Book of Blood

Clive Barker released a series of short stories back in 1984 through 1986 called the Books of Blood; exploring themes of fantasy and horror. Barker was originally a writer and later turned his interests towards that of film making. His background has allowed him to release great titles like Hellraiser (based on Barker's The Hellbound Heart), Nightbreed (A tale based on H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos), Lord of Illusions (The Last Illusion), and Midnight Meat Train (which also happens to be another short story from the Books of Blood). This particular films draws influence from two of his short stories, The Book of Blood and On Jerusalem Street (a postscript). There are 6 volumes to the Books of Blood, but personally I've only read Volume 4.

A paranormal investigator hires an equipment expert and a so-called psychic to explore a house - one that has witnessed a brutal murder. What they discover is not your typical spiritual activity but an intersection for the dead. This isn't your run-of-the-mill haunted house story; there is plenty to think about and consider with a fair amount of violence and thrills. The final act of this film is really awesome, almost making it worth it just for that alone. Unfortunately Barker did not direct or produce this film, but John Harrison did a wonderful job representing him. Harrison did great work of his own, such as 1990's Tales from the Darkside: The Movie and several episodes of Tales from the Crypt and Tales from the Darkside.

Clive is back, in some form or another! Now, I shall recite a quote by Stephen King from 25 years ago: "I have seen the future of horror, his name is Clive Barker."

I saw this at the fantasia film festival. Since I am a huge Clive Barker fan and have read the Books of Blood I had very high expectations for this movie. But it really let me down. It was not very exciting at all. None of the characters were interesting. I didn't feel like I was experiencing Clive Barker's stories at all. The effects were cool and there was plenty of violence just like I expected. But I didn't relate to any of the characters like I did in the book. It was still interesting to see a budget take on this type of story and I was definitely creeped out by some of the events in Tollington House. But it was almost like I kept waiting for it to get good, and it never did.

Actually I do like the theme of story. And it has a pretty good ending. The problem is, what lies before that and how the story is treated. While I haven't read the source material (book by Clive Barker), I'm sure it is a far better and more complex story to be found there, which didn't translate to the screen.

Apart from the pacing and a story twist that will leave with a bad feeling (again, I don't know if it's the same in the novel), what really gets to you, is the fact, that the actors are pretty dull. I'm not saying bad, just dull. It's exactly about sympathizing with them, but they leave you more than cold (no pun intended). Which might work for other movies, but not here. Still there are a few scares, it's quite nicely shot and the aforementioned ending ... other than that? Not much!

I am a huge Clive Barker fan, but this is a weak adaptation. It is hard to stretch a very short story into a full-length film. Still, this script could have maintained the intelligence of the story more and the direction could have communicated Barker's distressing world view better.

I have three main gripes.

First, the story's focus: the film turns the original story's dysfunctional mentor relationship between the older female researcher and the younger male medium into a full blown, treacly love story. Ugh!

Second, the tone: many scenes feature little more than furtive glances, longing looks, or sudden, eruptive declarations of love/hatred, which makes the movie too often feel more like a telenovela or an episode of Red Shoe Diaries than a horror film.

Third, the film's vision of the supernatural: in the short story, the "ghosts" gleefully wreak havoc on the living. In the film, they just want to be heard. As if this diminished characterization of the avenging spirits weren't cloying enough, the film features a very long parade of see-through CGI phantoms, all of whom look like they just marched over from Disney's Haunted Mansion.

Despite my complaints, the film has flashes of true Barker-- the young girl being flayed as her parents helplessly watch, the creepy séance scenes (hey- wasn't that Pinhead?), and the film's framing story (where Jonas Armstrong gets the chance to show that he can indeed act). Also, the film makes great use of Edinburgh locations to create an unrelentingly bleak Barkeresque atmosphere. It also makes great use of Jonas Armstrong's lacerated, naked body to generate the kind of exquisitely wrong homoeroticism that is pure Barker.

I first saw this almost a decade back on a dvd which I own. Revisited it recently cos i am planning to watch the new adaptation. It is based on Clive Barker's Books of Blood n has Doug Bradley in a tiny role. After a young girl is violently raped and beaten in her bed n her skin ripped off, a paranormal expert and her cameraman investigate the house to unlock its mysteriously murderous past.

The film moves at a very slow pace, there r few characters n locations. It has a gory skin ripping scene, tight tits n gets a bit spooky at times, the water fountain scene is well shot.