Clive Barker is the second most popular author after Stephen King. However, it is difficult to film Clive, it is all about his exquisite and very surreal images. The embodiment requires not only costs, but also the strongest detail. As you can see, it requires costs. The circle is closing. But, on big holidays, there are still attempts to remove Barker well. The most recent, lucky subway was the Midnight Meat Train, with Bradley Cooper. All attempts to convey the essence of the work were not crowned with success, on the principle - fans appreciated, all the others passed by. Therefore, Clive’s film adaptations remain fertile ground for the seeds of the suffering of independent directors.
Almanac of instructive stories about people and their hobbies. Naturally united by one storyline.
The beginning takes a tandem of two mercenaries who are looking for mystical scripture, and as you understand the research leads them straight into irrational distances.
Double two is a funny horror story about the girl and her disorders. This is a solid five, because there are all the attributes familiar to Barker in the form of an atypical plot twist, a hellish annealing on the theme of a vision of home comfort. A colorful idea and a story with an unexpected ending. And as usual with the typical black British humor. Next, a familiar story about a medium-boy and a woman in years, a new interpretation of the 2009 film. This time it’s smaller and more interesting. A vivid example for the creators of the film vol.09, how it was necessary to reduce and not inflate the material.
Most came the story about a girl with mental disorders body-horror as it is, and the adventures of accomplices were successful, with humor. Cheap and angry, and on the other hand, no streaming service. So if you want to see the spectacle in the spirit of "Masters of Horror" & #39, then safely step on the paths of blood, you will be pleasantly surprised. There is no special scope, but there is a lot of fun, from the usual flow of blood to the gloomy cold of a fresh grave.
What the dead cannot say, they will write in a blood book.
At first, unrelated stories, each of which in a good way destabilizes mental status in terms of instilling fear and anxiety, come to a common denominator in the finale. How many such films have been – can not count, and in a variety of genres. But the Book of Blood is quite dynamic, it can not be called boring. The plot does not sag, the actors’ play is good, and they look great in their roles, perfectly harmonizing with the plot.
Clive Barker is a writer with a capital letter, but definitely for a select circle. His stories are replete with violence in its most severe manifestation (here his main competitor Stephen King nervously smokes in the sidelines), unholy sex, but are so carried away in the pages of “books of blood” that you involuntarily catch yourself asking: “Why am I reading this?”, and immediately comes the answer: “Because it is interesting and stylishly written!”. The film adheres to the style of the novels of the author, which can only please fans and scare the unprepared viewer, unfamiliar with the work of the writer.
Someone may think that in some moments with the degree of violence in the film there was a “brute force”. I am so excited to disappoint you, dear filmmakers! What is shown in the film are “flowers” compared to what is happening on the pages of the author’s works. And of course, this is a movie for a wide range of viewers, within the target audience, of course. The film is logical in its bloody ritual, unlike most passing horrors rated "Book of Blood." Therefore, personally, I am sincerely bewildered by the low rating (compared to the same “Sunshine” in terms of screen violence).
I do not consider myself a fan of Clive Barker, but I read many of his novels, primarily they kept my interest due to the literary professionalism of the author, and it was damn nice to see the stylistics of his works on the screen (albeit a little softened).
As a result, I can say that the film clearly deserves more, first of all for its accuracy and smoothness in attacking the psyche of the viewer, acting talent, the interconnected plot of three different stories that occurred in different time periods.
When you see the name Clive Barker among the co-authors of the script, you get the feeling that this person you have known for a long time and consonant with this name with Bram Stoker or Charles Dickens. Tell me, did I go crazy to go for the classics? Perhaps so, but just the name "Clive Barker" refers to something that is either Gothic, or classical and from it blows of antiquity. Perhaps this is due to the fact that Barker has long written his horrific stories, sometimes makes films based on them and is associated with one of the most cruel horror films - "The Risen from Hell."
He didn’t write the Books of Blood, he wrote the script. Although not even so, screenwriters Adam Simon and Brannon Braga (aka film director) adapted several Barker stories for the screen. One of them refers to the first volume of the “Books of Blood” and is so called – this is the story of a woman – a parapsychologist and a man named Simon McNeil, who assures the whole public that he is able to talk to the other world. Another story is an urban legend about a married couple and their guest who discovered something in the dungeons of a large house, plus one story is laid throughout the film and it tells about two men looking for some artifact.
Immediately it is worth saying that Barker’s stories were filmed earlier and the viewer could see the movie “Midnight Express” with Vinnie Jones and Bradley Cooper in the lead roles. Plus, in the early 90s, the film “Candyman” was released, where the main role was played by Tony Todd. When I was a child, I saw a movie called Scarecrow (based on the story The Naked Brain). Naturally, at that time I did not know that this movie was made by Barker, but I remembered it for a long time, because the Scarecrow was really scary to the point of madness (although at 7-8 years, many things seem incredibly scary, you agree?!).
“Books of Blood” 2020 is a mini-almanac of horror, which has both individual stories and a connecting link. In this plot design, there is a common feature with the film "Wallet or Life", where even minor episodes have a connection with the general plot and, for example, the one who was shown at the very beginning, in the end also flashes on the screen, but from a different angle.
I will not say that “Books of Blood” is the best version of such an almanac of horror, but the film looks quite cute representative of its genre with unusual stories, and this, in my opinion, is the main advantage of the film, since the novels shown in it are atypical and unusual (this influenced the assessment of the film). A great merit in this belongs of course to Clive Barker as the author of the stories on which the film is made. But the director did not lose sight of the work of the writer.
Each of the chapters of the film could well result in a separate full-length project, but all this could lead to the fact that each of them would be unremarkable and not out of the mass of modern horror stories. It is clear that to tell about everything that Barker described on paper, for the allotted time will not work and each of the novels lost a good part of the plot. But at the same time, they turned out to be rapidly developing, which is why the film retains attention throughout its timekeeping.
Unlike the same “Midnight Express”, “Books of Blood” turned out to be less cruel and just bloody, which is not bad in principle, because the film with Jones and Cooper at times caused disgust.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
It goes right to the bone, to be honest. It really feels like the Barker atmosphere, which can not but please! Plus, very good actors here participate, play great, and filmed very well, and the effects are level.
First of all, the film was pleased that this is a real horror movie! Not a standard scarecrow with screamers, but a full picture of the unfolding hopeless horror, from which the cheekbones shrink and palms sweat - I have not watched such films for a hundred years! This is the first real horror after many years of a series of dull screamers and smothering silhouettes.
Yes, probably this genre is outdated - it is too difficult to write a competent script and create suspense - much easier just once every 30 minutes to shove here and there some face jumping out of the darkness. Under the latter scheme, entire studios are sharpened, which make films for a million and collect at the box office 30 million – simple and profitable, why try? A'Books of Blood' really pleased, it's really a tribute to Barker's work - strange, viscous, primal horror cool stories. I would always have filmed like this ' based on ' the original.
This is what you need if you want to tickle your nerves!
Like any other genre of cinema, horror is primarily associated with the audience with bright, famous names that put entire franchises on their feet. Even the audience far removed from horror is more likely to know who Wes Craven is, the author of such memorable works as ' Nightmare on Elm Street' and ' Scream'. Almost in no way inferior to the master of sinister dreams and ironic black humor, John Carpenter, whom we all thank for the first and best & #39; Halloween' as well as ' Something' and many other horror games that have earned themselves a place in the list of the best horror movies of all time. And such a remarkable company will not be superfluous to include Clive Barker, whose contribution to horrors and mysticism simply cannot be minimized. Being a man of art from birth, Barker knew exactly what he had to connect his fate with and as soon as he managed to jump out of his parent’s nest, he immediately began to realize his potential. Of course, without serious connections and acquaintances, it was difficult for him, and nevertheless Barker managed to gather around him a company of like-minded people, together with whom he put a lot of terrible plays for the amateur theater, from familiarization with which a cold ran down the back. In addition, Barker seriously engaged in writing books and achieved much more success in this field than in the theater environment. And his series of sinister short stories, titled ' Books of Blood' and did become a global genre breakthrough, which earned many awards and the approval of Stephen King himself. In the future, Barker repeatedly attracted the attention of the public with his novels, and even put on his feet such successful series of films as ' The Rebel from Hell' and ' Candyman' however, most fans of the author will remember Barker thanks to ' Books of Blood'.
Since Clive Barker’s series of short stories is divided into many parts and each of them tells its own unique story, the filmmakers saw this as a wonderful opportunity for repeated adaptation. And already the first films based on ' Books of Blood' saw the light in the 80s of the last century, that is, when Clive Barker had the greatest creative success and was able to equal the level of popularity with Wes Craven and John Carpenter. Soon, other adaptations of the famous series appeared on the screens, but the most famous variation on the theme ' Books of Blood' appeared in 2008 thanks to director John Harrison. Of course, the film did not gain much box office success, and nevertheless it became a great reminder of what Barker once wrote, and even was able to add an additional legion to the army of fans of the writer. and it was only a matter of time before another version of the book of blood appeared, whose potential was still great. For a promising idea after a long break, the producers of the Hulu web service decided to take up the first thing, who planned to release a whole series on the project of Barker. But in the end, everything turned out in such a way that ' Books of Blood' came out in the format of a full-length film in the style of Anthology. and it turned out to be not the worst solution, but also not the best possible.
Prologue
In the introduction to the film, viewers are introduced to a criminal named Bennett, who learned about the existence of a mysterious antique book, for which you can get good money, or achieve it through something very unusual, beyond our ideas about reality. And to achieve his, the bandit is ready to go to the very end, not abhorring even murder.
Story One: Jenna
Suffering from a critical mental disorder and fear of sudden sounds, a girl named Jenna can not find peace in the house of her parents. The heroine does not want to take endless drugs, and although she understands that without them she will feel bad, but she can no longer continue her life in a given way. Deciding to leave the house and settle in a rented room with an elderly couple, Jenna hoped to famously change her life, but the worst nightmare of her life is yet to come.
Story Two: Miles
In Mary’s life, an irreparable tragedy occurred, as a result of which her son prematurely passed away to the other world. What a woman does to find evidence of life after death, and yet it is only illusion and fairy tales, rather than truth. But then Mary learns about Simon, who claims to keep a direct connection with the spirit world and decides to communicate with him. It is likely that this is another hoax, and yet Mary still decides on an adventure.
Story Three: Bennett
The final part of the film again brings us back to the criminal Bennett, who is paired with his friend trying at all costs to find a mysterious book. Caught in an ominous, inhospitable area, where the walls of the houses themselves hint at the approach of something bad, Bennett did not expect to face a lively nightmare that makes its way literally to the bones. And very soon all the characters of each of the stories will merge into one common plot, which will get its logical conclusion.
Observing the development of the storylines of each of the parts of the film, it becomes clear that as a series ' Books of Blood' would have performed much better. The thing is that the original idea of the project assumed a longer development of events with careful study of certain semantic moments. When the script began to be reduced to diligent norms for a full-length film, the dialogue and scenes had to be drastically reduced, and this automatically led to the fact that in each story there were many so-called white spots, roads leading to nowhere. Of course, the creators tried to bring everything together in the finale of the picture, to atone for certain sins and to put everything in common, but it turned out to be far from perfect. Of course, the efforts of the director and his creative team are visible, they were able to make a very good, digestible spectacle out of the collapsing project, and nevertheless in this particular case it would be worth spending a little more time reworking the script basis, that the anthology presented to us has turned into a truly integral, meaningful spectacle, revealing all the characters and leading the narrative to a really solid point, not dubious conclusions.
In the end, I want to say that ' Books of Blood' turned out to be a very entertaining project, which may not be as scary as entertaining. The filmmakers decided not to follow Barker’s texts exactly, creating a free variation on the theme of the original novels. And their ideas had their own reason, which still should be implemented in the series. Thus, the presented film is a kind of ode to the potential, which is very tangible, but not finalized. See ' Books of blood' one way or another worth it, but expectations should be moderated.
6 out of 10
It was a wonderful time, the 90s in the post-Soviet space. True, only from the position of a sudden opened creativity, rushing at us from all cracks. New colors, new themes, new feelings and sensations. And among the surging, Clive Barker stood out very, very clearly with his unusual works, covered with underdigested blood and pale green mucus. In contrast to many, many who dumped on the unprepared viewer their unpleasant gray inner world from the sprawling creative peritoneum, the author managed to show his unusual, intriguing vision. It was an interesting time... Interesting. . .
But it just passed. This is clearly shown by the newly released Books of Blood. Interesting plot twists, good acting and not devoid of the signature Barker philosophy narrative stumbles upon a changed viewer over the years. Hitchkov moments, with the creaking of the ajar door, designed to cause tension, feel prolonged, the signature Barker Bodihor is implemented through a weak for 2020 graphics and clearly do not squeeze. This film should have gone to zero, and now it has nothing to surprise us. But I would still rank this film as a good one, 7 out of 10, or even 8 if you love Barker's work. Here you can feel his hand, his handwriting, and especially critical flaws are not noticeable, and the story itself is accelerated by the end and looks merged, despite the seam that appears here and there, giving out, despite the layer of tonal cream, in it Cadaurus, who escaped from the closed anatomy 20 years ago.
Clive Barker's horrors are recognizable and unique. One of the most influential horror writers made a name for himself in the 1980s and 1990s, and his stories on paper and on screens mixed a bodily vile nightmare with fatalism: no matter how decent or lucky you are, you will still be destroyed, such is fate. Similar ideas can be traced in the now iconic “Hell Risen”, “Candyman”, and even in the less vivid “King of Evil” and “Midnight Express”. It is clear that one of his works is the series “Books of Blood”, which is a collection of stories. What a literary work, that the film is more to the spirit of the free 80s: squealing and bloodthirsty, than to the aesthetic evil of the original “Rebel from Hell”. With the obvious influence of modern anthology series, the creators tried to find the type of Gothic they needed, and rather a curious horror from three segments came out: entertaining, but still disposable and, what a sin to hide, sometimes boring.
Hulu's film is divided into three chapters that more or less tend to one point of storytelling. The first story tells the story of Jenna, a twenty-year-old girl who decides to leave the house and get off antidepressants. Along the way, she meets a very unusual couple. The second story is about Simon. This self-proclaimed medium speaks to the dead and seeks to impress Mary, a woman who has become famous for trying to disprove the existence of the afterlife. The third story tells about Bennett, a killer who is looking for the mysterious Book of Blood and dreams of making money selling it.
Each of the characters has their hopes and aspirations for a better life. Since “Books of Blood” is a product of Clive Barker, it is understandable that the characters will encounter both otherworldly and existential nightmares. The odds of a happy ending seem unlikely, and so Books of Blood challenges the viewer. However, in many ways, the film feels flat: budget constraints are most likely to blame, which visually makes the tape not memorable and similar to any other horror anthology. Indeed, it seems that these three stories were originally conceived as pilot episodes for a television series, but were materialized in the format of a single film.
These numerous details are intriguing, but generally do not fit together in any coherent form. To be honest, it is strange that Barker has sketched out segments of this nature at all: there are a lot of plot dead ends, and other anthologies formats (even a modern version of Twilight Zone that failed in my opinion) discard unnecessary material and focus on efficiency. Here there are many scenes leading to nowhere, which, like, are designed only to scare, but in fact - lead to a dead end.
And interesting moments, especially from the conceptual side, have been explored much less than vile images. They really succeeded, although sometimes the feeling that the viewer just threw them in the hope that something of them is very frightening: there are, sorry, injections from the needle into the eyes, crawling out of the mouth insects, ghosts and the notorious “dismembered”. Everything is honest, although the moments of a spiritual nightmare fade against the background of physiological fears and banal “babys”, which, at times, are inconsistent.
“Books of Blood” of the sample of 2020 came out rather far-fetched, but it can not be called bad: there is a gloomy melodrama, a worthy visual and, I don’t know, some charm of a teenage nightmare; as if indeed these stories passed through third parties and they are told by a fairy tale about a black sheet. First, retribution catches up with the scumbags, and then everyone else: in general, this is a typical Halloween movie that Hulu released in, sorry for the pun, “dead” coronavirus season. They succeeded: against the background of the absence of strong competitors, ordinary disturbing scenes look frightening, which probably raises the quality of this horror project.
5.5 out of 10
Clive Barker is an interesting writer. His work is always 50-50 - there are very good, and there are mediocre. The 1987 movie “Hell Risen,” for example, is very good. It is not frightening, but in some places it is disgusting. The story is interesting in its concept, general style and entourage. With the adaptation of “Books of Blood”, everything is not quite so, and here’s why:
1. Plot
Bets were made on twists at the end of each novella. They are not the worst, but they cannot be called good. Of the three stories plus or minus remembered the first. I really liked the idea of hearing loss of the main character. Her “misophony” serves as a tool in terms of the plot – she manages to hear what is not intended for her. However, this does not change the overall picture and without this disease, the plot would remain as it is. The rest is pretty typical. Telling the story in more detail does not make sense, because it will spoil the only plus (albeit a small) film.
2. Characters
Can there be deep characters in horror? Absolutely. The question is, do you need them in “typical horror”? In this case, they are just pieces of meat, on which the screenwriter (Clive Barker) puts experiments. Mannequins on stage, dressed in a shabby idea.
3. That's the idea.
The preface to the Books of Blood says, “Every man is a book of blood.” We are all scarlet when we are open.” But I didn’t expect to have blank pages. The film is literally built on how to surprise the viewer at the end, but in the course of viewing there is a feeling of static, as if we are just shown a few pictures. Cinema doesn’t work that way – it can’t be completely sterile. Focusing on the twist, the plot flies to the trash.
In terms of camera work and the rest, there is nothing to say at all. If you don’t watch Clive Barker’s new work, you won’t lose anything.