Book of Blood (2009)

Book of Blood: Directed by John Harrison. With Jonas Armstrong, Sophie Ward, Clive Russell, Paul Blair. A paranormal expert discovers a house that is at the intersection of so-called “highways” transporting souls in the afterlife.

“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.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThis is a work of Clive Barkeru0026#39;s, originally two of his short stories combined together. The Barker themes are evident: like u0026quot;Hellraiseru0026quot;, 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 u0026quot;Nightbreedu0026quot; and u0026quot;Hellraiseru0026quot; shows up to continue his ubiquitous run in Barker films.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eJohn Harrison directs this film beautifully. Between him and the cinematographer, they make a gorgeous film with a perfect setting and mood. Itu0026#39;s delightfully haunting, and the gore effects are enjoyable (there is a face-ripping scene that stands out as one of the filmu0026#39;s highlights). While I enjoy Harrisonu0026#39;s u0026quot;Tales From the Darksideu0026quot; better, I think this better showcases his artistic abilities.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThe problem with u0026quot;Book of Bloodu0026quot; 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 Barkeru0026#39;s u0026quot;Dreadu0026quot; and u0026quot;Midnight Meat Trainu0026quot;. This is a fine suggestion… but too late now, giving us three average films rather than one superior film.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eHorror Society rightly concludes that u0026quot;this movie wasnu0026#39;t a disappointmentu0026quot;, 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 youu0026#39;re looking for features to plump this film up, youu0026#39;re screwed. Worth seeing? Maybe. A must-see? Definitely not.”