Books of Blood

As I sat down to watch the 2020 movie "Books of Blood" I wasn't aware that it was a horror anthology. And as much as I love horror, there is a tendency of anthologies set within the horror genre of being somewhat less than mediocre.

However, I must admit that "Books of Blood" was a much welcomed addition to the horror anthologies, because this was actually a rather enjoyable collection of stories that proved to be nicely interwoven with one another in a satisfactory manner.

And I am astounded to find out that the stories told in "Books of Blood" apparently are based on Clive Barker writings. That is just very interesting and cool actually.

The stories were quite different in their contents, so chances are high that you will find something suitable for your particular tastes and preferences. I enjoyed all three tales, however, I found the one with the bed & breakfast to be the most enjoyable and interesting.

The acting in the three stories was good, generally speaking for everyone involved. I was definitely content with the performances that were put on, and they had a good ensemble of casted actors and actresses to bring the various characters to life on the screen.

I will say that "Books of Blood" is definitely a horror anthology that is well-worth taking the time to sit down and watch if you get the chance to do so. I was more than genuinely entertained by what writers Adam Simon and Brannon Braga managed to present with this anthology.

My rating of "Books of Blood" is a six out of ten stars.

What shines through is that it seems to be "made for TV" .. but not like Game of Thrones or so ... but "made for early evening TV ... in the early 2000s" or sort. It never dares to go all the way. It hints at it .. it shows potential - but it backs off.

I actually liked the first story (and conclusion) .. it was kind of powerful. Scenes, images and ideas were well done - and it was a nice, sad tragedy. The other stories however felts like re-tales of older stories. They were not nearly as well done and seemed much, much cheaper - both in creativity and cinematography.

For a full length suspense/horror movie, i can only give it a low score though. The stories are not good enough - they are not intertwined cleverly .. and they never exceed a rather low budget TV format.

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

"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

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.