Masters of Horror (2005–2007)
8/10
Good Ones and Bad - Very Hit and Miss at Times
7 March 2008
As a whole the TV series of wonderful and I hope they continue. It is rather refreshing to see films like these. Most often in the film industry, ESPECIALLY with horror films, directors must do certain things and follow unwritten rules if they want their full length film to be big budget and to become a feature film that airs in theaters.

With this show, it gives some of the best horror directors of all time the change to really show what they can do. There are absolutely no limitations on which stories are being told. The director has complete control over his creation with out having to follow in rules that big feature films do. And with the exception of a few rules put on by Showtime, they also have freedom over how they tell the story too.

But this is both a blessing and a curse as it makes the movies either hit or miss. There is no middle ground. The episode is either great of it is horrible. And this is solely do to directors' choices.

For example, John Carpenter and Dario Argento have wonderfully horrific and captivating episodes. They tell the short story magnificently and create true horror master pieces. Yet John Landis' contributions can't make the par. He doesn't use his time wisely for the one hour that he is given and as a result his contributions are predictable and slightly cliché. And finally, Mick Garris has hit both sides. His film, Chocolate, from season one was just awful. Slow moving, dull, and predictable. But his episode from Season 2, Valerie on the Stairs, his terrific. Suspense, unpredictable ending, and very will filmed.

As a whole though, this series has been wonderful and contains from beautiful gems of horror films that just never could have done as well if stretched beyond an hour or done as well if tried to turn into a big budget, profit earning film.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed