IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,6/10
11.071
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Eine Reise in unerforschtes und verbotenes Gebiet durch drei in Raum und Zeit verwickelte Geschichten.Eine Reise in unerforschtes und verbotenes Gebiet durch drei in Raum und Zeit verwickelte Geschichten.Eine Reise in unerforschtes und verbotenes Gebiet durch drei in Raum und Zeit verwickelte Geschichten.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
Empfohlene Bewertungen
This is the first time ive seen mysophonia referenced in a film. Both my husband and i experience it; him with mouth noises and me with water noises, and it was a realistic portrayal of how overwhelming it can be. This anthology was an unexpected find and I'm glad we gave it a go. The actings great, the stories are engaging and varied and it wasn't predictable. I know clive barkers books are visceral and complex and I certainly understand why some fans would feel short changed, but it's worth taking a look
"Books of Blood" is based on the works of UK writer Clive Barker.
There' s a certain symmetry and maturity to the characters, that suggest's this film's screenplay is based on the work of a capable author. That said, as is often the case, a lot can get lost in translation, from book to screen.
Having read two of Barkers books but not the works this film is based upon, I know his writing is often complex and intricate. You get the sense of the underlying work in this film but unsurprisingly, it feels incomplete.
That's not to say this is a bad horror film. The characters are, for the most part, developed enough to offer moderate insight into their motivations. In addition, its intersecting tales have a tidy symmetry once the conclusion has been reached
Pacing is decent, scares are more of the gruesome variety than the jump scare's you find in films like "Friday 13th". There's also a lot of creativity on offer, that taps into and blends, familiar horror tropes.
In summary, I'd say this is a reasonable watch. Yes it does feel like something is missing. That said, enough horror fundamentals are on offer, I feel, to satisfy most fans of the genre, like myself.
6/10
There' s a certain symmetry and maturity to the characters, that suggest's this film's screenplay is based on the work of a capable author. That said, as is often the case, a lot can get lost in translation, from book to screen.
Having read two of Barkers books but not the works this film is based upon, I know his writing is often complex and intricate. You get the sense of the underlying work in this film but unsurprisingly, it feels incomplete.
That's not to say this is a bad horror film. The characters are, for the most part, developed enough to offer moderate insight into their motivations. In addition, its intersecting tales have a tidy symmetry once the conclusion has been reached
Pacing is decent, scares are more of the gruesome variety than the jump scare's you find in films like "Friday 13th". There's also a lot of creativity on offer, that taps into and blends, familiar horror tropes.
In summary, I'd say this is a reasonable watch. Yes it does feel like something is missing. That said, enough horror fundamentals are on offer, I feel, to satisfy most fans of the genre, like myself.
6/10
Ok let's get this out the way first. The Books of Blood by Barker have never been equalled since publication.
They are also almost impossible to translate into film. Most of their horror derives from an existential terror of something beyond our understanding.
From the grisly horror of "Rawhead Rex" to the sublime "In the Hills, the Cities" all of the separate stories spin us around in search of a tether we never find.
This is a pretty good adaptation of a series of books that defy translation into something as safe as cinema.
There are moments of horror and some dread. I can feel Barker behind it but it just can't reproduce the terrible beauty if the writing. Nothing ever did. Hellraiser was close because Barker was still in that mindset when he directed it.
This is good. The Miles sequence is the most faithful if transposed and altered. But i enjoyed it and just want to read the stories again.
Do yourself a favor. Go find them and read them too. It's quite an experience. Good luck
I'm a sucker for a horror anthology whether good or cheesy, but this one treads a fine line. Three interconnected stories that all start off almost blandly acted and poorly written, but as the stories unfold, the insanity starts to ramp up. It interweaves human monsters with ghostly ones and the result is some very unsettling content. I also like that the visionaries for this film didn't rely heavily on CGI, and added a heavy dose of practical effects, cinematography and good editing to naturally disturb me. Learning that this is based off the work of Clive Barker, it makes so much more sense as it feels like a dark poetic nightmare from the 80's. Where the film falls short is the over-extension of one story, a loosely threaded connection and failure to captivate the audience out the gate with something truly compelling. Otherwise it was a good watch.
This is a collection of some nice scary stories. I liked the acting in general. Special effects, background music, and sound effects were awesome. In summary, if you are searching for a good quality scary movie, I recommend watching this movie.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesBooks of Blood adapts Clive Barker's framing device story from his "Book of Blood" but also includes brand new stories written for this film that Barker was involved in creating.
- PatzerMary says Miles died at 7 years old, but the dates on his gravestone span less than 6 years.
- SoundtracksDeep Six
Performed by Marilyn Manson
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 47 Minuten
- Farbe
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2:1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
What was the official certification given to Books of Blood (2020) in Australia?
Antwort