Touches You

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

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.

Milton Subotsky obviously thought Robert Louis Stevenson's story had passed it's Box Office sell-by date, as he changed the principle character's name to Dr. Marlowe and his evil alter-ego to Edward Blake, and added a Freudian layer to the tale. The result is not always successful but generally watchable, and of course, will be fondly remembered for featuring the august presences of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing.It's Lee who plays the experimenting Doctor, and while the build-up to his first change is quite effective once Blake takes to the streets there doesn't seem much for him to do. Poor Mike Raven, in having to tell of Blake's ruthless stamping upon a young girl is forced to sound like he's reading from a book. We are then shown this in a dream sequence which is far more convincing.Peter Cushing is on hand to lend his probing of the Marlowe/Blake conundrum a dignified air, and Christopher Lee himself delivers a very good performance as Blake disintegrates into a fiend and wretched specimen. It's interesting that writer Subotsky plays up the pathos element largely when Blake's on screen and keeps Marlowe as a stiff upper lip type most of the way. A very young Steven Weeks directs nicely, but he was to make a far better British horror film with 1974's Ghost Story.Sadly, the film's 77 minute running time does not exactly fly over - especially during the central section which is rather bland. It has a nicely judged climax though, and remains a decent if not great entry in the colossal Jekyll and Hyde corpus. Rouben Mamoulian's 1931 version is still the best version of the tale for this reviewer.

Amicus takes on the Jekyll & Hyde theme with Christopher Lee portraying a scientist, Dr. Marlowe, experimenting with a serum which might separate the distinct personalities of good and evil, creating an ability to fulfill our innermost desires and break down the barriers of the unconscious without feelings of guilt or conscience. Instead Marlowe creates a drug which enhances the evil side in him to the point that it overpowers the good. Marlowe is a psychiatrist whose practice derives from the teachings of Freud which heavily influence his desire to experiment. Lee gets the chance to actually play essentially two roles, the cold, mild-mannered, evenly tempered scientist and the hot-headed heel, with a voracious appetite for all things carnage. We see the evil side motivate Lee to steal a cane, engage in a knife fight with street punk, frighten a poor kid with glee in his eyes. As the scientist Lee shows that, while he does have a drawer with nude photos and believes we shouldn't be hindered by oppressing our inhibitions, he is far more civilized and even keeled that the hell spawn he has slowly unraveled upon an unprepared London. Soho will never be the same thanks to the devilish fiend lurking in their midst. Leisurely paced to say the least and dialogue heavy but a showcase for Lee to try his hand at a variation on the creation(s)of Robert Louis Stevenson. Peter Cushing is Marlowe's colleague, Frederick Utterson, concerned for his friend's association with the mysterious Dr. Edward Blake. My favorite scene could be when Utterson is discouraged by his client Marlowe's will and Lee reveals an almost admiration for Blake's abilities to commit evil without the anguishing conflicts which often accompany a life of crime..it's a scene where Lee allows us to see the pent-up disdain for "fashionable" behavior in their aristocracy. As the film continues, Marlowe is consumed by Blake, the ugliness not only in action but through physical transformation. When Blake feels threatened as Marlowe's friends fear for their colleague's safety and well being, the monster will respond by any means necessary to protect himself. To be honest I,MONSTER is mostly noteworthy as a vehicle for another Lee and Cushing collaboration, as Blake will come after Utterson who knows too much due to his snooping for a troubled client in a fight at the climax. Out of all the Jekyll & Hyde movies you can get your hands on, I, MONSTER isn't exactly at the top of the class, but I was glad to finally get my hands on a copy. I think the detriment to this film ultimately is the lack of a decent print which would provide better visual stimulation ..I don't discredit the DVD company, because to simply have a chance to see it was appreciated, but it's a shame that there aren't better elements to yield a more pleasurable viewing experience(we are as horror fans spoiled these days).

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!