Books of Blood

Ok let's get this out the way first. The Books of Blood by Barker have never been equalled since publication. They are also almost impossible to translate into film. Most of their horror derives from an existential terror of something beyond our understanding. From the grisly horror of "Rawhead Rex" to the sublime "In the Hills, the Cities" all of the separate stories spin us around in search of a tether we never find. This is a pretty good adaptation of a series of books that defy translation into something as safe as cinema. There are moments of horror and some dread. I can feel Barker behind it but it just can't reproduce the terrible beauty if the writing. Nothing ever did. Hellraiser was close because Barker was still in that mindset when he directed it. This is good. The Miles sequence is the most faithful if transposed and altered. But i enjoyed it and just want to read the stories again. Do yourself a favor. Go find them and read them too. It's quite an experience. Good luck

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

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 almost abandoned watching it after discovering the overall rating but glad I didn't.

Grippy horror movie consisting of 3 stories that of course are kind of linked together.

Relatively short, relatively terrifying and pretty watchable. In fact I would enjoy this as a TV series.