Book of Blood (2009)

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

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.

CLIVE BARKER'S BOOK OF BLOOD is an adaptation of his work that comes across as a traditional haunted house flick, albeit with a few Clive Barker-style flourishes. The main characters are a trio of paranormal experts who become interested in the history of a creepy old building that may just be the gateway to hell, so naturally they decide to live there while they carry out their investigation.What follows is a traditional spook-fest that tends to move quite slowly and doesn't really offer up much we haven't seen before. We're in definite Barker territory here, with some face-tearing gore, bodily mutilation, a Doug Bradley cameo, and an ancient arcane book of lore, but there's a general seen-it-all-before sense to the proceedings that means you'll need to be in a forgiving mood to really enjoy it. Me, I wanted something more than a typical haunted house/evil CGI ghost movie, and I didn't get it. Jonas Armstrong's poor acting is more of a hindrance than a help, although Sophie Ward gives a neat performance as the protagonist.

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 just finished watching this and found myself thoroughly impressed with the acting, story and pacing. Usually Clive Barker flicks are too concerned with blood and guts gore, which this one also has some scenes...but this movie was more supernatural and ghostly or creepy than gory. The creature designs were creepy, not over the top with nonsensical decorations or pins. The acting and direction was pretty realistic, in regards to reactions, actions, and details of what people would do in such situations. I enjoyed the detail of the characters actions in each situation. As with any movie, you can pick it apart if you so desire, but this one has enough attention to detail to cover its tracks for a movie. I gave it a 9 out of 10 because it was an unexpected treat for me, a fan of ghost stories. The production value was good too considering it was not a major Hollywood flick. Cinematography was good with nice dramatic lighting and great wide shots of scenery. I did not give it a ten because it started out a bit goofy with the forced narration at the beginning... I suppose trying to show the mechanism of the ghost visitations would be a bit challenging and time consuming so they took the easy way out via narration.I recommend it for fans of ghost stories. It is a well paced film, not too fast, not too slow. Although at one time, I got a bit tired of the imagination vs. reality effect.