¨(1963) with Jerry Lewis and Stella Stevens ; ¨The nutty professor¨ (1996) by Tom Shadyac with Eddie Murphy and Jada Pinkett Smith and ¨Nutty Professor II: The Klumps¨(2000) by Peter Segal with Eddie Murphy and Janet Jackson .

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")

"I, Monster" is a respectable adaptation of the classic Robert Louis Stevenson tale of Jekyll & Hyde, albeit with some unconventional touches by screenwriter Milton Subotsky. Sir Christopher Lee stars as Dr. Marlowe, a psychiatrist / researcher who experiments with drugs, trying to get his patients to release their inhibitions. But when he tests his serum on himself, the results are predictable enough. He becomes an unhinged alter ego named Edward Blake, who indulges in debauched and nasty acts for their own sake. Meanwhile, Marlowes' lawyer Utterson (Peter Cushing) believes Marlowe and Blake to be two different people and thinks that the Blake character is blackmailing Marlowe.

While this slight film doesn't have quite enough style or gravitas to rate as anything more than routine entertainment, it's still reasonably well done. Produced by horror greats Amicus, its period recreation is decent, and its atmosphere likewise effective. Subotsky's touches include having Marlowe be a follower of Freud, so there are Freudian overtones, and the topic of the role that drugs play - or shouldn't play - in the treatment of patients. It does have the time honored appeal of any story with a Frankenstein type mad doctor twist. The makeup by Harry and Peter Frampton is pretty good, but the amount used on Lee is increased bit by bit on screen rather than utilized all at once. The music by Carl Davis is good. As directed by Stephen Weeks, a 22 year old budding filmmaker hired by Amicus at Lees' suggestion, it's actually not terribly violent - or as sexy as the stuff churned out by Hammer during this period. Much of the budget went towards an unusual 3D process exploiting the Pulfrich effect (which explains the camera movement), one that wasn't exactly pleasant to film for Lee.

As can be expected, the consistent professionalism and commitment to character by the two stars makes it all worthwhile. They're ably supported by exemplary actors such as Mike Raven, Richard Hurndall, George Merritt, and Kenneth J. Warren. That's a young Michael Des Barres as the youth who accosts Blake in the alley.

Agreeable entertainment, overall, although the ending is rather abrupt.

Six out of 10.

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".

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!

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"!

This is a version of 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde', although the credits ('based on a story by Robert Louis Stevenson'), the name changes (only Utterson and Hyde's first name survive) and the opening 20 minutes (Marlowe's scientific experiments could belong to any similar Hammer film) seem to want to conceal the fact (presumably to make the familiar story unfamiliar again).

Having said that, 'I, Monster' is the most faithful of all adaptations of Stevenson's great novella. There is a little chronological tinkering with narrative, and the setting is moved forward by two decades; but the plot and characters are largely Stevenson's. The error made by most versions of making Jekyll good and Hyde bad is avoided - Jekyll/Marlowe is from the start morose, anti-social, sadistic, voyeuristic and scientifically dubious. There is no Hollywood love-interest, pucelle/putain story to simplify Marlowe's dilemma, retaining the claustrophobic, homosocial world evoked by Stevenson.

Instead of the usual Victorian, cod-Gothic fug, the novella's dream-like modernity is stretched, with effective use made of silence and an unnaturally depopulated urban labyrinth. The transformation scenes, usually an excuse for distracting effects-extravaganza, are brilliantly subtle here, usually off-screen. The 'revelatory' scene (when Blake reveals himself to a friend) is done in silhouette, which is more evocative and thematically appropriate. Christopher Lee's patrician adventurousness is effectively contrasted with Peter Cushing's dogged dullness.

Of course, when I say 'I, Monster' is more faithful than most, it's still not very faithful at all. The duality in Stevenson, whereby Jekyll and Hyde being the same person is concealed till the end, is ignored here. More pertinently, setting the novel in 1906 makes the story seem perversely anachronistic, where Victorian ideas and motifs (sexual repression, duality, mad science etc.) seem out of place in Edwardian England. There is a reason for this - Marlowe is a devotee of Freud, and Jekyll's attempt to isolate, and hence exterminate, the essence of evil, is given a psychoanalytical spin, where the duality is not between respectability and desire, but the ego/super-ego and the Id.

This is interesting for two reasons. Firstly, Freud's ideas of the mind are transferred to the body, giving resonance to Marlowe's physical changes, the animal imagery throughout, and the violence he inflicts, as well as making more poignant the climactic 'melding', where Marlowe can no longer divorce his dark side at will. Secondly, Freud provides an explanatory framework for the story, most notably an Oedipal one. Blake runs riot with a cane that reminds Marlowe of the one his violent, 'respectable' father used; the absence of women in his social world, his horrifying violence to women, and some of the seemingly irrelevant asides (the photos that loom in his room like an invading army, etc.) all suggestively deepen our reaction to Marlowe's plight.

This Amicus production is reminiscent of the best Hammers - eg 'The Creeping Flesh' - where the emphasis is less on gore and sensation than suggestion, atmosphere, or slow menacing camerawork; a meaningful use of decor; dream-like sequences; elliptical editing; rich symbolism.

And as with those great Hammers, there are some searing set-pieces - the opening credits in Marlowe's laboratory, with its dead Siamese twin foetuses, its caged animals and images of fragmentary body parts; Marlowe's first injection and 'self-discovery' with the mirror (more Freud via Lacan) and 'new' point of view; the knife tussle at dawn in a narrow lane in a proletarian milieu; the voyeuristic scenes in his adopted hotel room, with its low-level, tilted camera; the social humiliation when he tries to pick up a prostitute, suggesting he hasn't quite overthrown the sensitive super-ego; the trampling of a young girl. Lee, usually so authoritarian and calm, gets a rare chance to be weak and is excellent; his hurt at having to kill his tabby is very moving. Also excellent is the score, ironic and commentating rather than underpinning or atmospheric; frequently comic, but never - ever - spoofy.

Decent movie, rising above mediocrity by the talents of Lee and Cushing. Christopher Lee is excellent as the twin personalities of the lead character. Obviously based on Jekyll and Hyde this is watchable and at least doesn't outstay its welcome being under 90 minutes in length.

I, MONSTER is Amicus Studios' version of Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde.

Dr. Marlowe (Christopher Lee) is working on a serum that will bring out the dark side of human nature. Using Freud as his guide, Marlowe uses his concoction on a female test subject, turning her from prim and proper to the exact opposite thereof. After another successful test on an ill-tempered man, Marlowe tries the serum out on himself.

Needless to say, the effects are dramatic, transforming the mild-mannered Marlowe into an id-driven maniac with only base desires on his mind. He heads for the seedier part of town where he can do as he pleases without regard or remorse.

As in the original tale, no good comes of this, as Marlowe slides ever deeper into the abyss. Not even children's lives are spared. A colleague (Peter Cushing) suspects Marlowe and sets out to stop him.

Lee and Cushing are always good together and this is no exception. This fairly faithful take on the source material highlights both men's strengths. Definitely one of Amicus' better movies...

I saw the Retromedia DVD of this, presented in widescreen. The picture quality left a lot to be desired - grainy and faded.

The movie is a fair adaptation of the original story. Parts of it seem to be almost verbatim, particularly the scene where the story of the young child being trampled is related. It's told rather than shown, as in the story, though it is partially depicted in a nightmare a character has. Why the Jeckyll/Hyde names were changed when the lesser characters' names were maintained is a mystery. If someone ever meets Lee at a convention, maybe they could ask him?

Some reviews play up the drug use and Freudian psychology angles. It's true the potion was injected rather than imbibed, but that didn't seem to be too significant. Freud gets some mentions in the first third or so of the film, and the Doctor does seem to be treating patients with some of his theories, possibly, but after that it isn't in the forefront.

Lee's transformation is one of the more minimalist ones. He gets a silly grin that keeps his upper teeth exposed, and a jaunty walk. In later transformations, his hair becomes more unkempt, thin, and gray; his walk becomes less jaunty and a little stooped; his skin becomes whiter and a little warty. At no point, however, could anyone mistake him for a different person. That makes the failure of his friends to recognize him after the injection, from either the front or back, rather bizarre.

If a potential viewer is interested in seeing some of the more faithful screen adaptations of this story, they might check this one out. Otherwise, there wouldn't be too much point - it's nothing exceptional.

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.

I, Monster is directed by Stephen Weeks and written by Milton Subotsky. An interpretation of Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, it stars Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Mike Raven, Richard Hurndall, George Merritt, Kenneth J. Warren, Susan Jameson and Marjie Lawrence. Music is by Carl Davis and cinematography by Moray Grant.

Kept By The Power Of God!

Stevenson's age old tale gets another make-over as Dr. Charles Marlowe (Lee) invents a drug that releases his patients' inhibitions. However, upon trying the drug himself, Marlowe finds that he turns into the monstrous Mr. Blake, who with each transformation becomes more cruel and debauched.

Dull and Hyde!

Amicus never quite made the mark on British Horror that they aspired to, a few films are enjoyable, certainly there's good value to be found with some of the segments in their portmanteau releases, but so many others just come off as weak attempts to create a niche in the market. Quite often there was good intentions on the writing table, such is the case with I, Monster, which has literary intentions that are honourable. The Eastman Color photography is lovely, the period design equally so, and the use of canted angles is a good move, but unfortunately the film is just too dull and beset with problems elsewhere.

First off is Cushing and Lee, two bona fide legends of British cinema and bastions of horror. Lee is miscast, never quite convincing in the Mr. Blake role, which isn't helped by the make up work which would look more at home in Carry On Screaming. With Cushing it's just a case of him being underused, which is unforgivable in a horror film aiming for literary smarts. Carl Davis' musical score is awful, at times I sounds like something that belongs in a silent movie farce.

Starting out as a 3-D venture, that idea was abandoned early in the production, it's hard to believe that the gimmick would have stopped this being the dreary film that it is. 4/10

Interesting Jekyll and Hyde Hybrid updated to the 70's with a ridiculous 'Drugs are bad for you' underlying theme.

Christopher Lee plays a scientist who discovers a serum that digs into hidden or repressed emotions. After making a cat go berserk, a repressed woman go nympho, and a badgering old coot get babylike, he tries it on himself, which transforms him into Lon Chaney in 'London After Midnight' it seems. Yes, complete with top hat, cap and wild teeth, Lee goes nuts on the town, taking out whatever comes his way, and yes, that comes complete with stalking a woman of the night in the Empty Factory That Has No Employees But They Left The Machinery Running. Only Peter Cushing can solve this dastardly mystery for us (hint, the good Christopher Lee has his bad wig combed). Pretty soon though, Lee is hooked on the drug, and just goes completely nuts! So yeah, can you guess the drug symbolism here? Pretty obvious and wacky, but pretty fun watching all the same.

Brilliant, clever, well-acted adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's great The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Dramatized by Amicus producer Milton Subotsky, I, Monster follows the original tale about as closely as any other with some major deviations. The characters in this film are Dr. Marlowe and Mr. Blake(?). Maybe they wanted to separate themselves from the original source material as much as possible or perhaps had a Rights issue. At any rate, I, Monster is a movie that builds and builds as Dr. Marlowe(Christopher Lee) tinkers with this new serum he has created that eliminates one part of the three parts of the brain(according to Freud). The reaction for each individual is different. For Lee, it sheds his formal, authoritative persona of its superego which then allows him to act any way he wants without any moral, ethical, or logical constraints. Lee's transformation is simple, effective, and strong. He goes from the stiff upper lip to the wicked, lecherous, carefree smile of a man of no moral code whatsoever. His eyes dance from one thing to another as the strangely effective music of Carl Davis plays a tune of light madness. Lee gives a great performance in this one and makes the film work. Without his skills, I, Monster would have little else going for it. Yes, Peter Cushing is in it. He plays Marlowe's attorney and is as always very solid in his otherwise mundane role. The rest of the cast is really nothing to speak of either. I have always liked Amicus and most of their horror entries from the late 60's and the 70's. They have the Hammer look about them without Hammer production values: translated that means that they look like Hammer imitations. Nonetheless, they usually have good stories and frequently paired Cushing and Lee together or singly. Subotsky's screenplay is laced with several philosophical layers. Director Stephen Weeks does a solid job behind the camera. For my money, I, Monster is definitely one of the best screen adaptations of Stevenson's work.