Tho' Pete said he thought Shelob was much creepier. Whatever, still don't need to see anything from it.

Yes, Shelob was worse. But sheer numbers make up for it.

Jilli,

I am glad you made it through, I nearly screamed in the theater.

From WAY back

I saw the version with Cumberbatch as the Creature and I left feeling like the actors were probably more suited to the opposite roles. Cumberbatch is a more heady, intellectual actor and Miller seems to be more instinctual and in touch with his impluse, so I really wish I saw with the casting you did. I mean, they were both fine, but I felt that their characters were making them work against their natural tendencies as actors.

I've seen both versions at least three times. (I actually have lost track), and far prefer the Cumberbatch creature to Miller's, because I thought Miller as the creature was a far less fluid, less organic performance in terms of physicality. Paul preferred Cumberbatch in both roles, but I narrowly prefer Miller as Victor.

Miller was good in the creature role, and excellent as Victor, but Cumberbatch as the creature was astonishing. And while some of it came down to line delivery, most of it was really down to the way he moved. Which I would explain in depth, but I'm being called upstairs. Jilli's heard me go on at length about it, though.

Finally watched the new Captain America and Spider-man trailers. I liked them both, but I don't think either made me more excited to see their respective movies than I already was. I still think Spider-man 2 could suffer from too many villains syndrome, and the fact they seem to be pushing hard to setup the Sinister Six for the next one doesn't help.

I think I preferred (it's hard to tell!) Cumberbatch as the Creature and Miller as the Doctor, because in that version they both felt caught up and lost and struggling to understand. With Cumberbatch as the Doctor and Miller as the Creature, somehow, they both felt more cruel and more deliberate in their awful choices. It's definitely as much about their physicality, and their voices, as their line readings.

Cameron Crowe discusses working with Philip Seymour Hoffman in Almost Famous:

PSH – The Uncool - The Official Site for Everything Cameron Crowe

My original take on this scene was a loud, late night pronouncement from Lester Bangs. A call to arms. In Phil’s hands it became something different. A scene about quiet truths shared between two guys, both at the crossroads, both hurting, and both up too late. It became the soul of the movie. In between takes, Hoffman spoke to no one. He listened only to his headset, only to the words of Lester himself. (His Walkman was filled with rare Lester interviews.) When the scene was over, I realized that Hoffman had pulled off a magic trick. He’d leapt over the words and the script, and gone hunting for the soul and compassion of the private Lester, the one only a few of us had ever met. Suddenly the portrait was complete. The crew and I will always be grateful for that front row seat to his genius.

I think I preferred (it's hard to tell!) Cumberbatch as the Creature and Miller as the Doctor, because in that version they both felt caught up and lost and struggling to understand. With Cumberbatch as the Doctor and Miller as the Creature, somehow, they both felt more cruel and more deliberate in their awful choices. It's definitely as much about their physicality, and their voices, as their line readings.

I agree. Miller's Frankenstein benefited from seeming more of a callow youth, caught up in his panic about what he'd done, while Cumberbatch's Creature had an air of sorrow and guilt surrounding the actions born of rage and pain. (As a side note, watching him as the Creature, I could see how he managed to repeatedly damage himself during the production. Terrific physical acting, but total lack there of, oh, say, any sense of physical self-preservation.)

Thank you Tom and Ple. Two very thoughtful and interesting posts in a row.

DAmn, now I wish I had seen it. I was too caught up in my own circumstances at the time to go.