Livre de sang

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.

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!

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."

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 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.