Book of Blood“Midnight Meat Train” was a great adaptation of the story by the master of horror Clive Barker. Unfortunately, due to “higher powers” and some bad luck the film flopped. Sometimes, a bad thing can spawn a good one – like “Book of Blood”. Clive Barker’s “Books of Blood” consist of numerous stories collected into 6 volumes.
The film “Book of Blood” is adapted from the intro story “The Book of Blood” and an epilogue story “On Jerusalem Street”. Let it be noted that “Book of Blood” is an independent feature, filmed in the UK. At the moment of writing, it is still awaiting the official release. Actually, the question is whether it will have a theatrical release at all. As the director John Harrison stated, right now it is not the greatest time for small, independent horror films, due to the financial crisis and all. Of course, if you are impatient, just like me, you can get the film through some… unofficial means. I am usually against seeing a film before it hits theaters, and definitely against seeing it from a pirated copy instead of watching it on the big screen. DVD rips can never be a substitute for the experience you get for watching it properly, in the theater. But like I said, I just couldn’t wait any more and gave in to temptation.
“Book of Blood” deals with a paranormal researcher, Mary Florescu, investigating a supposedly haunted house. She is aided by a seemingly clairvoyant student Simon McNeill. And that’s all I’m gonna tell you.
“Book of Blood” is nothing like “MMT”. “MMT” was directed by Ryuhei Kitamura who is well known for his stylish and somewhat unusual direction. “MMT” looks all cool and fancy, in short – trademark Kitamura. John Harrison, on the other hand, took a completely different, almost minimalistic approach. “Book of Blood” visually looks almost cheap. Like it came from the late 80’s or early 90’s, kinda like the first “Hellraiser” film. But, do not think of this as bad. “Book of Blood” is a piece where Kitamura’s approach would’ve been a failure. Harrison, willingly or not, created a certain kind of scary atmosphere with this “cheapness”. He’s also very scarce on the CGI. Again, in my opinion a good decision on his behalf. Modern filming techniques just wouldn’t fit the setting and mood of “The Books of Blood”.
To be honest, right up until the last 15-20 minutes, “Book of Blood” looked just like another film. Above average, but nothing special. And right there, as the story unfolded, I thought: “Wow! Awesome!” I planned on giving it a rating of 7 or 8 at most, and right there, in a moment, it went up to 9 or 10. It’s not the ending was an unexpected one (although I didn’t figure it all out earlier but had some hunches), but more the realization how fucking crazy it was. And I don’t mean the gore, blood and stuff, just the idea of it. It’s there where you understand why it is called “Book of Blood”. Like, holy fuck! The music throughout is in the background, never intrusive, creating an even more eerie feel.
Of course, the reception among people who had seen it is generally negative. But I think only the superficial viewer can experience it as such. Sure, “Book of Blood” does not bombard you with special effects, it didn’t have a big budget, has no big-name “actors” (a good thing), and well… Clive Barker’s work doesn’t actually appeal to the average viewer and general audiences (read: teens with no attention span).
I loved it. I really did. It’s one of the best horrors I’ve seen this year (in 2009). Let’s just hope all goes well for “Book of Blood” so we can wait for the next adaptation – “Dread”.
Highly recommended.
Rating: 9/10
- review by Ventilation Shaft
Recommendations:
