Customer Reviews

Clive Barker's Book of Blood

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

This isn't a remake or a sequel. Instead it is a good movie. Sticking quite faithfully to the original short story by Clive Barker, this is a well made and often disturbing film. Great performances by the cast, an excellent script, a haunting score and some moody photography all work together to make this one of the better adaptations of a Barker story. The Bluray, while not exactly eye candy, is a faithful reproduction of the directors intentions and all the scenes are sharp and decent looking. Not much in the way of extra features but the included documentary is fairly thorough if a bit short. All in all a great film and an excellent transfer.

Clive Barker adaptations are usually even more hit and miss than Stephen King ones. The last one we had was the surprisingly good (and dreadfully underrated) Midnight Meat Train, and now here we are Book of Blood. The story of this film revolves around a college student named Simon (Jonas Armstrong) able to channel the dead, who is brought to a supposed haunted house by his professor (Sophie Ward). This whole story is told by Simon to a demented man (Clive Russell) who has been hired to collect Simon's scarred up skin. As far as Barker adaptations go, Book of Blood isn't all bad, as it does provide some genuine scares and well-done gore effects. Where it falters however is the fact that the film as a whole is poorly paced, and the twist ending really doesn't come as too much of a surprise either if you think about it. Still, Book of Blood isn't all bad, and if you're a Clive Barker fan, you could do a whole lot worse. Look for Doug "Pinhead" Bradley in a blink-and-you-miss-him cameo.

I think this will be one of those underrated Barker films. Sometimes his stuff doesn't make sense, sometimes it's basically taken from him and reimagined by Hollywood in a bad way, and all too often his name on the movie can be ignored.

However, I think this is right up there with Midnight Meat Train. I read the entire Books of Blood series years ago and loved them. And this film works in a similar, if flawed, way that those books did. I won't go into the story really, but it's based on early stories Barker wrote. There are some changes, and these are noted in the Blu-Ray addition. It's far more erotic than most other Barker films, and I disagree that the pacing was problematic in a sense. The 1st half of this film is almost a 5 star, but the ending did have some pacing problems and simply too much going on. Really, though, it looks like they actually tried to make a good horror movie, a different horror movie without young teens getting naked or slasher killers stalking people, freakish rejects in the hills etc. There is lots of gore, some minor and some big scares, and an ominous atmosphere. They spent money too making this film look good, no cheap effects, and had some darn good actors actually get into their parts.

It's a different kind of nightmare more fitting of a Barker tale than anything else.

As for the Blu Ray, sound and audio seemed to mesh very well (important when you want to get scared). The special features are very lacking, but I rarely watch all of those, just know people do like them. All you get is one behind the scenes featurette.

So I loved it. If only all the odd ideas could have been honed more. If you like Barker's horror, you'll enjoy this. Though this film is far from perfect, I liked it even more than Midnight Meat Train. And from the special features, it appears they intend to make many more films based on Barker's horror stories. Bring em on.

Okay, if you are looking for a deep and intelligent film this is not the movie for you. But then again, horror is probably not the genre for you. However, if you are looking for a movie that makes you scream and laugh (mostly unintentionally, but that is another joy of the genre) then I think this movie is a perfect fit. I love this movie - it entertains me. It also doesn't hurt that Jonas Armstrong is a fox.
Happy watching!

This a fantastic story with some great effects. If you don't watch it you are missing out on one of horrors best stories. It is based on Clive Barker's short story of the same name from the Books of Blood collection. Well worth a rent but if you are a Clive fan or a die hard horror fan you will want to own this.

I have to admit that I am truly disappointed with this film, especially coming not too behind "The Midnight Meat Train." I had high hopes with this movie, though I knew, from the stories themselves, that the development of the film would be tricky. The actors play their parts, and they do a good job at what they were shown to do by the script. The special effects were all right, they were, as they should be, more creepy than out and out blood-bath violent. The scenes themselves were wonderful. The house was well designed, the cryptic nature of the house, the shadows and the light, worked well together. The wariness and the weariness of the actors due to the supernatural presence at the back of their minds was also interesting to see in the evolution of the story line.

Here are the problems:
1) the constant repeating of how the dead have highways...I think this quote was said at least five times during the film. Alright. I get it. I understand that we are talking about more than just a simple haunting, we are talking about a nexus along the paths the dead travel upon. You do not have to repeat this quote again and again. Once or twice is good enough...

2) the second problem is that the story lulls, there is a time when you are feeling bored out of your mind. Yes the characters need to be developed, no question about that, but to allow such a spacing between events, that is what brought my tension down to boredom. Again, I don't want a blood bath a minute, but I want to see tightness in the plot.

3) this point is no fault of anyone in particular, but in the original story, there was a hint that something far, far more dreadful happened at the house then what was shown in the first part of the movie. That would be nice to explore, see the characters, for their own means, their own intentions, exploring the past in order to focus on their desires in the present.

4) due to the pacing, as mentioned above, when a good ten minutes could have been chopped away (no pun intended) in order to tighten the plot, by the time the culmination of the events at the house start to happen, really, really happen, I'm left with more of a "finally" feeling inside instead of the frightful euphoria we're supposed to have when events come to culmination.

I really, really wanted to like this film. Maybe I went into this film with too much expectation. I love Clive Barker's work, from his short stories to his novels. I have enjoyed many of the Clive Barker movies in the past, and I had high expectations for this one. I feel like I was let down. I feel like the powers that be wanted to just get this story over with so the premise of the stories from the book of blood could really begin (as we'll see with "Dread"). This isn't a film I'm going to throw away or sell. I'm keeping it simply because I adore Mr. Barker's works. Still, unlike, say, Candyman and Lord of Illusions, this isn't a film I'm going to be watching more than once in a blue moon. If you are like me and you love Mr. Barker's work, get it, watch it, keep it. Just don't think that it is going to be as powerful as many of Mr. Barker's other works on film.

As the plot unfolds it becomes more and more Clive Barker-esque. If you liked hellraiser, nightbreed, candyman, and lord of illusions then you should really enjoy Book Of Blood. It sometimes plays off like an X-Files episode in which everything is tinged with mystery and weirdness. The plot and character build up is slow. The dialogue is slow and mysterious. The special effects and filming are high rate. The gore was a little too much for me. And you might dislike a few scenes if you are squeamish. Grade: B.

Being an aficionado of horror films my entire life, I struggled before writing this review. While I loved the premise, the makeup, the cast, and the film sets, there was something missing from this Clive Barker book. It had its moments, but they were slow...congested...repetitive...and boring. It never grabbed me. It never scared me. The premise had all of the tools to have us jumping out of our skin...but it just didn't work out that way. It deserves 2 1/2 stars...but I gave it 3 because I want others to sample this ditty. If you haven't seen a slew of horror flicks like me, you may ,love it. I liked it. Barker needs to bark up a better tree next time.

I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.

Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.

The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.

My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.

"The dead have highways, highways that spill over into our world..." This is the premise behind Book of Blood, Clive Barkers latest horror film based upon his short stories (Book of Blood and On Jerusalem Street).
The movie is not as fast paced as Clive's last movie, The Midnight Meat Train (sadly with a poor opening - still sore Lionsgate, still sore!) a few months ago onto DVD. This one revolves around a house which is believed to be haunted since at least two deaths have occurred there. The house is the focal point for a Professor looking to make her mark in the world of the paranormal and acquires the help of a gifted young man named Simon whom she believes has a special gift that can allow the house to be "opened up" from its deathly slumber. The film continues where Simon has now become the focal point of the film, trying to open the house's energy up for proof of the supernatural. SPOILER WARNING! - towards the middle of the movie, we learn that Simon has been playing Mary for a fool and faked the first ghostly experience, but not the second as he later tells.

He then comes back and demands to show Mary the truth - but the truth is ... that we learn that it has been Mary all along who has opened up the house - and we see what that opening looks like as the ghosts of lost souls wander out, inscribing their stories on Simons pale skin. The story within the story (based upon Barkers On Jerusalem St.) features Simon who has now become a virtual book of blood and is being stalked by a Wyburd, a sociopath for hire who hears Simons story from his own mouth as he lays on Wyburds' "carving table."

The film stars such notable actors as Jonas Armstrong (Robin Hood television series) playing Simon and Sophie Ward plays the driven professor who charges beyond all limits to unlock the secrets of the house. Doug Bradley (Hellraiser) also makes an appearance as Tollington, the first victim of the house.

As mentioned, this movie is not as fast paced as The Midnight Meat Train it does drag on in some parts, but does feature some very notable and quite effective scenes of gore and torture (including one notable scene where a girl is raped and skinned by a violent spirit quite soon within the movie). It opens with the subsequent telling of introducing the premise by means of telling the story of On Jerusalem Street and continues through into Barkers Book of Blood and then ends quite nicely (and bloody) with On Jerusalem Street again. There are several scenes of torture, blood, gore and scenes not of this world which will excite any fan of Barker and of intelligent horror.

Now, the movie does have some draw backs. It does draw on in some areas and does in points, have a less adequate ability of keeping the audiences interest until the very end. In short, it is a ghost story with a handful of gore, torture and blood (lots of) mixed in. This is NOT The Midnight Meat Train, this is NOT Hellraiser, but this is Clive Barkers' Book of Blood and with that alone you are guaranteed a journey through the dark fantastic that you will not forget any time soon.

In the end, you are left with a feeling that you have just watched a movie that is unique, but not as quick paced and full of surprises as some of the other typical Hollywood horror films (i.e. Saw, Hostel, etc.). It is, I believe, an upgrade from today's traditional horror film - The relationship between Simon and Mary also allows the film to work on another level as well. Overall, Book of Blood offers a ghost story with a twist and in turns delivers a movie that offers just that - but could use more of a developed story within parts. If you are looking for a movie filled with torture and gore (Hostel?) - This is not your movie. If you are looking for a movie that offers a bit more than blood and gore, but offers a concrete story behind it with some thought and some soul (pun intended), than perhaps you may find yourself at one of those intersections and decide to invest in watching this film inscribe itself upon you.