Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crothian" data-source="post: 1530244" data-attributes="member: 232">Frankenstein Monster was actually pretty well done in comparison to the book, as was Dr Frankenstien himself.  Obvious Dracula they have greatly altered from the book, but it is not the first time and its become customary to alter vampires.  The werewolf was really not detailed enough to compaire it to anything.  It was a beast and little more.  But all those parts were pretty important to the movie.  There was no reason to use Mr Hyde and in fact they could have insorted any monster and it would have worked.  But one of the reasons I am more crytical on Mr Hyde besides the fact he wasn't needed, is I'm a big fan of the story.  I think it is easily one of Stevensons best creations and they did it a real diservice by presented it as such.  If they are going to use a literary creature they should expect to get critized for it.  Am I nit picking?  Very possibley, I do usually hold movies to a higher standard then most people, especially these types.  I think Hollywood can do them better and make them a bit more accurate and smart and not scare off the core audience.Edit: almost forgot, what other version of Mr Hyde should I be expecting?  What other is there?  It's not like there has been an over use of this character, least that I've seen.</blockquote>