It would appear that the last six months or so have been determined to prove to me that there are some movies I remained far too ignorant about, despite being aware of their existence. I finally saw The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas after finding out it was a musical, I finally TRIED to watch the glorious The Tales Of Hoffmann without realising it was almost a straightforward adaptation of a famous opera, and now . . . I get to I, Monster, a film I never realised was simply an adaptation of the famous Jekyll & Hyde tale from Robert Louis Stevenson.
Christopher Lee plays Charles Marlowe, a doctor who starts to research the possibilities of removing inhibitions from people with the help of drugs. Moving forward, he then considers whether or not you could distil/remove pure good and pure evil, a topic he has discussed with friends. Experimenting upon himself, he creates an ugly and immoral alter-ego, Edward Blake. As the behaviour of Blake gets worse, and more overt, Frederik Utterson (Peter Cushing) believes that Marlowe is being blackmailed. He attempts to save him from Blake, initially not realising that he is saving Marlowe from himself.
An Amicus film, although not one of their top-tier efforts, I, Monster benefits, as any film does, from the inclusion of both Lee and Cushing in major roles. One of those legends appearing in your film will get it a bonus point from me, both of them gets at least double, of course.
It's a shame that the film isn't a better one for them. Director Stephen Weeks wants to keep things quite classy and tame, but I can't help feeling that this would have been a better film if it had been more willing to "get down 'n' dirty" with the main character, showing his descent with more debauchery and a willingness to break the rules of society (a Dorian Gray without the good looks/portrait to allow him to be given the benefit of any doubt). This is also due to the script from Milton Subotsky. I understand the decision. Amicus, like Hammer, often tried to keep their horror films as a well-balanced blend of the classy and the bloody. This lacks the blood though, and lacks any real horror (although there's a great sequence at about the halfway point, or maybe just after, in which Blake is at his very worst). If you just want another adaptation of the classic tale, however, then this is the strength of the film.
Lee enjoys himself in the lead role, whether he's the polite and intelligent Marlowe or the brooding and evil Blake. He's excellent in either incarnation, and I wouldn't be surprised if he looked back on this film with great fondness. Cushing probably wouldn't though, being sidelined for a lot of the film as he is allowed to eventually come to realise the truth in time for the final battle. There's a decent selection of supporting players, but it's very much a film for Lee/Cushing fans.
I was strangely disappointed AND impressed by this. It does well in the telling of the original tale, but there's more that could have been done. It seems things were also hampered by the fact that it was originally intended to be a 3-D movie (and some scenes can still seem that way if you wear the old-style glasses, or simply try to watch it with a pair of glasses on that have a dark filter over one lens). It's still not a bad film though, which was guaranteed when I saw the top two names on the cast list.
Do check out this wonderful blog post I found HERE.
6/10
https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
No comments:
Post a Comment