Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

kosmasp ... the more I start reading about this episode, the less I like it. First it's a short story from Barker, which makes the source material really really good and explains, why I liked the idea of the whole thing. Secondly, I read that this one was meant to be George A. Romeros episode (who had to cancel due to the work on one of his "Dead" movies) ... which makes me actually sad, because I would have loved to see, where Romero would've gone with it ... I'm pretty sure, it would have been less erotic, but therefor more dramatic! Then the set design. While most Masters of Horror movies might have some problems with that particular area, it is even more apparent here, because of the "time" this is all unfolding. The cinematography is not up to task and the ending was ... "weird" to say the least. You knew, where this was going, but it seems like it's afraid to actually "punch" ...The actors don't seem to be completely up to it and I felt, there was more to the story that could be told ...

sunflwrgrrl Now, I have to say that this episode, even though it was a tad slow, didn't suck as much as some of the other episodes in the series. And while I personally really liked 'Henry', I hardly think that makes John McNaughton a master in his field (nor do episodes of 'Without a Trace', not the show I look to for horror) My main comment on this episode, the part that made me totally want my 56 mins back, came at the end.When faced with the undead, the fella turns to run.. THEN STOPS TO GRAB HIS HAT??????? *sigh* Where are all the real masters at??? Honestly- if this show were just called "Horror" I'd be OK with the directors they've picked. "Masters" is a whole other world.. I think only John Carpenter really understands where that world is.

gavin6942 Young Haeckel (Derek Cecil) wants to bring corpses back to life after studying the notes of German doctor Victor Frankenstein. He fails in his early attempts, and then sets out to discredit the necromancer Montesquino (Jon Polito, who co-starred with Cecil in "Push, Nevada") who can accomplish the task with magic rather than science.We start with a short story written by Clive Barker, who has made himself a living legend by writing "Hellraiser", among other things. Add a "bookend" story from Mick Garris, and you have a film. Not surprisingly, the part from Garris is weaker than the Barker core, but it is hard to blame him for trying to make this story fit into a nice package.George A. Romero was set to direct, but had to bow out due to scheduling conflicts. The opening credits still say this was "in association with" Romero, but his involvement seems minimal and what he added is unclear. Stepping into his shoes is John McNaughton, who had previously worked the horror scene with "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" and "The Borrower". (McNaughton may be a "master of horror", but he has never defined himself so narrowly, working regularly in cop thrillers and comedies, as well.)McNaughton probably brought us some aspects Romero would have shied away from. Both have no qualms with gore, but McNaughton is more associated with sensuality than Romero, and that aspect of the film is a key aspect of the plot in the latter half. We know that McNaughton took over very early on, enough that he was taking part in the casting process. He also had direct input in the imagery, which was inspired by the artist Hieronymus Bosch and his "deadly orgies of skeletons".Of course, he cannot take full responsibility for the success or failure of the picture. McNaughton says "the crew was like a locomotive", and although he was only on set for ten days, they had been working on the series for months and knew how to maximize their resources. There was not even time for rehearsals beyond a table read, so casting known variables was key. Upon first seeing this film, viewers might feel that it is one of the weakest installments in the Masters of Horror series, due to the episode offering little excitement until the last ten minutes... which is then followed up by a "twist" ending that the audience should have seen coming halfway through the film. Repeat viewings might make viewers find something more. While it is true that the first half of the film relies heavily on retelling the Frankenstein story, which is well-established in other movies and not very innovative, the departure point is critical and the introduction of necromancy makes the film unique.The acting is fine, even if Jon Polito goes a bit over the top. McNaughton personally cast Polito, a regular in his work, knowing what he was able to bring to the role. The costumes and scenery are very nice. The effort put into getting period-appropriate outfits is noticeable and commendable. There is also great work from special effects wizard Howard Berger, particularly the dead dog puppet. Berger has few equals.For those looking deeper, you may find some interesting ideas touched upon, albeit briefly. There is discussion of bringing the soul back from the dead, and the declaration that animals have no soul. Haeckel finds this unusual, which seems out of character -- what use does a man without God have for a soul? And the idea certainly was not new. Many philosophers and theologians have declared animals soulless. George Hegel, in 1821, wrote, "An animal too has impulses, desires, inclinations, but it has no will and must obey its impulse if nothing external deters it." Haeckel also calls to mind the difference between religion and science, a "playing God" attitude that was largely absent in the "Frankenstein" story, at least in such a direct and blatant exposition.The features of the DVD are impressive, with plenty of interviews and featurettes. Someone could dismiss the Masters of Horror series as a television show, but the DVD proves these are films in their own right. Sadly, the commentary from McNaughton is sparse, and there are too many minutes of silence. But he still adds enough information to make a listen worthwhile.

The_Void I don't think I'm on my own when I say that the first few episodes of the Masters of Horror series were largely disappointing; but the series certainly took a turn for the better mid-way through, and alas; it ended up being minnow Masters of Horror; Lucky McKee and William Malone that delivered the best episodes, while John McNaughton isn't far behind. Whether or not McNaughton is actually a master of horror is debatable; as Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer aside, his successes have all been outside of the genre. But whether or not his past credits warrant his presence is beside the point, as McNaughton steps into zombie master George A. Romero's shoes nicely. The episode is based on a short story from the great Clive Barker, and features themes of necromancy and bringing the dead back to life. Haeckel's Tale might not be very original, but the way that all the story elements are brought together is superb, and this instalment certainly never lets its audience know what is going to come next, as the story jumps from science to magic, while still retaining the same basic point. I was surprised at how much gore was featured in this episode given that it was made for TV, and the pivotal sequence involving zombies towards the end is a major highlight. Overall, I won't hesitate to name this as one of the best of the Masters of Horror efforts, and it gets a big thumbs up from me!