Review: I, Monster

Dr. Marlowe (Christopher Lee) is interested in the workings of the mind, particularly the idea of duality within us. He has developed a drug that he uses on his disturbed patients and notices that the drug lowers their inhibitions and causes them to act entirely without a filter. Basically, it suppresses the superego. Moving to experimenting on himself the suppression of his respectable dominant personality trait has the effect of unleashing Marlowe’s darker and previously suppressed sinister side to the forefront. This is a wild-eyed and wild-haired personality/persona called Blake (also played by Lee). Blake is a cruel and violent creature, one that Marlowe finds increasingly difficult to control once he’s loose. Oh dear, what has the doctor unleashed upon polite society? Peter Cushing and a lisping Mike Raven (better known as a disc jockey) play Marlowe’s friends, the former of whom mistakenly assumes that Blake is a blackmailer leeching off his friend Marlowe. Kenneth J. Warren plays one of Marlowe’s troubled patients.

 

Hammer didn’t give Christopher Lee the dual lead role in their “The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll”, so he likely jumped at the chance when rival Amicus Studios gave him the gig for this 1971 re-telling from debut feature director Stephen Weeks (22 at the time here, he later went on to make the slightly underrated “Sword of the Valiant”). The title character names are changed here, but Robert Louis Stevenson is still credited and supporting character names retained. Written by Amicus co-founder Milton Subotsky, it’s a dishearteningly shoddy and disappointing work that nonetheless features a very enjoyable performance by Lee.

 

It reminds me of the shoddy Anthony Perkins Jekyll/Hyde as Jack the Ripper film “Edge of Sanity” in some ways, though at least that film was relatively good-looking. Amicus generally delivered good-looking films, but this one’s quite crudely done, and apparently the filmmakers ran out of money before the end of shooting too. It's not Amicus’ finest hour. On the plus side the treatment of the central themes here is better than in that direct-to-video effort (they’re both drug addiction stories to some extent), and Christopher Lee’s lead performance far more consistent than poor Anthony Perkins’ erratic turn. Dr. Jekyll is often portrayed as well-meaning and ultimately good yet misguided. However, much like my favourite portrayals of Dr. Frankenstein, I feel there’s an inherent ruthlessness and arrogance to the character and what he does. That trait lends itself very well to having Christopher Lee in the part, and he’s the one thing here that doesn’t disappoint. He seems to be having fun cutting loose in this one, whereas he normally approaches roles with the greatest of seriousness. Lee’s perfect as the arrogant, obsessed scientist, and when portraying Hyde/Blake he’s got a bit of Lon Chaney Sr. about him, which is both creepy and weird. Whatever one makes of Marlowe, there’s no redeeming feature to Lee’s Blake, who is a truly evil monster (Then again, they’re the same person aren’t they?). I enjoyed the sleazy supporting part he had in “The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll”, but it’s a real shame Hammer didn’t give him the lead in what was quite a good film. In fact, Paul Massie’s lead performance there was the film’s only flaw, whereas here this film just isn’t all that good in spite of Lee’s strong effort. The terrific hair and makeup job on Lee is vastly superior to the unconvincing beard and eyebrows job Massie had to try to sell as well.

 

The biggest issue for me is the crude editing, it’s horribly distracting throughout. The supporting performances aren’t really up to snuff, though Kenneth J. Warren’s cameo is interesting, and a young Michael Des Barres has an amusing cameo unwisely picking a fight with Blake. A bored-looking Peter Cushing surprisingly phones it in, and although he looks positively Mephistophelean, Mike Raven simply isn’t a good or particularly charismatic actor.

 

A frustrating mixed bag this one, far from the best Amicus horror film. Such a shame that more care wasn’t put into it beyond Lee’s terrific performance. He keeps it watchable, but only just.

 

Rating: C+