The Cinema Snob
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.


Pierre Kirby Approved.
 
HomeLatest imagesSearchRegisterLog in

 

 Review: Clive Barker's Book of Blood

Go down 
AuthorMessage
UnknownKadath

UnknownKadath


Posts : 392
Join date : 2011-02-16
Age : 34
Location : I live in my namesake, of course!.. Okay, in real life - Japan.

Review: Clive Barker's Book of Blood Empty
PostSubject: Review: Clive Barker's Book of Blood   Review: Clive Barker's Book of Blood EmptyThu Mar 03, 2011 7:36 pm

Review: Clive Barker's Book of Blood Book_o10
Book of Blood
A Review by Kadath J.B.
Directed by John Harrison
Screenplay by John Harrison and Darin Silverman
Adapted from the short stories "Book of Blood" and "On Jerusalem Street" by Clive Barker
Starring Jonas Armstrong, Sophie Ward, and Paul Blair
Year of Release: 2009
Running Length: 100 min.
Viewed on standard DVD
MPAA: R (bloody violence, sexuality/nudity and language)
Score: Review: Clive Barker's Book of Blood Skullsymbol100Review: Clive Barker's Book of Blood Skullsymbol100Review: Clive Barker's Book of Blood Skullsymbolhalf


Quote :
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 sign posts, these highways, and crossroads and intersections. And it is at these intersections where the dead mingle, and sometimes spill over into our world. Should you find yourself in one of these intersections - you must stop and you must listen; for the dead will not be silenced.


I love Clive Barker. Along with authors such as H.P. Lovecraft and Stephen King, I learned of him from my parents and their love of horror. My first exposure to Barker was indeed The Books of Blood, an absolutely fantastic series. If you are a fan of Barker and have not read them, then you are missing out big time. It was rather curious to me when I heard about this film, "Book of Blood" namely because the sections that it is based on were merely the framing device for the short stories and novellas contained within the 6 part anthology. It's hard to truly consider them complete short stories but rather a prologue and a post script, respectively. Regardless - I was interested to see what they might do with the premise, because I do indeed love the set up and ending to the Books of blood. It is a very clever idea, which we will naturally touch upon in this review.


"Book of Blood" centers around a rather melancholic man named Simon McNeal. We are introduced to him in a diner, where he sits shaking in pain - his body covered with thick coating and bandages, yet still blood leaks through and drips openly from his body. As he is leaving the diner, a man named Wyburd appears and offers him a ride home and some pain killers. Simon apparently forgot never to trust strangers, and does not realize that Wyburd is a head-hunter and that Simon is his quarry. His mysterious contractor demanded that Wyburd skin Simon and bring the skin to them. As Simon finds himself strapped to a table in a dark shack, Wyburd unravels the bandages covering Simon's body and sees that Simon is covered with thousands upon thousands of scars, some literally carving themselves with seemingly no actual physical manipulation. Wyburd soon realizes that the carvings are in fact words, and demands Simon explain the carvings or he will not swiftly kill Simon before skinning him, making it a much more painful and torturous death.


Simon begins his story, and the film focuses primarily on Simon, a parapsychologist named Mary, and a house that is supposed to be an "Intersection" where the dead collide with our world. (Read the quote above if you haven't already.) The house has been the site of two brutal murders; the strangulation of the homes previous owner while attempting to divinate with the spirits, and later the sexual assault and flaying of a teenage girl who apparently had satanic orgies in the home. In both cases, the words "DO NOT MOCK US." were left behind on the walls in the room in which the people were killed.


Mary believes that the deaths are the work of violent and angry spirits, and meets Simon when giving a lecture on her theory regarding these "intersections." Simon expresses interest in her theories, claiming to have seen and heard spirits after witnessing a traumatic event at a young age. Simon later leads her to believe that he is a psychic, and Mary brings him to the house to aid her and her partner, Reg, whilst investigating the home.


Anyone who has read the original stories if you will knows more or less where this all goes, and will know that Simon was something of a free-loader in the story. He still acts as such in the film, however the screenwriters do a decent job of making him slightly more sympathetic. Despite exaggerating - he actually does have genuine psychic talents in the film, and actor Jonas Armstrong does a great job making Simon appear at times to be a genuinely troubled and sympathetic character. Jonas' performance isn't ground breaking, but his melancholic look and ability to hide subtle hints to his kinder elements beneath the decadent ones works fairly well at times; when the film isn't being completely awkward about it.


Awkwardness is something that does plague the film a bit. While it does improve later on, the initial attempts to create a romance between Simon and Mary are nonsensical and honestly just plain weird. There's a sequence where Simon actually grabs her arm and uses it to presumably masturbate himself, and this is only 12 hours after meeting her and having ONE date - and how does she respond to it? She actually sleeps with him. Interesting strategy, I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure that if you tried that with a real woman she'd go Lorena Bobbit on your ass. As said before though, this aspect does improve and there are some elements that do make their relationship believable, despite the really awkward and weird beginning.


The chief failing of the film however is almost the entirety of the films second act. This is where the screenwriters needed to get creative with adding to the story and building a bridge to the conclusion. While I respect the filmmakers for not turning it into a cheesy gore fest, and the film does have good cinematography and direction that is reminiscent of the work done in Hellraiser. I also respect the fact that they try to go for a more suspenseful mood, the problem is - so much of it is bland and generic. The middle of the film is slowly paced and awkwardly strung out. When something actually happens, it's satisfying - but they pad it out with scenes that you've seen in a million other haunted house films. There's a 10 minute sequence of Reg exploring mysterious noises in the houses basement, with a tense atmosphere that ultimately results in a sequence where you could yell "CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!" (even though there isn't a cat there, you know what kind of scene I am talking about.) and it all feels like a waste of time. For every interesting moment that happens in this period, there is a bland and generic one.


It does pick up in the third act though, which is easily the best part of the film. When the spirits finally say "Enough is Enough," things get interesting. While the ghosts themselves are a bit generic in form, there is some genuinely creepy and disturbing imagery and the makeup effects used on Simon when the book is being written are fantastic. Yet what makes the third act stand out is the place where the writers actually got creative with the padding. There is actually very large reprecussions for what Simon does in the film, not just regarding the ghosts - but regarding Mary as well. The emotional disconnect leads to a surprisingly emotional and creepy response from Mary regarding the book. It also fills in a few of the holes that appeared between "Book of Blood" and "On Jerusalem Street" in the original stories. The way the film handles the ending is great as well, though it benefits from the fact that it sticks to Barker's original writings.


I really want to give "Book of Blood" a stronger recommendation, because there are many great scenes and it has many of Barker's clever ideas that are executed well on screen. It's just a shame that after the great opening scenes and in-between the films fantastic third act, the majority of the film is fairly mediocre and unimpressive. It's a decent film and worth maybe renting, but you'll wish that the writers had been more creative when not tapping into the source material. It does stand above some of the god-awful Barker book-to-film adaptations out there, but it certainly is no Hellraiser.

Back to top Go down
 
Review: Clive Barker's Book of Blood
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» The Comic Book Thread
» Novel/Comic book/Writer maker thread
» I've visited Kevin Smith's comic book shop
» What's Your Blood-Type?
» Official movie suggestion thread

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
The Cinema Snob :: Other Stuff :: Theater of Blood-
Jump to: