6 Comments
User's avatar
Jeffolas's avatar

Sorry, this guy has reached his expiration date. That Frankenstein movie was an abomination that I turned off halfway through.

His obsession with creepy weirdness could have worked for that story, but like all of Hollyweird, he has no sense of moderation, scale, or restraint, and not even a hint of understanding anachronism and suspension of disbelief.

In order for Frankenstein to work, it has to be plausible--one man playing God, but still a man's accomplishments in that time and with that time's technology, NOT magical science fantasy futurism with unlimited resources cause plot reasons. I rolled my eyes so hard watching his version that they almost came up Triple Cherries.

If he can't contain himself for such a well known story about one man's twisted hubris (that Hollywood has never once gotten right by the way despite dozens of efforts), what on earth would he do with superheroes?

John F. Trent's avatar

Hah Triple Cherries.

DemsAreTrash's avatar

Yeah, I like Del Toro, but I read that he completely blew it with Frankenstein, making him super-powered and giving him a healing factor. Total nonsense.

Cyborgjustice's avatar

I actually like the Frankenstein movie that Guillermo Del Toro did. Of course, that’s just my opinion.

Jeffolas's avatar

Likewise, my own opinion. But I am particularly hard on movies.

A friend once introduced me as, "the guy who is objectively wrong about movies."

To which I countered, "yes, but I am very often subjectively correct."

Gary Pageau's avatar

I agree. Anyone who has read "Frankenstein" would recognize it was a bigger abomination than the Creature himself.