The team of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing is always worth watching, especially when they are doing a period film. It's a retread of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", but for some reason, those names have been eliminated (changed to Marlowe and Blaie) while other characters from the book have been retained. Cushing is Lee's attorney who is unaware that the evil Blake terrorizing Marlowe is actually his alter ego. Of course murder comes into play due to Marlowe's playing around where he shouldn't, with the expected results bringing on a predictable conclusion.

This Amicus film is lavishly produced but is lacking the sophistication of the Hammer films, and isn't even on par with American International in creating an atmosphere of spookiness and terror. Production values are decent, and Lee and Cushing give it their all, but they are surrounded by a weak supporting Cast and insufficient direction. A "Jekyll and Hyde" plot without the passion or the tension isn't the same, especially when there are so many better versions out there.

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".

A thoughtful and intelligent adaptation of the classic Stephenson story, also filmed the same year as DR JEKYLL AND SISTER HYDE, which had Ralph Bates transforming into a woman of all things. I, MONSTER is brought to us by the classic pairing of Max J Rosenberg and Milton Subotsky, and yes, it is indeed an Amicus film, although surprisingly not an anthology.

While the story is familiar, thanks to the above-average cast it always remains believable and in some cases, horrifying. I would say that the sole reason this film works is Christopher Lee's acting, which, although on the outside just seems to be the cold, aloof character he always plays, actually turns into something else when Lee brings real pathos to the role of the savage degenerate he has become, forced by evil to do evil things, yet the expression on his face is one of regret and suffering. By far, the best sequence in the film is when Lee is snubbed and openly mocked in public for his ugliness by a drunk prostitute and later follows her home, then beats her mercilessly to death. There are two victims in this scene, and Lee is by far the most tragic of the two.

Unfortunately, the biggest flaw of the film is the lack of much action. In fact, little happens at all, apart from Lee walking around, experimenting. He doesn't even do any really horrible things, except rob and kill a couple of people. This film did get a 12 certificate here in the UK after all, so frankly I wasn't expecting much violence. Although it may be boring and familiar at times, I, MONSTER, succeeds thanks to Lee's skilled acting and also three notable supporting actors.

The first is Peter Cushing, who brings us his typical refined dignity to the film as a doctor associate of Marlowe's, a man who is wholly on the side of good (just as he had been fifteen years earlier, against Lee's Dracula). Although Cushing's role is fairly small it is pivotal nonetheless, with his presence setting up the exciting finale which plays something like the end of Dracula with a titanic battle between Cushing and Lee. Okay, maybe it is a tad lower-key than Dracula's ending, but effective anyway.

Mike Raven turns up in an unintentionally amusing role as a doctor who sits back and occasionally comments on the action, his voice is absolutely hilarious as it slides smoothly over the accompanying actors. Raven has been given a lot of stick through the years and it has to be said, this is not one of his better roles. Further down the cast list is one Richard Hurndall, whom sci-fi fans will note as the replacement for William Hartnell in 1984's THE FIVE DOCTORS. Hurndall doesn't get to do much, but it's good to see him in something else other than DR WHO anyway.

I, MONSTER is definitely no classic film, yet it remains solid entertainment. Interestingly, it was filmed in 3D, which explains the puzzling camera angles and objects flying at the camera. Perhaps a fuller script with more plot twists and action would have made the film more exciting, or more theorising about the balance of good and evil would have made it deeper. Still, there are some interesting points made in due course, and the film has the classic Gothic-type atmosphere so beloved of Hammer, it does actually feel a lot like a Hammer film. Not brilliant, and definitely flawed, yet still an essential obscurity for the collector.