Scrivener Posted October 31, 2005 Report Posted October 31, 2005 This new Showtimes series follows this basic premise: Give 13 of the most internationally-acclaimed horror directors $1m each to shoot whatever they want, free of any restrictions like censorship, common decency, or the MPAA, and see what happens. The results so far are very promising. The first episode was written and directed by nicest-guy-in-the-world Don Coscarelli (Bubba Ho-tep, Phantasm) and is titled "Incident On and Off a Mountain Road." The story itself has many familiar tinges, reminding the savvy cinephile of such classics as "The Hills Have Eyes", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and even the recent "Haute Tension" ("High Tension" to you poor saps who only saw the American theatrical cut). The acting ranges from so-so to decent but the production values are good enough that the more amateur bouts of acting are forgiveable and forgettable. Still, for having absolutely NO restrictions, the film wasn't quite as gruesome as I had hoped it would be. But then, Mr. Coscarelli has his own way of portraying events that's a little more Hitchcock than Argento (who directed an "episode" himself). I have it on good authority that future installments should adequately satisfy my bloodlust, however. The short order is: if you miss the days of unrestrictive 70s-style horror... Masters of Horror may be just the show for you. 13 episodes, 1 hour each, no limits. Now there's a reason to finally watch Showtime again. [ 10-31-2005, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]
Eclipse Posted October 31, 2005 Report Posted October 31, 2005 Does horror HAVE to be gruesome in the bloody, chop-you-up-with-a-chinsaw-while-wearing-a-mask way? It seems to me I remember reading that it's the things we don't see that scare us the most because it allows our minds to fill in the blanks with what we personally find the most terrifying. Blood for the sake of blood doesn't make a horror film.
Scrivener Posted November 2, 2005 Author Report Posted November 2, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Eclipse: Does horror HAVE to be gruesome in the bloody, chop-you-up-with-a-chinsaw-while-wearing-a-mask way? It seems to me I remember reading that it's the things we don't see that scare us the most because it allows our minds to fill in the blanks with what we personally find the most terrifying. Blood for the sake of blood doesn't make a horror film. Yes and no. There's a place for both. The whole idea is to maximize the psychological effect. What bugs me is when our supersensitive culture does not allow for an artist to tell his story the way he wants/needs. What makes this series so great is that the directors are given absolute freedom. What that ammounts to - are the most effective films these directors are creatively capable of.
Guest $iLk Posted November 2, 2005 Report Posted November 2, 2005 My soon-to-be brother in law is in film school and loves shooting horror type films. He's actually had some pretty entertaining ones he's shown me. He got to do some camera work on Will Ferrel's racing comedy they are working on.
Kevin Trotter Posted November 9, 2005 Report Posted November 9, 2005 Thanks Scriv, I am looking forward to this series. Thanks for the heads up.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now