Most analyse's of Stevenson's famous story 'Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde' mention the psycho-sexual undercurrents in the story, and argue that the book is nothing more than a condemnation of those who seek to slip below the scale of Victorian(Christian)morality. While it is true that Jekyll creates his alter-ego to carry out his baser instincts, it is often overlooked that Jekyll's real goal was to let his evil self die out by releasing it so that once he was purged of all remotely evil instincts; he would become the perfect man; a god. However, as everyone knows, his experiment did the exact opposite.
Using that point-of View; that makes this film from Amicus studios the most faithful adaption of DJ&MH. It attempts grandeur ie. Creating the most faithful adaption ever of the famous novel; in 3-D no less,; but ultimately destroys itself in the very area it could have succeeded. But, like Jekyll himself through of the results of his experiment; the results were indeed interesting.
This film had the perfect opportunity to remain faithful to the novel. For those who have not read the book; it is actually a mystery that sets itself up as a blackmail thriller, only in the last two chapters is it revealed that Jekyll & Hyde are the same man. Now, apart from the ending of 'The Empire Strikes Back'; this is probably the most well-known ending in history. So much that nearly all versions have dropped the mystery format altogether and instead substituted a romantic subplot that drives Jekyll insane and follows him from beginning to end. 'I, Monster' had the perfect opportunity to re-institute the original novel's mystery plot: It would change the names of Jekyll & Hyde; and since the majority of the books characters are never present in film adaptations, it wouldn't make audiences suspicious! And it would also keep people from learning the ending by not titling the film with either alter-ego's name; but with a generic(but cool)title.
Seems the perfect way to re-use the original plot without it becoming obvious, right? Yes, it was the perfect way. But instead; the film uses the traditional route of following Jekyll from beginning to end with no mystery. And the intent to film in 3-D was dropped.; making the film look washed out and dull with hazy characters cast in opposing red & blue filters.
Such a waste. But in spite of that, this still remains the most faithful adaption of the novel and still adds some new twists. Here, Marlowe(the Jekyll figure, played by Christopher Lee)tests his serum on animals and patients. The results are amusing: A suicidal, repressed young woman becomes a nymphomaniac and beds the Doctor, a short-fused businessman becomes a whimpering sissy and in a moving scene, Marlowe's cat attacks him and he kills it hesitantly. Mention is made of Freud and that gives the film an air of authenticity. The actions of Blake(the Hyde figure, also Lee)progress from simple vandalism to murder in a believable pattern. Lee hams it up as Blake, and his makeup is minimal; but it captures the description of Hyde in the novel as being an ugly, but normal man who simply gives the feel of being repulsive and deformed even though he isn't.
The film, apart from the already mentioned changes and the subplot of Marlowe/Jekyll first experimenting on patients, still follows the book quite well other than the climatic ending and elimination of the Carew murder in favor of the murder of a prostitute who mocks Blake. It even includes the infamous 'marked door', the trampling of the little girl, and even Utterson's nightmares. All the characters are here; Enfield, Lanyon, the Soho landlady. And all the actors do a great job. Lee is fantastic as Marlowe and even makes us feel some pity for Blake himself!!!! Peter Cushing is the first on screen portrayal of Utterson, and he fits the role well, particularly the character's 'radiant eyes'. The ending even leaves him in a position almost as tragic as Marlowe/Blakes.
Although very low-key, the film is definitely worth a watch; Second only to the Fredric March version('Dr. Jekyll & Sister Hyde' and the Jack Palance film are also good). It may seem slow paced, but it accurately matches the aura of despair and spiritual decay. Cushing is always watchable, most of the supporting actors are good; and Lee gives his second-best performance after De Richleau in 'The Devil Rides Out'.
It's definitely a treat to watch in light of his recent Knighthood. Three cheers for SIR Christopher Lee! I just KNOW that this film will look even better in light of that, and the upcoming Keanu Reeves film that I can just feel is going to be a travesty.~
Using that point-of View; that makes this film from Amicus studios the most faithful adaption of DJ&MH. It attempts grandeur ie. Creating the most faithful adaption ever of the famous novel; in 3-D no less,; but ultimately destroys itself in the very area it could have succeeded. But, like Jekyll himself through of the results of his experiment; the results were indeed interesting.
This film had the perfect opportunity to remain faithful to the novel. For those who have not read the book; it is actually a mystery that sets itself up as a blackmail thriller, only in the last two chapters is it revealed that Jekyll & Hyde are the same man. Now, apart from the ending of 'The Empire Strikes Back'; this is probably the most well-known ending in history. So much that nearly all versions have dropped the mystery format altogether and instead substituted a romantic subplot that drives Jekyll insane and follows him from beginning to end. 'I, Monster' had the perfect opportunity to re-institute the original novel's mystery plot: It would change the names of Jekyll & Hyde; and since the majority of the books characters are never present in film adaptations, it wouldn't make audiences suspicious! And it would also keep people from learning the ending by not titling the film with either alter-ego's name; but with a generic(but cool)title.
Seems the perfect way to re-use the original plot without it becoming obvious, right? Yes, it was the perfect way. But instead; the film uses the traditional route of following Jekyll from beginning to end with no mystery. And the intent to film in 3-D was dropped.; making the film look washed out and dull with hazy characters cast in opposing red & blue filters.
Such a waste. But in spite of that, this still remains the most faithful adaption of the novel and still adds some new twists. Here, Marlowe(the Jekyll figure, played by Christopher Lee)tests his serum on animals and patients. The results are amusing: A suicidal, repressed young woman becomes a nymphomaniac and beds the Doctor, a short-fused businessman becomes a whimpering sissy and in a moving scene, Marlowe's cat attacks him and he kills it hesitantly. Mention is made of Freud and that gives the film an air of authenticity. The actions of Blake(the Hyde figure, also Lee)progress from simple vandalism to murder in a believable pattern. Lee hams it up as Blake, and his makeup is minimal; but it captures the description of Hyde in the novel as being an ugly, but normal man who simply gives the feel of being repulsive and deformed even though he isn't.
The film, apart from the already mentioned changes and the subplot of Marlowe/Jekyll first experimenting on patients, still follows the book quite well other than the climatic ending and elimination of the Carew murder in favor of the murder of a prostitute who mocks Blake. It even includes the infamous 'marked door', the trampling of the little girl, and even Utterson's nightmares. All the characters are here; Enfield, Lanyon, the Soho landlady. And all the actors do a great job. Lee is fantastic as Marlowe and even makes us feel some pity for Blake himself!!!! Peter Cushing is the first on screen portrayal of Utterson, and he fits the role well, particularly the character's 'radiant eyes'. The ending even leaves him in a position almost as tragic as Marlowe/Blakes.
Although very low-key, the film is definitely worth a watch; Second only to the Fredric March version('Dr. Jekyll & Sister Hyde' and the Jack Palance film are also good). It may seem slow paced, but it accurately matches the aura of despair and spiritual decay. Cushing is always watchable, most of the supporting actors are good; and Lee gives his second-best performance after De Richleau in 'The Devil Rides Out'.
It's definitely a treat to watch in light of his recent Knighthood. Three cheers for SIR Christopher Lee! I just KNOW that this film will look even better in light of that, and the upcoming Keanu Reeves film that I can just feel is going to be a travesty.~