Were any of those "Masters of Horror" movies any good?
I've seen both the John Carpenter ones and thats it. Cigarette Burns was pretty good, while Pro-Life was awful.
Any that stand out for you guys? |
Re: Were any of those "Masters of Horror" movies any good?
'Imprint' may actually go down as one of my all-time favorite horror films. not to mention... it was banned from the Masters of Horror series. gruesome as hell.
the one about the Ear that Brad Anderson (The Machinist) directed was really good too. |
Re: Were any of those "Masters of Horror" movies any good?
Even though Argento's recent works have been massively lackluster, I always have to remind myself how much I love Pelts. Contains KNB's most gruesome FX ever, IMO.
|
Re: Were any of those "Masters of Horror" movies any good?
Yeah the Brad Anderson one was well done. Interesting bit of news on "Imprint" I'll have to check that one out.
I have a few of these on disc that are unwatched, I need to catch up. I do vaguely remember one about some dude that gets into an accident on some dark mountain road and bad stuff ensues. |
Re: Were any of those "Masters of Horror" movies any good?
Quite a few are awesome. Deer Woman sucked, though.
|
Re: Were any of those "Masters of Horror" movies any good?
I've only seen the two each from Carpenter & Argento.
I thought Carpenter's Pro Life and Cigarette Burns were both decent middle-level entries for him. And compared to the rest of the movies he was making at that point in his career, these were above average for him. Argento's Pelts and [bJennifer[/b] I thought were both ugly, nasty movies that felt nothing like his work elsewhere. Pelts was especially weak, with a subplot involving a stripper that felt like an excuse for nude scenes. |
Re: Were any of those "Masters of Horror" movies any good?
Originally Posted by Mattflix
(Post 11602033)
I've only seen the two each from Carpenter & Argento.
I thought Carpenter's Pro Life and Cigarette Burns were both decent middle-level entries for him. And compared to the rest of the movies he was making at that point in his career, these were above average for him. Argento's Pelts and [bJennifer[/b] I thought were both ugly, nasty movies that felt nothing like his work elsewhere. Pelts was especially weak, with a subplot involving a stripper that felt like an excuse for nude scenes. Imprint is the only one that I recall, Takashi Miike? Horror? No MPAA restrictions? Hell yeah! Then banned by Showtime. |
Re: Were any of those "Masters of Horror" movies any good?
I remember "The Washingtonians" to be entertaining. Imprint was brutal. Jennifer was interesting. I liked Cigarette Burns.
|
Re: Were any of those "Masters of Horror" movies any good?
I watched them all in a row one day. I haven't been normal since.
|
Re: Were any of those "Masters of Horror" movies any good?
Originally Posted by RichC2
(Post 11602039)
Does his daughter play the stripper? There's something strange going on in that family.
|
Re: Were any of those "Masters of Horror" movies any good?
Speaking of nude scenes, I recommend "Dreams in the Witch House." I also liked "Jenifer". I didn't see them all, though. Most of the other ones that I did see were pretty lame. That was one thing about the series I thought felt forced - they always had to shoehorn in a nude scene ("Hey we're on cable, let's take advantage of it"). Not that I'm complaining.
|
Re: Were any of those "Masters of Horror" movies any good?
Cigarette Burns, Pelts, The Black Cat, Valerie On The Stairs, Jenifer, Imprint off the top of my head are good. Season 1 is more hit than miss in my opinion and season 2 has some winners too, but it took a decline overall
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:13 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.