Paul Magne Haakonsen
It is no secret that it was the promise of another Clive Barker horror story that lured me in to watch "Book of Blood". And the synopsis for the movie also did sound fairly interesting.As the movie came to an end, I was left with a sensation that this was definitely not the best of material from Clive Barker. Especially because the story was mediocre at best and it was so predictable that it was almost a farce.The story started out quite well and it did have potential. However, it quickly became quite predictable to the point where there were no surprises or anything overly impressive to be witnessed throughout the course of this movie. At best, then the storyline can be summarized as being generic.It should be said that the acting in the movie was adequate, and people actually managed surprisingly well in the face of having a very generic and predictable script to work with.The concept idea of the story behind "Book of Blood" is quite interesting, but it suffered tremendously under a very generic script, which hardly did the concept idea much justice.There were some interesting enough scenes throughout the movie, and I did like the way that the main character served as a medium for the entities at the gateway. And it was quite graphic at times, and that worked in favor of the movie - providing you can stomach things like that, of course.What topped off the experience was the ending of the movie. The movie went from being mediocre to being downright ludicrous at that moment. It is without a doubt some of the most laughable attempt of making a movie interesting that I have seen in a horror movie in a long, long time. And it didn't serve the movie in any positive way, quite the opposite actually."Book of Blood" had potential to be a good and interesting horror movie, but it just failed horribly given the poor script and the direction that the movie took at the end.
fedor8
Barker's story isn't flawed in the pace department, as some complain here. I didn't feel the plot dragged on. Rather, I found the characterization to be flawed.The student cheats his teacher by faking supernatural signs in the house. Where the hell did that come from? A totally unnecessary and puzzling plot-twist. However, much worse was Sophie Ward's totally inexplicable and illogical transformation from a normal woman to blood-sucking, amoral, brutal quasi-vampire. Just because a few insects landed on her face she made a 180 and turned into Satan's emissary? That was rather stupid. No explanation given, not even a hint. Suddenly she's the bad guy, period.No, Clive, landing a couple of insects on the character's face does NOT qualify as an explanation. Nice try, but no cigar.Was anyone truly surprised by that pathetic, predictable plot-twist involving Ward as being the person who hired the psychopathic killer? I saw that coming a mile away.And how the hell did she manage to fill that hole-riddled cottage with a pool of blood? Don't liquids leak through holes? So she established contact with the dead: fine. She reads their little stories: fine. But how does that suddenly turn her into an all-powerful witch? And since she is so powerful, why even bother to hire a killer?As for the dead, I have no clue what fascinating stories they might have had to tell the living. Perhaps about how bored they get in the after-life? How terrible the food is in Purgatory? About how dull it is to walk around like a zombie and stand in line for a chance to write down a few experiences on the skin of a living person? Did they get numbers when waiting in line? Did fights break out between the undead as they impatiently waited to cut his skin? The visuals offered of the crossroads of the Dead were very good, I thought, but I can't escape the nagging doubts that the dead were just a bunch of bored zombies who overvalued their own stories, to the point where they thought that a hot female teacher should read them from the skin of her hapless pupil.
Loveofthedark
I must really be missing something after reading some of the other reviews. I thought this was a complete was of what should of been an enjoyable movie experience.To sum it up there is a professor who studies the paranormal and just happens to get a new student in class that happens to be a clairvoyant, how convenient, that she can use in here new research project. From that point on it just gets predictable. Professor and student start sexual relationship, student turns out to be a fake who sets up paranormal activity in house being researched, when project is set to be shut down student shows back up and swears he didn't fake all activities and just to prove it runs upstairs where ghosts just happen to appear at the right time to try to tie up the lose ends of this horrible story. A few obvious twists here, add some there and you end up with a very bad film. Not recommended for the avid Barker fan, very disappointing.
gavin6942
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.
AD
