Search - Clive Barker's Book of Blood on DVD

Chad B. (abrnt1) from CABERY, IL
Reviewed on 5/19/2012...

When I first read in an issue of Fangoria that there was a film being made based on this Clive Barker story I kind of knew that it would have major problems. The original story acts as the linking device for Barkers 3 volume short story collection of the same name (In the Flesh, The Inhuman Condition & Cabal are also part of the Books of Blood, but were released seperate in the USA). It's brief, direct and too the point. It's not something that needed to be made into a film. According to what I've later read another Barker story (one I'm unfamiliar with) was also used to flesh out this film.

1 of 2 member(s) found this review helpful.

Wow...Truly Disappointed

FBRobertson | SC United States | 09/24/2009

(2 out of 5 stars)

"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."

Not bad, but nothing special either

N. Durham | Philadelphia, PA | 09/21/2009

(3 out of 5 stars)

"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."

Slow, deliberate and disturbing

Gregory Holmes | 10/07/2009

(5 out of 5 stars)

"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."