Books of Blood (2020) User Reviews

A rather enjoyable horror anthology...

[paul_haakonsen · 6/10 · 14 November 2020]

As I sat down to watch the 2020 movie "Books of Blood" I wasn't aware that it was a horror anthology. And as much as I love horror, there is a tendency of anthologies set within the horror genre of being somewhat less than mediocre.

However, I must admit that "Books of Blood" was a much welcomed addition to the horror anthologies, because this was actually a rather enjoyable collection of stories that proved to be nicely interwoven with one another in a satisfactory manner.

And I am astounded to find out that the stories told in "Books of Blood" apparently are based on Clive Barker writings. That is just very interesting and cool actually.

The stories were quite different in their contents, so chances are high that you will find something suitable for your particular tastes and preferences. I enjoyed all three tales, however, I found the one with the bed & breakfast to be the most enjoyable and interesting.

The acting in the three stories was good, generally speaking for everyone involved. I was definitely content with the performances that were put on, and they had a good ensemble of casted actors and actresses to bring the various characters to life on the screen.

I will say that "Books of Blood" is definitely a horror anthology that is well-worth taking the time to sit down and watch if you get the chance to do so. I was more than genuinely entertained by what writers Adam Simon and Brannon Braga managed to present with this anthology.

My rating of "Books of Blood" is a six out of ten stars.

Well, I liked it

[lizshotter · 7/10 · 25 October 2020]

This is the first time ive seen mysophonia referenced in a film. Both my husband and i experience it; him with mouth noises and me with water noises, and it was a realistic portrayal of how overwhelming it can be. This anthology was an unexpected find and I'm glad we gave it a go. The actings great, the stories are engaging and varied and it wasn't predictable. I know clive barkers books are visceral and complex and I certainly understand why some fans would feel short changed, but it's worth taking a look

A decent watch

[vampirepenguin09-544-411126 · 7/10 · 7 October 2020]

If you're looking for a constant jumpscares fest, this is not for you. Books of Blood delivers a slow burn anthology with decent acting. Some of the stories are a little drawn out and could've done with some trimming. The pacing is where this movie suffers but it is definitely worth watching.

Offers up enough horror fundamentals to work......

[s3276169 · 6/10 · 11 November 2020]

"Books of Blood" is based on the works of UK writer Clive Barker.

There' s a certain symmetry and maturity to the characters, that suggest's this film's screenplay is based on the work of a capable author. That said, as is often the case, a lot can get lost in translation, from book to screen.

Having read two of Barkers books but not the works this film is based upon, I know his writing is often complex and intricate. You get the sense of the underlying work in this film but unsurprisingly, it feels incomplete.

That's not to say this is a bad horror film. The characters are, for the most part, developed enough to offer moderate insight into their motivations. In addition, its intersecting tales have a tidy symmetry once the conclusion has been reached

Pacing is decent, scares are more of the gruesome variety than the jump scare's you find in films like "Friday 13th". There's also a lot of creativity on offer, that taps into and blends, familiar horror tropes.

In summary, I'd say this is a reasonable watch. Yes it does feel like something is missing. That said, enough horror fundamentals are on offer, I feel, to satisfy most fans of the genre, like myself.

6/10

A nice horror story

[mvahidalizadeh · 7/10 · 20 October 2020]

This is a collection of some nice scary stories. I liked the acting in general. Special effects, background music, and sound effects were awesome. In summary, if you are searching for a good quality scary movie, I recommend watching this movie.

Suspenseful in parts but also annoying

[sjarja · 4/10 · 7 October 2020]

What shines through is that it seems to be "made for TV" .. but not like Game of Thrones or so ... but "made for early evening TV ... in the early 2000s" or sort. It never dares to go all the way. It hints at it .. it shows potential - but it backs off.

I actually liked the first story (and conclusion) .. it was kind of powerful. Scenes, images and ideas were well done - and it was a nice, sad tragedy. The other stories however felts like re-tales of older stories. They were not nearly as well done and seemed much, much cheaper - both in creativity and cinematography.

For a full length suspense/horror movie, i can only give it a low score though. The stories are not good enough - they are not intertwined cleverly .. and they never exceed a rather low budget TV format.

I didn't expect much so it went above my expectations

[danielortiz26 · 7/10 · 10 October 2020]

I'm a sucker for a horror anthology whether good or cheesy, but this one treads a fine line. Three interconnected stories that all start off almost blandly acted and poorly written, but as the stories unfold, the insanity starts to ramp up. It interweaves human monsters with ghostly ones and the result is some very unsettling content. I also like that the visionaries for this film didn't rely heavily on CGI, and added a heavy dose of practical effects, cinematography and good editing to naturally disturb me. Learning that this is based off the work of Clive Barker, it makes so much more sense as it feels like a dark poetic nightmare from the 80's. Where the film falls short is the over-extension of one story, a loosely threaded connection and failure to captivate the audience out the gate with something truly compelling. Otherwise it was a good watch.

Another Bland Hulu Offering

[wvwriter · 4/10 · 15 October 2020]

To be brief, this is just another middling, bland horror movie served up by Hulu as a Halloween drop. There's a little flavor here, but overall, it's a forgettable bite from an unremarkable meal.

It's scary at times

[phoenixinvictus · 6/10 · 3 September 2021]

It tells of three stories that blend together at the end. Right at the beginning we are moved to feel sorry for the girl who is suffering from a mental illness and the negligence of selfish parents. We're happy when she escapes from the weirdo couple and then we move on to the next two stories and we feel satisfaction that they got their comeuppance. It's only at the end that we discover the girl's true nature. It was a good watch.

The World's Getting Dumber, Isn't It?

[Reviewenstein · 3/10 · 9 October 2020]

I can save you some time: if you want to watch this story told well, watch 2009's Book of Blood. It's better in every regard: more faithful to the source, more creative, more nuanced, better performed, visually superior... it's simply - possibly objectively - better. This new version is anemic and clumsy by comparison.

The only thing it contains that its predecessor doesn't is a single story which, while not terrible, is more of a distraction than an enhancement and which also, as far as I can discover, isn't actually adapted from a story out of the titular books.

Just don't bother with this version unless you've already seen its predecessor and are morbidly curious.

The Books that can never be filmed

[razorwirekiss-1 · 8/10 · 8 October 2020]

Ok let's get this out the way first. The Books of Blood by Barker have never been equalled since publication. They are also almost impossible to translate into film. Most of their horror derives from an existential terror of something beyond our understanding. From the grisly horror of "Rawhead Rex" to the sublime "In the Hills, the Cities" all of the separate stories spin us around in search of a tether we never find. This is a pretty good adaptation of a series of books that defy translation into something as safe as cinema. There are moments of horror and some dread. I can feel Barker behind it but it just can't reproduce the terrible beauty if the writing. Nothing ever did. Hellraiser was close because Barker was still in that mindset when he directed it. This is good. The Miles sequence is the most faithful if transposed and altered. But i enjoyed it and just want to read the stories again. Do yourself a favor. Go find them and read them too. It's quite an experience. Good luck

This 'Un Took Me By Surprise

[redrobin62-321-207311 · 7/10 · 27 July 2021]

Going into "Books of Blood", I only knew two (2) things - 1. It was a horror movie, and 2. Someone in it had misophonia. As a person who suffers from misophonia myself, I thought I'd give a looksee to "Books of Blood" and hoped they got the condition right. They did. I also must say they constructed the triple storyline very well, too. I had no idea this was a Clive Barker outing till the end credits rolled. I didn't recognize one single person who starred in the film, but then again, I'm not exactly one to stay in the loop these days as TV shows and movies and come go without me having a clue who's a star. That said, I thought the general acting was fine as was the plot. The movie wasn't boring, either. It clipped along at a nice place. I recommend this title as it's not a waste of time.

Could have been much more

[namstonk · 3/10 · 8 October 2020]

Nothing new horror wise. However, the first story goes on and on and is not well acted and takes up over half the film. The second story is much better acted and scripted, Anna Friel should have played the lead in the first story as Britt Robertson is not a strong enough actor, but that's the least of the problems. The problem is you need to watch to get the twist at the end and most will give up, I almost did but was too lethargic. As for the story running through well it is there just to link so it is what it is. In the end, after nothing has really happened you realize you've wasted over an hour and a half for a nice twist but is it really worth it? NO

Interesting horror stories

[raptorclock · 7/10 · 3 November 2021]

I have never read the novels this film was based on.

The three stories contained in the film do not all maintain the same level of quality.

One of the three is very good, the other two a little less.

All three are connected, perhaps in a forced way in order to compose the entire film.

I think it could have worked better as a television series, but I still expect more sequels.

I don't know if I'm too little brave, but some scenes impressed me with their brutality.

For me this film represents a small surprise in the panorama of streaming products.

Definitely a must see movie if you are a horror lover. Not a masterpiece, of course, but at least something interesting.

Hits On All Cylinders!

[cjstanford-65097 · 6/10 · 10 September 2022]

I don't know the book that this was adopted from. And it seems most of the negative reviews stem from that comparison. Seeing this as a complete standalone Horror fiction, this a brilliantly executed, intriguing horror thriller. The three stories nicely nicely integrated and possess a common value that there's justice even in the horror realm . I am inclined to rate it. 7 or 7+, but there's just a little too much unresolved/unexplained.

But as for developing a captivating set of stories, it's worthy of an 8. Also, the sets, special effects and ambiance perfectly embrace each scene.

I definitely would watch a sequel.

Unconvincing

[arrizthcunanan · 1/10 · 14 October 2020]

I don't like it when movies try to tell a story and it fails to. It's like abstract art - it tries to represent or convey something that isn't there. By the way I don't like abstract art or when things are subject to anyone's interpretation or if one's guess is as good as another -- or when a "critic" feels more entitled to give meaning to something that is void or non-existent.

Not too bad

[zandbergaj · 6/10 · 15 November 2021]

I almost abandoned watching it after discovering the overall rating but glad I didn't.

Grippy horror movie consisting of 3 stories that of course are kind of linked together.

Relatively short, relatively terrifying and pretty watchable. In fact I would enjoy this as a TV series.

Not worth the time!

[tonyraposo_2000 · 1/10 · 12 October 2020]

Sadly it's a tale from the 90's crypt keeper series only too long and drawn out and I didn't get the hilarious dialogue at the end from the keeper! Very disappointing! Please don't waist your time!

Good horror movie

[Sergiodave · 7/10 · 15 November 2020]

Most Horror movies made up of short stories fail terribly but I thought this worked really well. I don't think it will really scare anyone, but then how many horror movies do. The acting was first rate, the direction and sound, fine, and it moved along at a good pace. Well done, would recommend to anyone.

Not good....

[pckq · 1/10 · 8 October 2020]

Flat characters. Poorly written. And full of lame jump scares and cliches. Hulus Books of Blood is far from the creepy brilliance that is the Clive Barker books. Skip and better watch Hellbound again.

Why all the bad reviews?

[beccalynnbuffy · 8/10 · 13 October 2020]

I'm not sure why this has so many bad reviews. I really liked it. The first two stories are better than the last, but I never found myself bored (which is saying something when you watch every horror movie and TV show you can find and nearly half of them bore you). I liked the first adaptation of Clive Barker's Books of Blood and I like this one too. If you're looking for pure gore or jump scares, this isn't the movie for you, but if you're looking for something creepy and unnerving, I would recommend this one.

Not as bad

[kuarinofu · 7/10 · 9 October 2020]

It's atmospheric, the visuals were pleasant, there's not that much horror or suspense, and the stories are quite predictable, but still a good watch.

I have no idea why they decided to write the Book of Blood in, I mean, this could've worked as an anthology of spooky Halloween stories, why not.

The stories themselves are somewhat disconnected and sometimes the script takes big stretches just to make those connections, but the ending was cool and overall it didn't feel like a waste of time.

It's far from being perfect, and some of the details they've put it make no sense, but I can still recommend this as a spooky Halloween anthology (like Soulbound, or maybe VHS), clearly not as a horror with suspense or an interesting story.

Books of Blood-y awful

[nlsk95 · 1/10 · 17 October 2020]

Just excruciatingly awful, nonsensical and cringey. I'd have turned it off within the first 20 minutes, but I had to sit through it with the mother. 😩

Excellent work has been done on the effects, good performances and direction, 3 connected horror stories worth a watch.

[Mivas_Greece · 6/10 · 24 January 2021]

Fiction / horror modular film. It is based on the book Books of Blood and brings to life three seemingly independent and different horror stories in one film, as they take place in the same area, albeit at different times, and this style of film is somewhat reminiscent of Southbound (2015). Although for a large part of the first story it has no interest, eventually revelations are made and it becomes a horror story. Excellent work has been done on the effects, quite good performances and direction. Personally, I would like the last story to continue more, but also to have more stories, while on the contrary the first one that was not interesting for a part of it could be shorter. Generally one of the good suggestions in the genre that is worth a watch.

don't expect much and you'll be rewarded

[adamagayan · 7/10 · 17 October 2020]

I thought i was gonna watch some halloween special from hulu, but boy it turned out to be something interesting and deep. don't mess with death, guys.