The yuck factor - Masters Of Horror short review

I have recently been watching Masters of Horror, a TV series with 2 seasons of 13 episodes each, each episode directed by a different director of horror films, a "master" (some directed more than one but that's beside the point). The episodes aren't connected, they're random stories. Beware of spoilers ahead.

I have watched the entire first season and two episodes from the second up to this point and I have mixed opinions. The intro seems promising (watch at your own risk, it's slightly disturbing here and there). The plot outlines seem promising. Why does it end up poor? I must say I watched episode 1 with a friend and we weren't too impressed. We are both die-hard horror film fans and have seen quite a few of the representative ones in our lives, so it's safe to say you can trust our opinion.

It's said that the beginning is important; in this case, it failed. I thought the first episode would be more fit as a "first horror" (first one you watch in your life, or at least among the first ones), rather than the beginning of such a promising-looking series.

Then came the second episode, which pleasantly surprised me (at least more than the first one did). I really like someone on the IMDb boards' statement: "is there a MoH episode without nudity?" Haven't seen one yet! Anyway, I was looking forward to it because I had heard a lot about H.P. Lovecraft but hadn't had a chance to read any of his writings. It was mildly entertaining though I could predict some of the moments. The ending was a nice twist when it could have failed, rendering the whole thing OK. After seeing more of MOH, I don't think this one is particularly interesting.

The third episode is one of my favorites. Maybe because it's got Robert Englund in it? (he played Freddy Krueger in the A Nightmare On Elm Street series) Maybe! He was quite convincing in his role and the atmosphere of the episode was eerie. Finally, I felt the series was going somewhere! Still one of the creepiest things I've seen, judging solely by the plot and the execution. Recommended to be seen at the beginning instead of the first episode.

Then came the catastrophe, the fourth episode! This one's directed by Dario Argento (Italian director whose horror films contain a lot of nudity and gore). I had seen it before but remembered only small bits (goes to show how good it was...) so I decided to watch it again just for the fun of it. Jenifer, the "girl", was ugly as Hell, but that didn't bother me too much. What bothered me a LOT was seeing her eat a cat -yes, she ate a cat...- and then kiss the guy in main role.
Ugly-but-hot girl? Check. Lots of sex scenes with said ugly girl? Check. Unimaginative plot? Check. Predictable ending? Check. WTF moments? Check.

This episode really put me off and I am seriously thinking about not watching any more of MoH. Come on, anyone can make a lousy horror film -just throw in a cliche killer, some booby chicks, some stereotypical characters, a hot guy, a never-working cellphone, a crappy car which breaks down in the middle of the forest (at night) and you've got your standard horror film. Don't believe me? Ask any long-time horror film fan and they will tell you this is a very common practice in B-class films.

In the end, I can't say what I feel exactly, I'll give it one more chance. Maybe John Carpenter will save some of these cheap ideas. If not, the case is closed. One more advice: if a horror movie is bad enough, it becomes comedy. "Jenifer" is neither a horror nor a comedy. It's just bad.