that series was so misguided by the production edicts that everything must have boobs and excessive blood. i hate that the horror market is guided by that.
You are making me want to do a thread on it. I thought in general that the series was good at what it was--a TV series. I didn't go in expecting great films from the filmmakers. I knew there were probably restrictive rules and budgetary constraints, but that these were
basically what the director would kind of do if given free reign. They chose their projects themselve and ran with them. Not all of them were titty-o-rama or gore-o-rama.
For example, Fair-Haired Child, while having an effective beginning, you could have GUESSED who the director was after seeing the ending, since the ending is terrible, and terribly reminiscent of the director's House on Haunted Hill remake. That is how he rolls. That episode was a slice of the director. A good setup with a lousy payoff.
I think other episodes were good, if rough, illustrations of their respective directors as well. I got what I expected.
i would rather have more Joshuas or Girl Next Doors (jack ketchum, not the teen sex thing), but unfortunately i'm in the minority.
Is there a movie based off the Girl Next Door? I recently read the book, and am familiar with the true story it is based on. Chilling, chilling shit. The true story is even creepier, though, because it is
fucking real.
as for Masters of Horror, i did like a few of the episodes (Imprint, Dreams in the Witch House, Jennifer) but found myself just embarrassed for the people involved with a great majority of them.
I liked the three you named. Probably my favorites. I liked Fair Haired Child, too. I love the setup so much, even if it fumbles in the end. Cigarette Burns, also, was the best thing Carpenter has done in ages. It was derivative, but still good. I mean, he has set something of a low bar for himself the past, oh, two decades, but I really legitimately liked Cigarette Burns despite its issues.
