Any hardcore Clive Barker fan has likely heard or even read the Books of Blood; a 6 volume anthology series that undeniably forged his distinct style and knack for creative horror. Multiple stories from the books have been made into movies (Sadly not many of the adaptations were much good) such as Rawhead Rex, The Midnight Meat Train, The Forbidden (Filmed as 'Candyman,' one of the OK ones.), and The Last Illusion (Filmed as Lord of Illusions by Barker himself) and now we have Book of Blood; however, it is not actually based on any of the actual stories told within the 6 volumes - but rather based on the prologue which served as a framing device for the stories as well as the post-script in Volume 6 entitled 'On Jerusalem Street.'
Book of Blood is more or less a ghost story. Those who are familiar with the books will know what happens, however due to the thin nature of the epilogue/prologue the film works more on the characters and naturally expands and pads the plot out with a bit more substance. The film follows a man named Simon McNeal, and begins with Simon in a diner attempting to live normally despite being scarred and in unbearable and constant agony. A man named Wyburd follows him out of the diner and offers Simon a ride to wherever he desires, but Simon does not realize that he is Wyburd's quarry. Simon wakes up strapped to a gurney as Wyburd prepares his tools and is frank with Simon - he has been ordered to skin Simon and hand the skin over to a mysterious collector. However, when Wyburd sees Simon's body, he notices the fact that the thousands upon thousands of scars covering it are actually words - a literal 'Book of Blood.' He threatens to torture Simon if he does not tell his story, and Simon gives in and tells the story of how he became the book of blood.
Most of the movie takes place in a haunted house and follows Simon and his collegiate teacher, Mary, who has brought Simon there believing that he is a clairvoyant who can communicate with the violent spirits in the home that killed two people (One of the killings - the murder/implied rape of a young teenage girl - is shown in the only truly brutal and grisly scene in the film quite early on. A bit unpleasant, really.) in the past, in both instances they left behind the words "DO NOT MOCK US." Appropriately, the film is more or less a ghost story with some psychological elements.
The problem with this is it seems that the writers could only come up with a few ideas for this element. While there are some clever twists that weren't mentioned in Barker's original writings; almost every bit of added plot is contrived and cliche. There are far too many stereotypical "BOO!" scenes that just feel out of place. To the filmmakers credit - the atmosphere is executed well, and a few of the scenes are well done enough to be genuinely disturbing - most notably a scene in which the spirits beat Mary and force her to see a traumatic experience from her childhood that she would have rather forgotten. The writers also don't seem to have much experience with genuine relationships - either that, or they have had some very.. erm, strange relationships.
In order to expand Simon McNeal's character for the film, they make him a bit more sympathetic (For one thing - even though he's still hokey, he does have some genuine psychic powers and he doesn't piss off the ghosts as quickly as he does and he's not as much of an asshole to Mary) and they try to do this by establishing a romance between Simon and Mary. However, it just doesn't work. Their first sexual experience is weirdly uncomfortable; as I've never met a woman who would sleep with me after I force their hands down my pants while discussing warm milk. There's another less awkward but still bizarre sequence where they think it is best to have a sex scene right after Simon is beaten and mauled by the ghosts with their first warning carved into his flesh. These scenes simply don't work.
It would be unfair to call the film bad, it certainly does have its moments and while the writers may not succeed in expanding Barker's writings, they successfully capture the spirit of Barker when they are sticking to his original stories. The opening scenes are great and the final act definitely picks up, and there is a genuinely creative twist that DOES add to the original Barker writings. It's worth checking out if you are a Barker fan or if you're thirsty for a decent Ghost Story; but don't expect to be wowed. It simply could've used a bit more creativity in the additions made, but considering the films budget (Around $100,000) it looks fantastic and the actors all do above-average performances. Even if the writing sometimes detracts from this, the actor playing Simon plays his part well enough and when they aren't using those awkward sex sequences - he does succeed in bringing a sympathetic character to the screen.
6.8/10
Book of Blood is more or less a ghost story. Those who are familiar with the books will know what happens, however due to the thin nature of the epilogue/prologue the film works more on the characters and naturally expands and pads the plot out with a bit more substance. The film follows a man named Simon McNeal, and begins with Simon in a diner attempting to live normally despite being scarred and in unbearable and constant agony. A man named Wyburd follows him out of the diner and offers Simon a ride to wherever he desires, but Simon does not realize that he is Wyburd's quarry. Simon wakes up strapped to a gurney as Wyburd prepares his tools and is frank with Simon - he has been ordered to skin Simon and hand the skin over to a mysterious collector. However, when Wyburd sees Simon's body, he notices the fact that the thousands upon thousands of scars covering it are actually words - a literal 'Book of Blood.' He threatens to torture Simon if he does not tell his story, and Simon gives in and tells the story of how he became the book of blood.
Most of the movie takes place in a haunted house and follows Simon and his collegiate teacher, Mary, who has brought Simon there believing that he is a clairvoyant who can communicate with the violent spirits in the home that killed two people (One of the killings - the murder/implied rape of a young teenage girl - is shown in the only truly brutal and grisly scene in the film quite early on. A bit unpleasant, really.) in the past, in both instances they left behind the words "DO NOT MOCK US." Appropriately, the film is more or less a ghost story with some psychological elements.
The problem with this is it seems that the writers could only come up with a few ideas for this element. While there are some clever twists that weren't mentioned in Barker's original writings; almost every bit of added plot is contrived and cliche. There are far too many stereotypical "BOO!" scenes that just feel out of place. To the filmmakers credit - the atmosphere is executed well, and a few of the scenes are well done enough to be genuinely disturbing - most notably a scene in which the spirits beat Mary and force her to see a traumatic experience from her childhood that she would have rather forgotten. The writers also don't seem to have much experience with genuine relationships - either that, or they have had some very.. erm, strange relationships.
In order to expand Simon McNeal's character for the film, they make him a bit more sympathetic (For one thing - even though he's still hokey, he does have some genuine psychic powers and he doesn't piss off the ghosts as quickly as he does and he's not as much of an asshole to Mary) and they try to do this by establishing a romance between Simon and Mary. However, it just doesn't work. Their first sexual experience is weirdly uncomfortable; as I've never met a woman who would sleep with me after I force their hands down my pants while discussing warm milk. There's another less awkward but still bizarre sequence where they think it is best to have a sex scene right after Simon is beaten and mauled by the ghosts with their first warning carved into his flesh. These scenes simply don't work.
It would be unfair to call the film bad, it certainly does have its moments and while the writers may not succeed in expanding Barker's writings, they successfully capture the spirit of Barker when they are sticking to his original stories. The opening scenes are great and the final act definitely picks up, and there is a genuinely creative twist that DOES add to the original Barker writings. It's worth checking out if you are a Barker fan or if you're thirsty for a decent Ghost Story; but don't expect to be wowed. It simply could've used a bit more creativity in the additions made, but considering the films budget (Around $100,000) it looks fantastic and the actors all do above-average performances. Even if the writing sometimes detracts from this, the actor playing Simon plays his part well enough and when they aren't using those awkward sex sequences - he does succeed in bringing a sympathetic character to the screen.
6.8/10
