MovieChat Forums > Book of Blood (2009) Discussion > Watched it last night. My review...

Watched it last night. My review...


I went into this film with no expectations whatsoever. I had a very vague idea of what the story was. And while I enjoyed the film, it is plagued by mediocrity at every turn, so much so that by the end, you are almost taken completely out of the film, because you're tired of waiting for it to get good.

The biggest problem lies in the script. The characters are all one-dimensional. At no point do we feel like we know anything about anyone. This is frustrating in a film that wants us to be scared. We can't be scared if we don't identify with our characters. The dialogue is also inane and incredibly bland. There isn't a single flair of writerly wit in the entire script. Every exchange feels as if it was rushed through by the writer, never developing the dialogue beyond the purpose of getting from A to B.

Speaking of bland, the visual style of the film is very bleak and one-note. The film sports a dull gray look, that borders on black and white, throughout the entire film. It gets very boring to look at. All of the lighting schemes were flat and without any kind of flair as well. The shots are just as boring. I don't think there is a single outstanding piece of cinematography in the entire film. Everything is very by the book, and like so much of the film, bland and mediocre.

Before I jump into the performances, I want to say that none of the actors are bad. They did not have first class material to work with, but at the same time, no one seems overly dedicated to their roles. Each person seems to have only a basic understanding of their character. No one does anything special in their performance. Like the dialogue and the visual style, it is all very one-dimensional. This film would have benefited from using well-known actors. Since we don't get to know them in the story, it would have been helpful if thew audience knew them before the film even started. This is a sentiment that is inevitable with known actors.

Oh, I have forgotten to say what the film does well. The special effects are quite good. There is gore that will make you gag and occurrences that will shock you. For such an obviously low-budget film, these are effects that would make Hollywood proud.

Overall, there is nothing bad about this film. It has some great ideas, and it is good at its core, but it does nothing great. It barely does anything good. It is proficient. It is mediocre. It is just another example of the lack of Justice we have come to expect from adaptations of Clive Barker's material.

http://www.danlovetere.com
http://www.danlovetere.tumblr.com

reply

Completely agree with everything you just said.

I'm all for a slow building movie..But the atmosphere of this film just was too dry.

"Once You Have It You Cannot Possibly Want It Anymore"

reply

Good post. I agree with just about everything you said. I just watched it expecting utter garbage after reading a few reviews here on the board. I was bored at first (except with the gore), but started liking it about half way through and liked the end pretty well. Im no film connoisseur, but after sitting through The Cell 2 last night I can say that this film, though only a bit better than mediocre, was a welcome relief.

Ignorance and Prejudice,
And fear walk hand in hand.

reply

I can't believe how many people are saying it's boring. You sound so much like MTV generation. Go and watch a McG film if you want that.

I remember watching this film when it was first screened and after I spoke with the director. He told me that he wanted an old style film with a lot of atmosphere and not to rely heavy on effects. I think he massivley succeeded and I think it's a shame he made it in this generation. If this movie was out in the 70s or 80s it would've been a big hit. Just liek Omen or Excorcist.

I loved it from beginning to end. Very scary, unlike the recent Drag me to hell, which i did not find remotly scary, but everyone seems to love.

reply

Maybe it's cause I read the stories first, but this movie, while not awful, was nothing special. Considering what Barker himself did with his own Hellbound Heart, I'd say this was quite lacking.

As for the MTV thing, I remember the day MTV went on the air and I dont know what a McG movie is. Also Drag Me To Hell was far superior to this film.

Ignorance and Prejudice,
And fear walk hand in hand.

reply

McG = Charlie's Angels = a string of flashy sequences thrown together to please the youth of today who get bored far too quickly and only have time for short spurts of crap.

You can also argue the pros and cons of drag me to hell, but one thing it isn't, is scary. While book of blood at least creates a suitable atmosphere. I didn't mind drag me to hell, but I believe Sam Raimi was trying to lead people into thinking it was a horror when really it was something else. Too long to get into here though, but if interested check my posting history on that subject.

reply

I don't know man, at one point I'm inclined to agree with you and other people who saw this movie not satisfied as there was something a bit off from it but then again I don't agree at all.

You say that the characters were one dimensional but I don't see how they were any worse when compared to characters in Hellraiser or Night Breed as far as character dimentionalism.

The tones were dark and dreary but why not look at it as a tone for a movie about ghosts and death, you know-morbid stuff.

I think what's off about the movie is how we're not use to seeing a Barker story take up on the screen for a long, long time.

I don't know what people expect man. IT was a good movie despite some obscurities that I've found such as a sexy woman's face being ripped off her head but then again, I believe in life after death; knowing full well the rage of the dead whilst understanding a horror movie has to have shock points.

Take it for what it's worth-I mean you should know how to do that being that you had no expectations at first and all.

Some people act like their judging material to be nominated for an oscar. Just enjoy the freaking film!

reply

Solid review!

This film however, in my opinion, is pretty crappy. It was deathly dull and never scary. It's not that I'm only watching new films with constant edits though, I'm a huge fan of silent cinema - from even before they moved the camera.
This film is just poor. That's just my opinion...

reply

I thought this movie was brilliant. Not a dull moment. It was a silent horror... very atmospheric. In my opinion, Clive Barker writes intelligent and sophisticated horror and I see him as a Roman Polanski type.

Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast

reply