Book of Blood (2009) User Reviews

Cud have been better with a big budget.

[Fella_shibby · 6/10 · 9 October 2020]

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.

Tricky

[kosmasp · 4/10 · 16 July 2009]

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!

Great Acting and Directing, But a Bland Story

[gavin6942 · 5/10 · 25 August 2010]

A young man, captured for his unique skin, is about to be flayed by a bounty hunter. But first, he tells his story of how his skin got the way it is: torn to shreds and covered in unique markings. He is, literally, a book of blood.

This is a work of Clive Barker's, originally two of his short stories combined together. The Barker themes are evident: like "Hellraiser", the dead have a gateway to this world through the flesh and blood of the living. And that gateway is connected to a certain place in space (in both cases, an upstairs room of a house). Even Simon Bamford of "Nightbreed" and "Hellraiser" shows up to continue his ubiquitous run in Barker films.

John Harrison directs this film beautifully. Between him and the cinematographer, they make a gorgeous film with a perfect setting and mood. It's delightfully haunting, and the gore effects are enjoyable (there is a face-ripping scene that stands out as one of the film's highlights). While I enjoy Harrison's "Tales From the Darkside" better, I think this better showcases his artistic abilities.

The problem with "Book of Blood" is an issue not unique to this film: it is adapted from a short story, and to stretch a short story into a full, feature film just does not always work. Some of this film is strong, but other parts just drag or seem extraneous. It could have been shortened to an hour and would have been a superior film, most likely. Chicago critics Jon Kitley and Aaron Christensen suggested that it could have been an anthology, mixed with Barker's "Dread" and "Midnight Meat Train". This is a fine suggestion... but too late now, giving us three average films rather than one superior film.

Horror Society rightly concludes that "this movie wasn't a disappointment", as it was no worse than I expected when taking my seat in the theater. Though, to be honest, my expectations were not overly high -- I had only the barest interest in this film and had heard nothing good about it. Clive Barker fans will need to see this one, but others can do fine without it. The Blu-Ray is a bare bones release, so if you're looking for features to plump this film up, you're screwed. Worth seeing? Maybe. A must-see? Definitely not.

Horror Clive Barker Style that almost gets ruined by the lack of a real story

[chrichtonsworld · 5/10 · 20 May 2009]

"Book of Blood" contains several trademarks of Clive Barker's earlier work. So be prepared to expect some gruesome special effects. Only this time it is dumbed down considerably especially when you compare it to "Hellraiser" or "Candyman". The buildup of tension can be compared to the style he used in the (very excellent) video game "Undying". In which the atmosphere is key for providing the scary moments. The biggest problem however with this movie is the story. That is to say that there isn't much of a story. The little story that does get presented to the viewer doesn't go anywhere and only gets confusing in the end. (Small Spoiler!!!) There was a perfect opportunity to use Doug Bradley since his character seems to be the cause of the events that played out. But he only is in it for 1 minute or so which is clearly not enough to make the same impact as he did with the Pinhead character. In the ending all the viewer is left with the feeling that he/she could have skipped this movie. This is a big shame since "Book of Blood" had a lot of potential into creating a new horror icon.If you can overlook the slow pace and the lack of story then you can enjoy this movie since it is full of suspense,scary moments and even some pretty erotic scenes.

Writing Can Be Hazardous To Your Health, Part 3

[Vomitron_G · 7/10 · 23 November 2011]

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.

Not As Good As I Hoped

[mbaule · 4/10 · 23 July 2009]

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.

flawed, but some great moments

[pseawrig · 6/10 · 21 February 2010]

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.

Book of Blood

[Scarecrow-88 · 5/10 · 7 October 2009]

A famed author and professor, Mary Florescu(Sophie Ward), of books dealing with paranormal matters discovers a house which might finally provide the proof needed to give those who consider her work mere fiction posing a possible fact asking for faith from readers of a mostly cynical generation. A room within the house could very well be a gateway for the dead wishing for their stories to be heard, and Mary might've found a "lightning rod" in a student of hers attending the local university, Simon McNeal(Jonas Armstrong), whose claims of clairvoyance might benefit her new book. Mary's photographic expert, Reg(Paul Blair)doesn't trust Simon, believing he could be a fake using tricks to gain notoriety and fame. The trio will be in for quite a surprise as the dead do in fact use Simon as a means of communication..through written word on his skin!

Director John Harrison(Tales from the Darkside:The Movie) applies a methodical, leisurely pace, allowing the story to gradually reveal what is obvious. Rather a mean-spirited, albeit cold-as-ice treatment of a story I felt was probably presented on page in a similar fashion. Heavy dependency on CGI throughout particularly regarding the ghosts of the movie who appear mostly towards the end. The grisly torn flesh of Simon is certain to cause weary viewers to cringe a bit. Harrison's film has a very sleek look and the camera work is first-rate, not to mention the setting in Scotland provides an interesting venue with a European cast giving understated performances which coincides with the rather lukewarm mood(..the film is shot desaturated further setting the somber tone).

The film is initially told by Simon in flashback to a "collector" who has kidnapped him, having latched him to a table, informing the young man that he plans to fillet him due to a customer's desire for his skin. The collector is a cold-blooded sort who seems to enjoy his heinous line of work. This sets up in our minds that all will not go well for poor Simon, and we can only watch as his relationship with Mary, sexual and otherwise, leads him down a path of destruction, while hers actually gives birth to enlightenment.

No hellraiser but not bad at all

[marsmanroy · 7/10 · 2 January 2010]

A teacher is going to invest a house where strange things have happened in the past together with a co-worker (who has the equipment) and a new student who appears to have a gift. Strange things happen in the house which lets eventually to a climax because the dead want to be heard. Normally I don't like a story in a story and here it wasn't any different in the beginning but in the end when they came back to the present time some cool things happen in which you can re-find the writer of hellraiser mister Clive Barker. Good effects, good acting, good story. I think the movie is most suitable for horror-fans. If you're not into the genre I think this movie will disappoint you.

Boring and not worthy of Barker!

[johannes2000-1 · 3/10 · 20 October 2009]

The atmosphere is creepy and sinister and the movie starts out with a promising gory skin-peeling scene, but then it sort of collapses into a terrible bore since nothing much happens afterwards. There are only three people, who endlessly talk together in a mumbling and husky drone, all three totally uncharismatic and you couldn't care less about them. All the major supernatural events take place behind a closed door in the attic, so we have to settle for lots of screaming and creepy noises, and when we at last get a look into the attic we just see the result of all the turmoil: actor Jonas Armstrong in yet another state of disarray, and weird writings over the walls and later on his skin. Armstrong has to walk around in the nude most of the time (the crucial parts of his body discretely hidden in shadows), which doesn't have any function at all, apart from apparently arousing some hidden erotic feelings in the otherwise almost sexless paranormal expert Sophie Ward.

I give myself a 10 out of 10 for keeping awake and watching the whole movie (all the time hoping that there would be some mind blowing climax), but the movie gets 3 (and those are solely for Armstrongs buttocks). Clive Barker took part in this production, but I dare to wonder if he was pleased with the result.

Listening to the Dead

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 23 April 2009]

A stranger with a sick skin full of scars is abducted by a man that was hired by a collector to peel his skin. The stranger tells the story of the PhD college professor and writer Mary Florescu (Sophie Ward), who investigates paranormal phenomena with her technical assistant Reg Fuller (Paul Blair). When the newcomer student Simon McNeal (Jonas Armstrong) attends her class, she recognizes him as a clairvoyant boy that was a sensation in the media years ago when he foresaw the death of his older brother in a car accident. Mary invites Simon to team up with Reg and her in the investigation of the Tollington House, a creepy house where a teenager was slayed a couple of years ago, since she believes that Simon would be capable to "open" the house to communicate with the spirits. When the souls apparently write "Don't mock us" and other advices on the wall; cause interference in Reg's equipment; and beat Simon, Mary believes she has succeed in collecting evidences of the afterlife. However, she finds first that everything is a fraud; but later she realizes that the dead have highways and the Tollington House is located at the intersection between worlds. Further the dead want someone to listen to them and tell the world through a book of blood.

Tales of haunted house seemed to be an exhausted theme for horror movies; however, Clive Barker reinvents the terror of this theme in "Book of Blood". The intriguing screenplay is very well developed in a slow pace, supported by a great direction and performances, using a bleak cinematography and good special effects. This movie is underrated in IMDb with the User Rating of 5.2 (39 votes only) and deserves to be discovered by fans of genuine horror movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Livro de Sangue" ("Book of Blood")

A consistently mediocre film from start to finish

[TeresofBlood · 6/10 · 13 June 2009]

I went into this film with no expectations whatsoever. I had a very vague idea of what the story was. And while I enjoyed the film, it is plagued by mediocrity at every turn, so much so that by the end, you are almost taken completely out of the film, because you're tired of waiting for it to get good.

The biggest problem lies in the script. The characters are all one-dimensional. At no point do we feel like we know anything about anyone. This is frustrating in a film that wants us to be scared. We can't be scared if we don't identify with our characters. The dialogue is also inane and incredibly bland. There isn't a single flair of writerly wit in the entire script. Every exchange feels as if it was rushed through by the writer, never developing the dialogue beyond the purpose of getting from A to B.

Speaking of bland, the visual style of the film is very bleak and one-note. The film sports a dull gray look, that borders on black and white, throughout the entire film. It gets very boring to look at. All of the lighting schemes were flat and without any kind of flair as well. The shots are just as boring. I don't think there is a single outstanding piece of cinematography in the entire film. Everything is very by the book, and like so much of the film, bland and mediocre.

Before I jump into the performances, I want to say that none of the actors are bad. They did not have first class material to work with, but at the same time, no one seems overly dedicated to their roles. Each person seems to have only a basic understanding of their character. No one does anything special in their performance. Like the dialogue and the visual style, it is all very one-dimensional. This film would have benefited from using well-known actors. Since we don't get to know them in the story, it would have been helpful if thew audience knew them before the film even started. This is a sentiment that is inevitable with known actors.

Oh, I have forgotten to say what the film does well. The special effects are quite good. There is gore that will make you gag and occurrences that will shock you. For such an obviously low-budget film, these are effects that would make Hollywood proud.

Overall, there is nothing bad about this film. It has some great ideas, and it is good at its core, but it does nothing great. It barely does anything good. It is proficient. It is mediocre. It is just another example of the lack of Justice we have come to expect from adaptations of Clive Barker's material.

Mess, with some good attempts.

[vikmo · 4/10 · 9 March 2009]

Saw this movie on 7th of march at the fantasy film fest nights in Hamburg. What a mess of a film. Unbelievable Characters with unbelievable actions without any point. Dramatic situations change into scenes like this: "OK, something supernatural just happened here what i was working and waiting for all my life, which i have never expected to happen, and which scared the hell out of me, but hey, although its dangerous and i am wounded - ah, lets just have sex..." ??? The plot jumps from one "topic" to another and everything is getting so confused that you just don't get the goal of this movie. Was it about ghosts, childhood trauma, erotic fantasies or about voyeurs? All these Topics put together in one movie make all the good, dramatic aspects look just laughable. The climax was simply ridiculous too, so to sum it all up - it was a mess of a movie with some good attempts, shocking effects and some nice visuals, but complete absence of credibility. Not worth watching it.

Well made but just lacking something

[udar55 · 5/10 · 23 September 2009]

Paranormal author Mary Florescu (Sophie Ward) is investigating a haunted house. Lucky for her, Simon (Jonas Armstrong), a young man with psychic abilities, has just enrolled in her class. She brings him to the house and gets astonishing results immediately, but can't tell if Simon is a charlatan or the real deal. This John Harrison (TALES FROM THE DARKSIDE: THE MOVIE) directed film arrived on DVD this week from Lionsgate after being on the shelf for a bit. After a decade of Barker sequel exploitation, I'm glad to see someone trying to faithfully adapt his "Books of Blood" stories (with this tackling "Book of Blood" and its sequel "On Jerusalem Street"). Sadly, this is a dud as the movie is just there. We don't get any real character depth and Mary's experiments seem to solely consist of her sitting in the house while Simon goes to sleep. More importantly, why is Simon doing what he is doing? Harrison does get a few creepy scenes going but will squash them dead in an instant with a boring dialog scene. That said, I'd rather watch this than a ghetto set CANDYMAN VIII: SWEETS FOR THE STREETS AND BEATS. Look for Doug Bradley in a 30 second cameo.

I'm on a highway to hell!

[BA_Harrison · 7/10 · 24 November 2011]

I've only read the first half of one of Clive Barker's books, The Great and Secret Show, but that, along with several movie adaptations of his work, has given me a pretty firm handle on what gets the guy's juices flowing: death, sex, pain, blood, naked men, hell, perversion, good and evil, ghosts, damnation, demons, and eternal suffering... you know, all that malarkey.

This film is no different. Based on the opening story to his 'Books of Blood', it covers a lot of those themes, delivering supernatural occurrences aplenty, loads of atmosphere, ghost rape, flaying, a brief glimpse of Jonas Armstrong's tallywhacker, a fit bird in hot-pants having her face ripped off, and lots of general strangeness in an old house that turns out to be an intersection on a spectral highway, where the dead spill over into the world of the living.

Movies based on Barker's work range from the pretty awful (The Plague, Rawhead Rex) to the bloody awesome (Hellraiser, Candyman); Book of Blood sits comfortably somewhere in the middle. The direction from John Harrison is competent enough, the acting is fine, and the effects are surprisingly good for such a comparatively low-budget film, but being adapted from what is essentially the introduction to a collection of short stories, plus elements taken from one of those stories, it lacks some of the depth and complexity to be found in his best cinematic offerings.

The Books of Blood finally come to screen.

[Ky-D · 5/10 · 14 October 2009]

I read Clive Barker's 'Books of Blood' years ago and instantly fell in love with them; they had a wonderful combination of horror and fantasy, fear and humor. I've been pinning for them to be filmed for years and I finally got my wish to marginally mixed results.

A parapsychology professor and her assistant have been trying to prove their theories about the afterlife and beyond when an opportunity presents itself in the form of a house with a long paranormal history and a university student who seems to be a psychic. They decide to use his abilities to try to tap into the house's energies, but things are not as they seem and the experiment goes in ways no one could have guessed.

First things first, I had a few issues with the film. First was the bookend story segments that surrounds the plot; the movie essentially spoils the best part of the story from the very first seen. The second (and bigger) problem the movie has is the running time; at 100 minutes the movie is too damn long. This is based on a short story (two actually) and there is just not enough driving plot to justify the length. A good 20 minutes needed to be trimmed off, as is the movie is gets pretty slow at parts. The last real problem I had was that the stories this is based on weren't the best stories from the books, they were just the first stories in them; the reason for this seems to be that a series of films based on the books is in the works and they wanted to start from the beginning, 'Pig Blood Blues' (great story) is apparently up next.

Having said all that I still enjoyed the film more than I was frustrated by it. Even though this wasn't the best story from the novels it is still an engaging tale of the macabre and features some occasional excellent horror imagery. The principal actors in the limited cast are all suited nicely to their respective rolls and the character dialogue has a pleasantly moody cadence to it.

The visual and gore effects are (relative to the genre) fairly limited, but what is on display packs quite a visceral punch. One particularly memorable moment involves a poor girl getting her face peeled like an orange. That being said, this is not a gore film, despite what the DVD box would have you believe.

The setting and location of the film (Scotland) fit the story well and provide a Gothic backdrop for the action. The house were most of the film takes place is a appropriately grim without feeling like a clique spook house.

Despite the some slow sections in the middle and the unfortunate story reveal early on, it manages to be a creepy tale about death and beyond.

7/10

"Everybody is a book of blood; wherever we're opened, we're red."

[Bored_Dragon · 6/10 · 1 January 2020]

My great love for Barker began with reading "Books of Blood," a collection of horror stories in 6 volumes. This movie is a pretty good adaptation of the title story. Don't expect it to blow you off your chair, there is no deep or complex story here, no breathtaking effects, and it's not particularly scary. The story is a variation on the haunted house theme, it's a bit confusing, and the pace is too slow for my taste. The acting and directing are decent, the sound effects are really good, but what really elevates this movie from mediocrity is the atmosphere exquisitely evocative of Barker's original, and for that very atmosphere, I recommend it.

6/10

"The dead have highways, running through the wasteland behind our lives, bearing an endless traffic of departed souls. They can be heard in the broken places of our world, through cracks made out of cruelty, violence, and depravity. They have signposts, these highways, and crossroads and intersections. And it is at these intersections where the dead mingle, and sometimes spill over into our world."

Book of CRUD

[paulmoshin · 2/10 · 17 November 2009]

Until Clive Barker himself dons the directors chair we are going to be inundated with cheaply made horror drivel that drags the masters name down into the depths. Lets put this into perspective. Clive himself directed Hellraiser, Nightbreed and Lord of Illusions all of which are classic scare the crap out of you movies whilst being true to the mans vision. On the other hand all the adaptations of Clive's work which have been directed by someone else with the exception of Hellbound Hellraiser 2 and Hellraiser Inferno and too a slightly lesser extent Midnight Meat Train and Candyman have been awful. Book of Blood has to be the worst adaptation I have seen and I have seen Saint Sinner and Plague! Book Of Blood bears no resemblance to the story in the books of blood and is in no way scary at all. The acting is woeful, the characters are one dimensional and I found myself actually wanting them to be killed of. In a nutshell my brother renamed the movie "book of crud" and I have to say I agree whole heartedly. I don't think i'll even bother watching another adaptation of Clive's work unless he gets of his bum and directs it himself. Did you know that Clive was so annoyed with the earlier adaptation of Rawhead Rex that he insisted on directing Hellraiser without any experience in movie making. Lets just hope he will see this and roll up his sleeves and start making his own movies again or else we are in for an abomination in the hellraiser remake!

Doesn't waste an inch of skin.

[michaelRokeefe · 6/10 · 23 September 2009]

A minor let down from the master of horror Clive Barker; BOOK OF BLOOD finds an expert of the paranormal, Mary(Sophie Ward), renting an old Georgian house in Edinburgh, because of the tales of mysterious deaths in an attic room. She is happy to find a topic for her new book, but needs documentation. Mary convinces her friend Reg(Paul Blair)to bring over his recording equipment to catch any haunting paranormal activity. One of Mary's college students named Simon McNeal(Jonas Armstrong)claims to be able to channel messages from the dead. She wants the use of his psychic powers, but it seems Simon might just be full of s#^t.

Gory, intriguing and some real authentic looking special effects. There is some nudity and graphic scenes to facilitate the somewhat gruesome flick. This piece of horror is directed by John Harrison, who also teams with Darin Silverman on the screenplay. Check it out and enjoy.

One of the worst movie I have ever seen

[csaltun · 2/10 · 3 January 2010]

I really do not know what to say. Bad screenplay, bad acting, bad editing etc etc. I cant believe how I could wait until the end. This is just a waste of time. So please stay away if your time is valuable. I did not understand what they are talking about or what this movie really tells. You wait until the end just because you expect some surprise but what happens? Absolutely nothing.. You definitely know what is coming. Acting.. My god I have no idea about acting but I am sure that I would act much better then all of those guys. I don't want to talk about meaningless erotic scenes .. My god.. Everything without and exception is so bad.

Thats all.

Everything you expect from Clive Barker

[Michael-d-duncan · 9/10 · 5 October 2009]

I was so hesitant to watch this movie, all the reviews that I had read were so negative, ranging from pointless to convoluted and boring. But this movie was great, it was suspenseful and interesting. The story was complex and original and very gripping.

Gore was as needed but not excessive. The sex was as it is in most horror movies... pointless and unneeded. Acting was very good, sometimes a bit wooden but it never gets to a point where you can't believe the story.

If you are a fan of Hell-raiser (the first couple of them anyway), see this movie, the same suspense and fear pervades this film. If you liked Candy Man, watch this movie. It is every bit as original and scary as Clive's reputation would demand. Miles ahead of the boorish, predictable trappings of the competition.

Yup. It certainly exists.

[augustwest630-829-589356 · 6/10 · 26 March 2019]

This movie is perfectly average. It's not great, it's not terrible. It has moments that approach brilliance and it has moments that are just down right bad, but in the end it all wraps up pretty much the way you think it will. It starts strong and just plods along until it kind of just runs out of gas. Worth watching if you've got absolutely nothing better to do.

"But sad to say, I'm not moved. I don't feel anything."

[pruepp · 2/10 · 12 March 2012]

As the gentlemen towards the end of the movie says "You tell a good story, friend. But sad to say, I'm not moved. I don't feel anything." This movie does not do justice to Barker's writing in any way.

The downsides:

The acting is wooden - Facial expressions are practically non-existent, especially the leading lady appears to be in a constant daze. Body language does not match the action or the words. The main character overcompensates by acting as if he were part of an amateur ensemble told to really get into it. His pecker totally steals the scene.

The script-writing makes me cringe - Exchanges between the characters mostly consist of lined up one-liners with no natural flow or credibility. Saying things like "I don't want to lose you" and the excessive grieving after the break-up of a relationship that was not really one to start with is just not believable. And why does the lady suddenly go blonde at the end of the movie?

The pace is slow - I'm fine with slow movies, if the pace is required to establish relationships, motives and characters, but the acting and script allow for none of these to develop, so the results is..... BORING!

Special effects - The dragonflies scream CGI. Loudly.

Redeeming qualities:

Special effects - The writing on the young man's skin looks really nice when it first appears.

The pecker shot - Not really my thing, but it firmly establishes that this is not a Hollywood movie.

The sex scenes - Well..... they're good. They're the only time the actors actually show some emotion, albeit of the physical kind.

Conclusion: The sex scenes were the best thing about this movie - How bad must a horror flick be to elicit such a statement?

Turgid, Dull, and Incoherent Slog

[moonmonday · 1/10 · 10 July 2016]

I honestly don't know why Clive Barker didn't sue to get his name removed from this terrible disaster of a film, since by all reports it's nothing like his book. It's not because of bad acting; the actors are all at least decent in their parts. It's just that they have absolutely nothing to work with.

The premise of the film is stated and restated, over and over again, as if it's a particularly difficult concept to grasp. What really is intolerable is the fact that it's repeated no less than three times within the last five minutes of the film. I'm fairly sure if we've lasted that long, it can either be assumed that we get it more than adequately, or it's far too late to try and drive it home.

The story is so incoherent and ridiculous that things seem to just happen for the sake of having something to jazz up a few minutes, but they're so random and pointless that they utterly fail. Even nudity doesn't manage to spice this up. The multiple sex scenes -- which add absolutely nothing whatsoever -- are quite a chore and quite a yawn. It's been quite some time that I've seen a film nudity couldn't help, but this one manages ably.

Nothing about the story really makes sense. The characters are poorly-defined and unsympathetic, and things spring up randomly to try and backbuild what should have been established long before it's touched upon. The whole thing reads like a peek into a situation that is neither interesting nor compelling, and it ends up a massive waste of time. The framing story is tied in and becomes even more bizarre and less suited to the rest of the film, but by the time this is made clear, it's too late. You've already watched the rest of this inane slog, you might as well see it through. Unfortunately, it's nothing new or interesting, and it's devoid of any of the (strangely) erotic elements that Barker typically tries to work into his writing. Instead, it's all dull as a beige room.

The music is forgettable most of the time. Otherwise it ends up sounding out of place and distracting, which is easy to do since the scene you're watching won't be interesting enough to keep your attention. Unfortunately, whoever did the sound production made it another one of those films where you struggle to listen to the dialogue, but the effects and screams are ridiculously loud.

The cinematography can be summed up in one word: grey. Everything is grey. Everyone is grey. Every event is grey, every effect is grey. It doesn't help to make an already incredibly boring affair any more interesting.

Poor pacing, incoherent and dull script, and bad sound can't be helped by good actors, especially when they're limited by what they have to work with in the script. Don't waste your time on this one. It has some interesting concepts, which I can assume are the only things that were really taken from the source material, but it does nothing interesting with them. This might have worked decently as a short film, but it has no business pushing two hours of length with its story that nobody was waiting to hear.

Thanks, Prime.

[staver · 7/10 · 30 August 2020]

I like Clive Barker. I wasn't a huge fan of Hellraiser, but I've read a lot of his books and I think he's a genius. That said, I liked this movie. It was gruesome, disturbing, unconventional, and will haunt me for a while. Here comes the spoiler. ******* My only complaint is that some idiot at Prime decided to give away the ending by putting a still of Mary holding Simon's skin on the info page. Way to give it away.