rintrah-1

I was looking forward to seeing John Carpenter's episode in Season 2 because his first, Cigarette Burns, was by far the best from Season 1 (and I did like other episodes from that season). Oh, how I was disappointed.

In fairness to Carpenter I think the primary problem with this episode was absolutely horrible writing. The characters, aside from the subject matter, seemed to behave and speak as though they were written for an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger. The acting was bad, and I normally like Ron Perlman a lot, but I can only blame them so much because the writing was so horrible. I'm not going to try to guess what the writers were trying to do because that would be useless but it appeared as though they were trying to mix horror (obviously) with some form of social commentary on abortion and religion. In this case, not surprisingly, it seemed a chance to bash a certain variety or religious nuts as well as fanatical anti-abortionists. And I am in favor of both aims but it was done so horribly that I was embarrassed to watch characters act and speak with such stupid inconsistency. This failed totally to offer any worthwhile opinion on the subjects and the horror element failed as well alongside such inept writing.

While I don't think Carpenter can be blamed for most of the badness here I will say he did choose to direct the teleplay and therefore has that to be held responsible for. There are a couple small bits that I found nice, hence the 2 stars I gave it.

The actual gore and monster effects were good, but the CGI gore (two separate gunshots to the head) were so obviously inferior quality CGI they should've never been given the OK. I'm generally very critical of CGI but not because I have a problem with it in principle. I have a problem with the execution of it. The technology, while amazing in some respects, is not good enough to match "real" effects, whether they be miniatures or gore especially when it is supposed to match something organic and/or alive, and therefore shouldn't be used until they are. CGI can be used well in small amounts or obviously if the whole film is animated.

I'll also take this opportunity to note that the show title, Masters of Horror, is a bad title to have. There simply aren't many actual "masters of horror" around. Maybe two or three. If the show were called "Tale of Horror" or something like that it would be fine. But as it stands the criteria for directing one of these episodes, and therefore being criticized for not being a "master of horror" is that they have directly at least one horror film in their career. And it didn't even have to be a good one.

This 2+ hour documentary produced for the 2-disc edition of The Fly is the kind of comprehensive in-depth documentary that fans of any film hope for. The obvious and quite glaring problem is that David Cronenberg does not appear in it at all except for archival behind-the-scenes footage. I'm sure there was some reason for why he is not featured such as scheduling conflicts but unless he refused to appear (like David Fincher in the Alien 3 documentary, or David Lynch who just doesn't like to talk about most of his films) I cannot imagine why the producers of the documentary and the DVD would not find a way to include Cronenberg somehow. Whether it would mean waiting to make the documentary or waiting to release the DVD so that Cronenberg could have been interviewed for his segments after the rest of the participants. That said this is otherwise a great look into, and back, by the cast and other participants all the way from the idea to remake The Fly to screenings following its completion. This would receive a vote of 9-10 from me if Cronenberg had been involved.

I'm surprised there are no comments for this film. It isn't all that good, but far worse films are commented on here - even praised.

I think I could watch Monica Bellucci fill out tax forms. I believe I can honestly say she is the most beautiful woman I have ever seen. She is why I watched this film. While it is not horrible, I would probably never consider watching it again if it were not for her presence in it.

The film itself is somewhat perplexing. While listed at this site as a thriller it is likely the most low-key thriller I have ever seen. But I'm not sure what else you'd call it. Crimes are committed, lives are in danger. But it isn't very involving. There is very little dialogue and there are many long shots of people not doing much - smoking, drinking coffee, looking into the mirror. This gives you periodic opportunities to look at Monica of course. But while this pacing seemed intentional I'm not sure if it was the best decision for the film.

While not horrible, the film is very unremarkable aside from Monica. If you are a fan of hers and watch anything she's in, this won't be the worst film you see. But I'm not sure I can recommend it for anyone but Bellucci completists. That said there are far worse films you could spend 80 minutes watching.