bjjnedan Well..., this MoH episode is about a man who sees through an incredibly hot chicks eyes, sees what she sees and even feels what she feels emotionally, physically, whatever, and witnesses her commit a murder through her eyes. Then..., I don't know, he's trying to f*** her by blackmail, marry her..., I don't know, but he seeks her out and tells her his psychotic tale about how he is her.This may not be a completely terrible idea, I just didn't like this whole thing. I'll tell you where it lost me. The part where the lead actor hooks up with that hot chick from the market, takes her home and has sex with her and the next morning, this f***er has visions of being this chick getting f***ed by her boyfriend. That is..., appalling. I'm sure there was some kind of message that was suppose to be delivered by this, but after that, while I kept watching (the chick that this guy got f***ed as her is really, really, incredibly hot...), I just became incredibly annoyed by the whole thing. The characters (except for the chick the lead was obsessed with because he liked her boyfriends c***) are just very irritating to me. I can't recommend this, but that's more out of personal distaste for it. Hell..., most other people probably love the s*** out of this crap.

Was it All a Dream? The Masters of Horror television series only lasted "two seasons," but while it was "on," it was a breeding ground for amazingly original ideas. Mick Garris's self-written Chocolate, from one of his books (if I'm not mistaken, A Life in the Cinema), is a brilliant and fascinating idea. Involving a bored single (newly divorced) man (played by the gorgeous Henry Thomas) who works in a chemical laboratory developing artificial food flavors, suddenly begins receiving sensory projections from an unknown woman. Then when the sensations end, he becomes obsessed with finding out where they came from, discovering the woman he thinks he's in love with isn't exactly an angel. The potential here for taking horror into new directions, making it dark and vague and interesting, is almost limitless. There's so much a good director can do with this material. But then, consider who the director is... It's Mick Garris. A man who got his "Masters of Horror" badge with television series, most of which would get a PG-13 rating, were they to have been inspected by the MPAA. A director whose previous film involved a college student having to decide whose soul the Grim Reaper should take- his or his mother's. A great fan of drama, but not a great director of drama. And unfortunately, he brings his trademark soggy, heavy-handed, all-wet approach to this film as well.So it plays as an emotional discovery film, not a creepy horror movie. Which means that when the intended shocks come in, they're as horrific as an old sock. I guess Garris was going for a first-person kind of thing. To try and put the audience in the position of the character, Jamie. So that when something bad happens to him, they're upset. Well... they might work for a mainstream thriller or a Lifetime TV-movie. But not a horror movie. I think all the best horror films that tried this kind of formula knew that a remove is very important. To be able to look at the whole situation as though it's comedy. It's over the top and grating, and takes itself much too seriously. The best attribute to the film is style. Garris definitely knows how to make a good looking movie (his previous, Riding the Bullet, was almost breath-taking for a TV movie) and the music score by his frequent collaborator Nicholas Pike (though some of it goes into the ultra-clichéd Classical genre), is also incredible. But without a real horror twist- something darker than what we're left with, it's just blah. Especially since they mix in elements of sexuality. They could have even gone the Clive Barker route, and made the character discover he likes some sexual experimentation (anything would've been fine), change him around somehow. Anything to make him talk in fewer poetic speeches, which all feel totally phony.On the positive side, the best thing about Chocolate is that it was shot in Canada. The locations they shot at are so beautiful, I want to go there. So, the scenes in the second half are pretty much better than those in the first half. Except for this whole sub-section where Jamie tries to make his best friend Wally (played the handsome, very well-aged Matt Frewer) believe him. Anyone else wish he had just kept it to himself? It would have been more adult to not have him care what other people think. It's a film about psychic transmissions anyway, no one ever believes people in those situations. Even I wouldn't believe anyone in that situation! When they finally get into 'the world' of Jamie's fantasy woman, we know almost exactly what's going to happen (the person I watched this with said right out loud what would happen before it did and she was right; and no, she hadn't seen it before) - the periodic narrations give that away - it's almost too late to care that it's not horrific. So I kind of marveled at how amazing the production / set design of her apartment was. The has this elaborate jungle painting all over her walls and it's a shame the scene wasn't longer or hadn't gone here before. Again, this points to what a good style director Garris can be at times. At least he gives us something to look at while we're waiting for it to end.But I can't help going back to just how much potential this piece had. It's done in a manner that only gives us traditional sensitivity in return. It doesn't pull any truly disturbing or dark strings. Take for example, the scene in which Jamie's having a psychic vaginal orgasm in bed... in front of his ex-wife and his son. His son thinks the woman Jamie spent the night with previously had done something to him and tries to sort-of attack her while the mother pulls the kid away. All the while, Jamie's writhing and groaning on the bed (without a hard-on, naturally, since again it's vaginal and taking place in his psyche). You could call this scene uncomfortable, but not for any reasons related to the genre. I don't really call embarrassment a typical reaction to a piece of horror. At least, not to one this shallow. Even when the film turns Jamie into a kind of stalker, the tone remains light and only casually mysterious. The only reason I finished watching this was because of the style. As a mystery, it's a big flop. It won't make you feel excited, it won't thrill you, it doesn't stir any deep emotions, and it doesn't play with your mind. It doesn't even play with your eyes, much. Had this been directed by someone who knew to change it or make it more dangerous, and the script been modified considerably, it could have been an epic. Or more refined and balanced than Clive Barker's bloated Lord of Illusions.

davidus_montoyacus Regarding the first season of Masters of Horror, viewers tend to either love or hate "Chocolate" and "Dance With the Dead." "Dance with the Dead was one of my favorite episodes but I am biased when it comes to things written by Richard Christian Matheson.This episode is slow-paced but well directed and well acted in. It focuses on a psychic connection between two people. Garris has played a fascinating role in the creation of this series. He's written some of the episodes, including ones that he didn't direct, like "The V Word" and has done a great job gathering these directors.However, I feel that I must defend Eli Roth from the comments of Jonny Numb. Quote: "by the way, how on EARTH can you call Eli Roth a 'master' of ANYTHING?" Some people may hate the things that Eli Roth has created, Hostile and Cabin Fever, but he is a masterful director. Besides, what's the point of bashing him when he plays no role in the series. Spoiler: Eli Roth is not in the series. At all. Period. Spoiler II: I love Eli Roth.

jed-estes This is not the best of The Masters of Horror episodes but then again it is not the worst either. I love seeing Henry Thomas acting and I feel this is up their with all his other fine performances, OK maybe not quite up their with E.T but still good acting. Any one who could deliver the fake orgasm he does on screen and not break into laughter has to be an acting mastermind. Who I feel sorry for on this episode is Mick Garris. He creates the Masters of Horror show but can't deliver the goods himself. It's sad because we know this guy can do good, look at Sleepwalker, The Stand, Psycho IV: The Beginning, Rideing The Bullit, and Critters 2: The Main Course. Why could he not make one of the better episodes. My theory is that the disaster that was the production of Desperation combined with the added stress of producing 12 other episodes of the series led him to fail at this show. This one would have been much better if he had put more effort and blood into it. But since I respect what he has done before and think he was just tired I'll give his episode a seven when maybe it deserves more like a six or five. Watch this for Henry Thomas and maybe try to forget it's supposed to be a horror show. If watched as a mystery it plays much better.