Alicia I love this movie so much

Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

mppie Let me get one this straight...I am not a fan of horror movies. I LOVE thrillers. Not horror. The only reason I watched this movie is because I am a fan of Jonas Armstrong. After watching this, all in all, it was NOT that bad. Of course, it could of been much better. First things first. The story. I know this is based off of a short story, but it seems like the writers wanted to make sure they didn't change anything. Because it was taken from a short story, there was plenty of room to develop a storyline around the paranormal activity. On that note, the character development was absolutely dreadful. Simon's was...OK...but everyone else's was HORRIBLE! Am I the only one who thought everyone in this movie came off as really perverted? Because, they did to me. Since we, as an audience, don't identify with the characters on any personal level, this movie lacks the emotional story that it could have had. Next, the love story. I don't even know if you could call in a "love story." The relationship between Simon and Mary is never fully explained and, like I said before: Since we, as an audience do not identify with the characters there is no emotional content there. Their relationship was so random! Couldn't they have just made her his employer and given him a younger girl? Or better yet, have no love story at all! Which brings me to the love scenes...please keep in mind that this is not a movie for youngsters. And since there was no emotional connection to the love story, those scenes were very awkward and came off as very perverted. Lastly, the SCARES. This, in my opinion, is the worst part of this movie. Every single "wanna-be-scare" in this movie is exactly the same. In you are writing a horror or thriller movie that is very repetitive in terms of suspense, you have the same thing happen, but under different circumstances and situations. Different things have to happen in order to keep the audience interested. Most movies like this, the scares star small and then get big or they start big, get small and get HUGE at the end. This movie...they start big and they stay big. There is nothing special about it. Now, you're probably wondering why I'm giving this a 7/10 after all of this criticism, but like I said earlier the movie was not THAT bad! Minus the emotional content and good scares. The acting was OK. I'll be honest, I think Jonas Armstrong saved this movie. All I'm saying is that is was an OK movie, but it could have been a lot better.

Vomitron_G 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.

Loveofthedark I must really be missing something after reading some of the other reviews. I thought this was a complete was of what should of been an enjoyable movie experience.To sum it up there is a professor who studies the paranormal and just happens to get a new student in class that happens to be a clairvoyant, how convenient, that she can use in here new research project. From that point on it just gets predictable. Professor and student start sexual relationship, student turns out to be a fake who sets up paranormal activity in house being researched, when project is set to be shut down student shows back up and swears he didn't fake all activities and just to prove it runs upstairs where ghosts just happen to appear at the right time to try to tie up the lose ends of this horrible story. A few obvious twists here, add some there and you end up with a very bad film. Not recommended for the avid Barker fan, very disappointing.

gavin6942 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.