Watch We All Scream for Ice Cream For Free

Very well executed

People are voting emotionally.

Load of rubbish!!

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

I have three more films left until the end of the "Masters of Horror", but I think it's safe to say that this is the worst episode of the series. I didn't give up watching and I didn't have to struggle to endure, but I didn't enjoy either... not a bit. The story is extremely stupid, uninteresting, undeveloped, full of holes and illogicality, and above all unoriginal. It was not literally stolen from King, but it reminds of "It" so much that coincidence is excluded as an option. The group of kids, led by cruel bully, pulls a practical joke on mentally challenged clown who sells ice cream, and they accidentally kill him. Decades later, he's back from the grave and uses their children to get even. Atmosphere is very King-ish and, if movie wasn't so repetitive, it could have been terrifying, but because the clown kills his victims one by one in exactly the same way the only effect this movie leaves is boredom. I'm terrified of the clowns and I watched this alone, at night, in dark, and it didn't cause me even the slightest goosebumps. "We All Scream for Ice Cream" is too stupid and lousy to be scary and not stupid or bad enough to be "so bad it's good" kind of fun. The most terrifying thing about this movie is the feeling that it will never end.3/10

I've glimpsed tidbits of articles where writer David J. Schow has vented his frustration over the final form of 'We All Scream for Ice Cream,' Tom Holland ("Child's Play"; "Fright Night")'s contribution to the "Masters of Horror" anthology. While the film itself is mostly surface and little subtext, and pushing the allotted 60-minute run time, it's not really clear what could have been done to salvage it. That's not to say "Scream" isn't worth a look--sure, part of its effect rests on our ability to take a silly premise seriously ('slow' clown-faced ice-cream man Buster--played by William Forsythe--is killed during a vicious childhood prank; years later, his ghost comes back for revenge, using the grown kids' kids as vessels of evil), but some moments are particularly well-done: the soft-focus, colorful flashbacks that show childhood cruelty in all its sadistic glory; and images of zombied kids with quarters in their hands. Parallels to Grimm's Fairy Tales is apt, and the story has a clever, well-done hook, but the acting is questionable (nobody really seems to know how the material should be played, especially in the more absurd moments), and the resolution ultimately unfulfilling (relying on a random coincidence that doesn't make narrative sense). Holland, however, does a fine job of moving the story along (even if it is never really scary), and gets a surprising performance out of Forsythe, playing the polar opposite of his "Devil's Rejects" persona.

My wife and I did enjoy this episode, for the acting and direction were excellent, as is usually the case with this series, but we are both consumed by the inconsistency and incompleteness of the story. I will list our objections in no particular order.1) Buster seemed more emotionally disabled as presented than retarded. After all, he could drive, make change, put on his makeup, juggle, etc.2) Why did Buster have no nose and why wasn't this mentioned more than once?3) If Buster died when run over by his own truck, why did he have a corporeal body and why was he able to be killed again when Layne made his own effigy out of presumably inferior ice cream and bit off its head?4) If the other members of the "club" were killed by transformation into the best ice cream in the world, why couldn't their ghosts come back to battle Buster's ghost?These are questions which scream for answers. Does anyone have any ideas? Is this just a matter of proper exposition being left on the cutting room floor? Regards, Jeff & Barb

So far during its second season, "Masters of Horror" has strictly been a hit-and-miss affair. While the first season was full of groundbreaking and daring one hour films, the second season has been a mixed bag. For every truly great episode like John Landis' "Family" and Joe Dante's "The Screwfly Solution", there's been a batch of unwatchable episodes like Tobe Hooper's "The Damned Thing", Daria Argento's "Pelts", and John Carpenter's "Pro-Life." With the exception of Rob Schmidt's "Right to Die", one element all them have had in common is that they haven't been very original. Tom Holland's "We All Scream for Ice Cream", on the other hand, is one of the most original horror tales to come along in quite some time. While shades of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET can be found, "We All Scream for Ice Cream" is fresh and exciting, just like one would expect from the director of such classics as FRIGHT NIGHT and CHILD'S PLAY. This is Holland at his best, expertly directing an emotional and character-driven story with intensity, tight pacing, and style. Credit is also due to writer David J. Schow, who also wrote last season "Pick Me Up", which despite repeated viewing I still am not a fan of. Schow successfully adapted John Farris short story and even managed to improve it. Here's to hoping Holland and Schow team up again for Season Three. Final say: Best episode of Season Two. 10/10