Books of Blood

If you're looking for a constant jumpscares fest, this is not for you. Books of Blood delivers a slow burn anthology with decent acting. Some of the stories are a little drawn out and could've done with some trimming. The pacing is where this movie suffers but it is definitely worth watching.

I'm a sucker for a horror anthology whether good or cheesy, but this one treads a fine line. Three interconnected stories that all start off almost blandly acted and poorly written, but as the stories unfold, the insanity starts to ramp up. It interweaves human monsters with ghostly ones and the result is some very unsettling content. I also like that the visionaries for this film didn't rely heavily on CGI, and added a heavy dose of practical effects, cinematography and good editing to naturally disturb me. Learning that this is based off the work of Clive Barker, it makes so much more sense as it feels like a dark poetic nightmare from the 80's. Where the film falls short is the over-extension of one story, a loosely threaded connection and failure to captivate the audience out the gate with something truly compelling. Otherwise it was a good watch.

Nothing new horror wise. However, the first story goes on and on and is not well acted and takes up over half the film. The second story is much better acted and scripted, Anna Friel should have played the lead in the first story as Britt Robertson is not a strong enough actor, but that's the least of the problems. The problem is you need to watch to get the twist at the end and most will give up, I almost did but was too lethargic. As for the story running through well it is there just to link so it is what it is. In the end, after nothing has really happened you realize you've wasted over an hour and a half for a nice twist but is it really worth it? NO

"Books of Blood" is based on the works of UK writer Clive Barker.

There' s a certain symmetry and maturity to the characters, that suggest's this film's screenplay is based on the work of a capable author. That said, as is often the case, a lot can get lost in translation, from book to screen.

Having read two of Barkers books but not the works this film is based upon, I know his writing is often complex and intricate. You get the sense of the underlying work in this film but unsurprisingly, it feels incomplete.

That's not to say this is a bad horror film. The characters are, for the most part, developed enough to offer moderate insight into their motivations. In addition, its intersecting tales have a tidy symmetry once the conclusion has been reached

Pacing is decent, scares are more of the gruesome variety than the jump scare's you find in films like "Friday 13th". There's also a lot of creativity on offer, that taps into and blends, familiar horror tropes.

In summary, I'd say this is a reasonable watch. Yes it does feel like something is missing. That said, enough horror fundamentals are on offer, I feel, to satisfy most fans of the genre, like myself.

6/10

What shines through is that it seems to be "made for TV" .. but not like Game of Thrones or so ... but "made for early evening TV ... in the early 2000s" or sort. It never dares to go all the way. It hints at it .. it shows potential - but it backs off.

I actually liked the first story (and conclusion) .. it was kind of powerful. Scenes, images and ideas were well done - and it was a nice, sad tragedy. The other stories however felts like re-tales of older stories. They were not nearly as well done and seemed much, much cheaper - both in creativity and cinematography.

For a full length suspense/horror movie, i can only give it a low score though. The stories are not good enough - they are not intertwined cleverly .. and they never exceed a rather low budget TV format.