User reviews

Actually I do like the theme of story. And it has a pretty good ending. The problem is, what lies before that and how the story is treated. While I haven't read the source material (book by Clive Barker), I'm sure it is a far better and more complex story to be found there, which didn't translate to the screen.

Apart from the pacing and a story twist that will leave with a bad feeling (again, I don't know if it's the same in the novel), what really gets to you, is the fact, that the actors are pretty dull. I'm not saying bad, just dull. It's exactly about sympathizing with them, but they leave you more than cold (no pun intended). Which might work for other movies, but not here. Still there are a few scares, it's quite nicely shot and the aforementioned ending ... other than that? Not much!

A young man, captured for his unique skin, is about to be flayed by a bounty hunter. But first, he tells his story of how his skin got the way it is: torn to shreds and covered in unique markings. He is, literally, a book of blood.

This is a work of Clive Barker's, originally two of his short stories combined together. The Barker themes are evident: like "Hellraiser", the dead have a gateway to this world through the flesh and blood of the living. And that gateway is connected to a certain place in space (in both cases, an upstairs room of a house). Even Simon Bamford of "Nightbreed" and "Hellraiser" shows up to continue his ubiquitous run in Barker films.

John Harrison directs this film beautifully. Between him and the cinematographer, they make a gorgeous film with a perfect setting and mood. It's delightfully haunting, and the gore effects are enjoyable (there is a face-ripping scene that stands out as one of the film's highlights). While I enjoy Harrison's "Tales From the Darkside" better, I think this better showcases his artistic abilities.

The problem with "Book of Blood" is an issue not unique to this film: it is adapted from a short story, and to stretch a short story into a full, feature film just does not always work. Some of this film is strong, but other parts just drag or seem extraneous. It could have been shortened to an hour and would have been a superior film, most likely. Chicago critics Jon Kitley and Aaron Christensen suggested that it could have been an anthology, mixed with Barker's "Dread" and "Midnight Meat Train". This is a fine suggestion... but too late now, giving us three average films rather than one superior film.

Horror Society rightly concludes that "this movie wasn't a disappointment", as it was no worse than I expected when taking my seat in the theater. Though, to be honest, my expectations were not overly high -- I had only the barest interest in this film and had heard nothing good about it. Clive Barker fans will need to see this one, but others can do fine without it. The Blu-Ray is a bare bones release, so if you're looking for features to plump this film up, you're screwed. Worth seeing? Maybe. A must-see? Definitely not.

I saw this at the fantasia film festival. Since I am a huge Clive Barker fan and have read the Books of Blood I had very high expectations for this movie. But it really let me down. It was not very exciting at all. None of the characters were interesting. I didn't feel like I was experiencing Clive Barker's stories at all. The effects were cool and there was plenty of violence just like I expected. But I didn't relate to any of the characters like I did in the book. It was still interesting to see a budget take on this type of story and I was definitely creeped out by some of the events in Tollington House. But it was almost like I kept waiting for it to get good, and it never did.

This film pleasantly surprised me. Recent Clive Barker adaptations haven't really been masterpieces (though thankfully there always has been enough talent involved to make them interesting, at least). "The Plague" (2006) just wasn't much to write home about. "The Midnight Meat Train" (2008) was better, but it basically just tried to blow your socks off with extreme violence & bloodshed. And now, "Book of Blood" might just be the finest recent adaptation so far. It relies more on mood & atmosphere and all this is handled well. A duo of paranormal investigators - Mary Florescu (Sophie Ward), the professor & Reg Fuller (Paul Blair), the technician - moves into a reputed haunted house. Mary invites student Simon McNeal (Jonas Armstrong) to come along, for she believes him to have psychic abilities that might tap into the house's paranormal activities. But distrust soon rises between the threesome as they try to determine what's real and what's not in this house of hauntings.

Granted, the story remains pretty thin throughout the film, but director John Harrison takes this as an opportunity to not only create an eerie mood and build tension, but also to work on the main characters. There's a disturbing sexual tension growing between mentor Mary & student Simon which escalates in some keen exposure of betrayal. Actress Sophie Ward is an awesome woman and left a great impression on me with her toned-down performance. Both the pro- & epilogue make the movie a bit oddly structured, but it helped to flesh out the story a bit (pardon the pun). The film oozes with that sort of old school British Gothic vibe, but it's much darker portrayed than usual, adding a great deal of atmosphere to the picture. It's a rather little film, don't expect to be blown away, but it's a well-made effort and a clean adaptation carrying on the spirit of Clive Barker's work splendidly. I have yet to see his other recent outing, "Dread" (2009), but I've heard decent things about it already.

I first saw this almost a decade back on a dvd which I own. Revisited it recently cos i am planning to watch the new adaptation. It is based on Clive Barker's Books of Blood n has Doug Bradley in a tiny role. After a young girl is violently raped and beaten in her bed n her skin ripped off, a paranormal expert and her cameraman investigate the house to unlock its mysteriously murderous past.

The film moves at a very slow pace, there r few characters n locations. It has a gory skin ripping scene, tight tits n gets a bit spooky at times, the water fountain scene is well shot.

I am a huge Clive Barker fan, but this is a weak adaptation. It is hard to stretch a very short story into a full-length film. Still, this script could have maintained the intelligence of the story more and the direction could have communicated Barker's distressing world view better.

I have three main gripes.

First, the story's focus: the film turns the original story's dysfunctional mentor relationship between the older female researcher and the younger male medium into a full blown, treacly love story. Ugh!

Second, the tone: many scenes feature little more than furtive glances, longing looks, or sudden, eruptive declarations of love/hatred, which makes the movie too often feel more like a telenovela or an episode of Red Shoe Diaries than a horror film.

Third, the film's vision of the supernatural: in the short story, the "ghosts" gleefully wreak havoc on the living. In the film, they just want to be heard. As if this diminished characterization of the avenging spirits weren't cloying enough, the film features a very long parade of see-through CGI phantoms, all of whom look like they just marched over from Disney's Haunted Mansion.

Despite my complaints, the film has flashes of true Barker-- the young girl being flayed as her parents helplessly watch, the creepy séance scenes (hey- wasn't that Pinhead?), and the film's framing story (where Jonas Armstrong gets the chance to show that he can indeed act). Also, the film makes great use of Edinburgh locations to create an unrelentingly bleak Barkeresque atmosphere. It also makes great use of Jonas Armstrong's lacerated, naked body to generate the kind of exquisitely wrong homoeroticism that is pure Barker.

Saw this movie on 7th of march at the fantasy film fest nights in Hamburg. What a mess of a film. Unbelievable Characters with unbelievable actions without any point. Dramatic situations change into scenes like this: "OK, something supernatural just happened here what i was working and waiting for all my life, which i have never expected to happen, and which scared the hell out of me, but hey, although its dangerous and i am wounded - ah, lets just have sex..." ??? The plot jumps from one "topic" to another and everything is getting so confused that you just don't get the goal of this movie. Was it about ghosts, childhood trauma, erotic fantasies or about voyeurs? All these Topics put together in one movie make all the good, dramatic aspects look just laughable. The climax was simply ridiculous too, so to sum it all up - it was a mess of a movie with some good attempts, shocking effects and some nice visuals, but complete absence of credibility. Not worth watching it.

Until Clive Barker himself dons the directors chair we are going to be inundated with cheaply made horror drivel that drags the masters name down into the depths. Lets put this into perspective. Clive himself directed Hellraiser, Nightbreed and Lord of Illusions all of which are classic scare the crap out of you movies whilst being true to the mans vision. On the other hand all the adaptations of Clive's work which have been directed by someone else with the exception of Hellbound Hellraiser 2 and Hellraiser Inferno and too a slightly lesser extent Midnight Meat Train and Candyman have been awful. Book of Blood has to be the worst adaptation I have seen and I have seen Saint Sinner and Plague! Book Of Blood bears no resemblance to the story in the books of blood and is in no way scary at all. The acting is woeful, the characters are one dimensional and I found myself actually wanting them to be killed of. In a nutshell my brother renamed the movie "book of crud" and I have to say I agree whole heartedly. I don't think i'll even bother watching another adaptation of Clive's work unless he gets of his bum and directs it himself. Did you know that Clive was so annoyed with the earlier adaptation of Rawhead Rex that he insisted on directing Hellraiser without any experience in movie making. Lets just hope he will see this and roll up his sleeves and start making his own movies again or else we are in for an abomination in the hellraiser remake!

I went into this film with no expectations whatsoever. I had a very vague idea of what the story was. And while I enjoyed the film, it is plagued by mediocrity at every turn, so much so that by the end, you are almost taken completely out of the film, because you're tired of waiting for it to get good.

The biggest problem lies in the script. The characters are all one-dimensional. At no point do we feel like we know anything about anyone. This is frustrating in a film that wants us to be scared. We can't be scared if we don't identify with our characters. The dialogue is also inane and incredibly bland. There isn't a single flair of writerly wit in the entire script. Every exchange feels as if it was rushed through by the writer, never developing the dialogue beyond the purpose of getting from A to B.

Speaking of bland, the visual style of the film is very bleak and one-note. The film sports a dull gray look, that borders on black and white, throughout the entire film. It gets very boring to look at. All of the lighting schemes were flat and without any kind of flair as well. The shots are just as boring. I don't think there is a single outstanding piece of cinematography in the entire film. Everything is very by the book, and like so much of the film, bland and mediocre.

Before I jump into the performances, I want to say that none of the actors are bad. They did not have first class material to work with, but at the same time, no one seems overly dedicated to their roles. Each person seems to have only a basic understanding of their character. No one does anything special in their performance. Like the dialogue and the visual style, it is all very one-dimensional. This film would have benefited from using well-known actors. Since we don't get to know them in the story, it would have been helpful if thew audience knew them before the film even started. This is a sentiment that is inevitable with known actors.

Oh, I have forgotten to say what the film does well. The special effects are quite good. There is gore that will make you gag and occurrences that will shock you. For such an obviously low-budget film, these are effects that would make Hollywood proud.

Overall, there is nothing bad about this film. It has some great ideas, and it is good at its core, but it does nothing great. It barely does anything good. It is proficient. It is mediocre. It is just another example of the lack of Justice we have come to expect from adaptations of Clive Barker's material.

I read Clive Barker's 'Books of Blood' years ago and instantly fell in love with them; they had a wonderful combination of horror and fantasy, fear and humor. I've been pinning for them to be filmed for years and I finally got my wish to marginally mixed results.

A parapsychology professor and her assistant have been trying to prove their theories about the afterlife and beyond when an opportunity presents itself in the form of a house with a long paranormal history and a university student who seems to be a psychic. They decide to use his abilities to try to tap into the house's energies, but things are not as they seem and the experiment goes in ways no one could have guessed.

First things first, I had a few issues with the film. First was the bookend story segments that surrounds the plot; the movie essentially spoils the best part of the story from the very first seen. The second (and bigger) problem the movie has is the running time; at 100 minutes the movie is too damn long. This is based on a short story (two actually) and there is just not enough driving plot to justify the length. A good 20 minutes needed to be trimmed off, as is the movie is gets pretty slow at parts. The last real problem I had was that the stories this is based on weren't the best stories from the books, they were just the first stories in them; the reason for this seems to be that a series of films based on the books is in the works and they wanted to start from the beginning, 'Pig Blood Blues' (great story) is apparently up next.

Having said all that I still enjoyed the film more than I was frustrated by it. Even though this wasn't the best story from the novels it is still an engaging tale of the macabre and features some occasional excellent horror imagery. The principal actors in the limited cast are all suited nicely to their respective rolls and the character dialogue has a pleasantly moody cadence to it.

The visual and gore effects are (relative to the genre) fairly limited, but what is on display packs quite a visceral punch. One particularly memorable moment involves a poor girl getting her face peeled like an orange. That being said, this is not a gore film, despite what the DVD box would have you believe.

The setting and location of the film (Scotland) fit the story well and provide a Gothic backdrop for the action. The house were most of the film takes place is a appropriately grim without feeling like a clique spook house.

Despite the some slow sections in the middle and the unfortunate story reveal early on, it manages to be a creepy tale about death and beyond.

7/10

Clive Barker released a series of short stories back in 1984 through 1986 called the Books of Blood; exploring themes of fantasy and horror. Barker was originally a writer and later turned his interests towards that of film making. His background has allowed him to release great titles like Hellraiser (based on Barker's The Hellbound Heart), Nightbreed (A tale based on H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos), Lord of Illusions (The Last Illusion), and Midnight Meat Train (which also happens to be another short story from the Books of Blood). This particular films draws influence from two of his short stories, The Book of Blood and On Jerusalem Street (a postscript). There are 6 volumes to the Books of Blood, but personally I've only read Volume 4.

A paranormal investigator hires an equipment expert and a so-called psychic to explore a house - one that has witnessed a brutal murder. What they discover is not your typical spiritual activity but an intersection for the dead. This isn't your run-of-the-mill haunted house story; there is plenty to think about and consider with a fair amount of violence and thrills. The final act of this film is really awesome, almost making it worth it just for that alone. Unfortunately Barker did not direct or produce this film, but John Harrison did a wonderful job representing him. Harrison did great work of his own, such as 1990's Tales from the Darkside: The Movie and several episodes of Tales from the Crypt and Tales from the Darkside.

Clive is back, in some form or another! Now, I shall recite a quote by Stephen King from 25 years ago: "I have seen the future of horror, his name is Clive Barker."

My great love for Barker began with reading "Books of Blood," a collection of horror stories in 6 volumes. This movie is a pretty good adaptation of the title story. Don't expect it to blow you off your chair, there is no deep or complex story here, no breathtaking effects, and it's not particularly scary. The story is a variation on the haunted house theme, it's a bit confusing, and the pace is too slow for my taste. The acting and directing are decent, the sound effects are really good, but what really elevates this movie from mediocrity is the atmosphere exquisitely evocative of Barker's original, and for that very atmosphere, I recommend it.

6/10

"The dead have highways, running through the wasteland behind our lives, bearing an endless traffic of departed souls. They can be heard in the broken places of our world, through cracks made out of cruelty, violence, and depravity. They have signposts, these highways, and crossroads and intersections. And it is at these intersections where the dead mingle, and sometimes spill over into our world."

This movie is perfectly average. It's not great, it's not terrible. It has moments that approach brilliance and it has moments that are just down right bad, but in the end it all wraps up pretty much the way you think it will. It starts strong and just plods along until it kind of just runs out of gas. Worth watching if you've got absolutely nothing better to do.

I was so hesitant to watch this movie, all the reviews that I had read were so negative, ranging from pointless to convoluted and boring. But this movie was great, it was suspenseful and interesting. The story was complex and original and very gripping.

Gore was as needed but not excessive. The sex was as it is in most horror movies... pointless and unneeded. Acting was very good, sometimes a bit wooden but it never gets to a point where you can't believe the story.

If you are a fan of Hell-raiser (the first couple of them anyway), see this movie, the same suspense and fear pervades this film. If you liked Candy Man, watch this movie. It is every bit as original and scary as Clive's reputation would demand. Miles ahead of the boorish, predictable trappings of the competition.

I've only read the first half of one of Clive Barker's books, The Great and Secret Show, but that, along with several movie adaptations of his work, has given me a pretty firm handle on what gets the guy's juices flowing: death, sex, pain, blood, naked men, hell, perversion, good and evil, ghosts, damnation, demons, and eternal suffering... you know, all that malarkey.

This film is no different. Based on the opening story to his 'Books of Blood', it covers a lot of those themes, delivering supernatural occurrences aplenty, loads of atmosphere, ghost rape, flaying, a brief glimpse of Jonas Armstrong's tallywhacker, a fit bird in hot-pants having her face ripped off, and lots of general strangeness in an old house that turns out to be an intersection on a spectral highway, where the dead spill over into the world of the living.

Movies based on Barker's work range from the pretty awful (The Plague, Rawhead Rex) to the bloody awesome (Hellraiser, Candyman); Book of Blood sits comfortably somewhere in the middle. The direction from John Harrison is competent enough, the acting is fine, and the effects are surprisingly good for such a comparatively low-budget film, but being adapted from what is essentially the introduction to a collection of short stories, plus elements taken from one of those stories, it lacks some of the depth and complexity to be found in his best cinematic offerings.

I really do not know what to say. Bad screenplay, bad acting, bad editing etc etc. I cant believe how I could wait until the end. This is just a waste of time. So please stay away if your time is valuable. I did not understand what they are talking about or what this movie really tells. You wait until the end just because you expect some surprise but what happens? Absolutely nothing.. You definitely know what is coming. Acting.. My god I have no idea about acting but I am sure that I would act much better then all of those guys. I don't want to talk about meaningless erotic scenes .. My god.. Everything without and exception is so bad.

Thats all.