I don't want to hurt his feelings, but all this situation is very stressful. Plus last time we ate at their home she cooked meat with this

I swear, I have no dream left for my life, JUST BEING LEFT IN PEACE, IS IT TOO MUCH TOO ASK FOR?? FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK AND FUCK.

Thank you! I wonder if that was something done "on purpouse"? like, we suppose some demons names are corrupted names of ancient midlle east deities (beelzebub and Baal, the ugaritic deity, for example); was it a way to "demonize" them? or it was a sort of reminiscence of something "divine"?

Are usually depicted, creatures that you might connect to the Aos sí , the "elves" of Irish folklore.

Depicted with a bull's tail; the tail type I gave to my #OC s is not the same, but the idea behind it's the same. And the wings are just a way to symbolize something divine, from "the sky". The pointy ears were a reference to how elves and fairies ⬇️

He hates undead and necromancy, and swore to fight them off.
He wears a canine like mask, as dogs are usually considered psychopomps, and for this reason he became extremely popular between Uzats, who wear masks too.

Stays with the family of the departed one to comfort them.
He shares all the Eriu deities traits: golden horns, same tail, and pointed ears, but he has no wings. However, Réalta, goddess of the star and of the Dreams, gave him his mantle, that can allow him to fly. ⬇️

It's a pity, really, a film in which every frame is a painting, so beautiful, and then you have CGI wolves :(

Things could have been better.
I loved the design of the creature btw. 10/10

Strength). I don't know, maybe it's just me, but the movie lacks the new "moral" of the story, like instead did in Pinocchio (which I loved), and at the same time lacked the beautiful relationship between monster and woman it had in The Shape of Water.
It's a good movie, again, but I feel some⬇️

The violence has not the same weight. The monster is defending itself, never attacking in the first place, that's true, but he kills people, sometimes in what seems an exaggeration of violence (true is the monster is extremely strong, and a moment of rage could not be in full control of his ⬇️

Frankenstein refuses, but his refusal is understandable, because he also asks himself "what if they reproduce? What if they take over the world?" Plus in the book there's this underlying feeling everyone has, that the monster is evil (he's not TBH, but I guess it's the undead thing). In the movie ⬇️

What he wants, because he tried, he tried many times to befriend people, he even saved a drawing kid, and the father hit him thinking he was a malevolent monster. He had no way of making his situation better, and when he went to his creator, to ask him to take the responsibility of his actions ⬇️

In the book the monster decides to become violent when Frankenstein's neglect him a wife. Even if some of his crimes were honestly hideous (he killed a child), the violence in the book is different: it's the only tool the monster has to escape his condition. He haunts Victor untill he'll give him ⬇️

The final confrontation between creator and creature, Frankenstein tells the monster "if you can't do anything else, you have to live", the monster forgives Frankenstein, who is dying (because the wounds he inflicted him), the end. I think another big problem with the film is monster's violence. ⬇️

They wanted to do, but it really didn't turn out great. In the meanwhile, the crew of a ship that was stuck in the ice saw the explosion, and they come to rescue Frankenstein (this is where the film starts), and the monster attacks the crew and KILL 6 PEOPLE to get Frankenstein back. Then we have ⬇️