Book of Monsters (2018) User Reviews

2019s Book of Monsters

[ghettodub · 6/10 · 1 July 2019]

2019s Book of Monsters

Book of Monsters stars Lyndsey Craine as Sophie, Who on her 18th birthday, has a party that goes awry. Is it spoilery if I say there are monsters? Or maybe even a Book of Monsters?

Monsters, fun kills, silly practical effects make this an enjoyable watch.

Ok, here is what I jotted down:

What kind of weirdo keeps an open pocket knife in their back pocket? Has a fun BBC/E4 vibe to it, and I love a lot of Brit tv and movies. Funny kills and monsters. Who doesn't love killer gnomes in a Evil Dead-ish scene? I liked the music. A mix of silly overly-dramatic music and synth. Fun practical effect mixed with the kind of bad CGI that is funny and not just bad. Bad sound design throughout. It has a montage, complete with 80s style Jean Claude Van Damme music. Loved the music in the end credits how it was self aware and funny. The post credit scene teases what could be a fun TV show similar to the cancelled Crazyhead.

All in all, if you're looking for a fun and entertaining watch that you can toss on and not take too seriously: this is a good choice.

Have fun.

6.5/10

Goodish because it's old school

[phoenixinvictus · 5/10 · 8 April 2019]

It follows a horror formula of the 80's slasher movies. There is the shy heroine with the mysterious past, the BBF who is overprotective, and the school bully who is just there to be mean for the sake of meanness in a High School with the world's oldest teenagers. I caught myself giggling at the cheesy but reasonably good special effects and best of all there was no CGI that I could tell of. This is one of those movies that you can't take too seriously because it's obvious that it was using a low budget. Would I watch it again? Probably not, but it was a good watch and it killed a bit of nostalgia I felt of the 80's.

Enjoyable indie effort with old school vibe.

[Jester222 · 5/10 · 9 June 2019]

Ok. So it's not gonna win many awards for acting .......saying that the main characters are great.....just a few supporting actors (namely the father!) make this feel more like a Media Collage level project.

The old school practical effects were great to see and you can just tell it was a real labour of love for all involved making the various creatures and gore effects. Low low budget but with lots of heart. Plenty of Evil Dead influence throughout but with a more British sense of humour that works in most places. Under a more experienced director the scenes could have had the tension that it was lacking, but that will come in time. A fun way to spend 80mins...... Switch off the brain and enjoy the blood. One good thing is that they didn't go into the realm of shoddy after effects cgi (except the explosion) like a lot of budget films do and kept it practical with inventive monster designs (except the Djinn which was Poundland Halloween level. Ha .

Well done to all involved. Teens will love it. Pretty girls, blood and........well more blood. p.s...... I was actually left wanting to see further adventures of the female trio of monster slayers......which is rare.

A balanced review

[geeklegionofdoom · 5/10 · 21 March 2019]

I feel this movie has good intentions made by lovers of the genre , but may have bitten more off than they can chew. I think meant to come off like a film in the vein of Evil Dead, Brain dead & Night of the Demons, is actually more comparable to the movie 'The Spookies' What works.

• Loads of inventive (albeit low budget) gore effects. People getting torn in half, heads getting torn off , it's all in here. But it's not sickening gore, but fun gore if that makes sense
• The movie is very fast paced. You will not be bored, there is always something going on. Ultimately means you will not get bored in this movie
• The actress who plays Mona, is very good in this movie

-The LGBT angle is integrated very well. The main character just happens to be gay, but it's treated just as a matter of fact and does't get preachy or nor does it fall into sterotypes

• It's visually very ambitious , trying to make a splatter creature feature movie

But what does't work

• It might have ambition in the visuals, but the story is actually very pedestrian . Teens get attacked by monsters at a party and have to survive . not much more too it than that
• As i alluded to earlier, they may have bitten off more than they can chew. The monster effects are pretty poor. Literally looking like someone in a homemade Halloween costume.
• The acting isn't great. Our main protagonist actress doesn't seem to be able to emote , and gives one of the most unenthusiastic performances of a lead character that i recall seeing. But it's not just her, others are like that too. Then some actors are just bad actors.
• There is virtually no characterization in this movie. Our main character gets a bit of background, but we still don't see what she is really like. Her two friends, one of them doesn't even get to really speak until the monsters show up
• Very little world building & plot holes. To demonstrate this , I'm just gonna talk about the prologue to avoid spoilers, but this type of thing can be applied to the rest of the movie too. So mild spoilers ahead for the opening scene

We just have to accept that the mother is some kind of monster hunter, with no context as to why , how , what that means etc. Within the logic of this movie, she is reading bedtime stories to her young daughter directly from a ancient demon summoning book ( doesn't seem like great parenting does it ) . Then it alludes to , she's somehow summoned a monster under her daughter's bed ( if not, are we to believe it's been hanging around there all the time?). Then the movie contradicts it's self later by saying the monsters are summoned via the blood of a virgin, when that's not what happened in the prologue . So you get what i'm saying, this movie needed to have a 2nd script draft, or as i see in so many times in indie movies, someone else outside of production to test it on, who isn't just gonna say yes, yes, yes, because they are either employed of friends with the film makers

Overall, this movie does have some fun with the carnage and is enjoyable on a basic level. This isn't a 10 out of 10 as some of the 'cough' "Genuine" 'cough' reviews indicate, but nor is it a 1 out of 10 either. Fun but very flawed

I hate to be a party pooper, but...

[BA_Harrison · 3/10 · 23 March 2019]

To celebrate her 18th birthday, pretty gay schoolgirl Sophie (Lyndsey Craine) throws a house party, where she hopes to get closer to classmate Jess (Rose Muirhead). Her plans for romance are ruined, however, when the party is crashed by monsters who need her blood to complete a ritual that will give life to all the malevolent creatures depicted in an ancient book.

As a Brit horror fan, I'm a keen supporter of independent UK scary movies, but it's tough going at times: the gems are often few and far between, resulting in a lot of disappointment. Book of Monsters, for example, boasts a fun concept with plenty of promise, but it is seriously hampered by weak acting (Nicholas Vince puts in a particularly bad performance, showing why he's best remembered for simply chattering: his delivery of his dialogue is awkward and unconvincing), plot progression that is achieved by the way of too much clumsy exposition, and comedy that frequently falls flat. I wanted to like it, but I didn't.

The party massacre is a lot of fun, full of excessive cheesy splatter, with bodies torn apart and liberal spraying of blood, and if the film had continued in this OTT vein, it might have been a mindlessly enjoyable way to pass the time; unfortunately, the splatter soon dries up, leaving us with the bad acting and the clunky script, made worse by Stewart Sparke's tongue-in-cheek approach that rarely hits the mark (the gags involving the male stripper are especially cringeworthy, and an attack by evil gnomes is hampered by crap effects).

On a slightly more positive note, the main monsters are admirably unconventional in design, although the lack of a decent budget means that they're not very animated and consequently less frightening than they otherwise might have been.

A post credits scene sets up things for a sequel, Sophie and her surviving pals dedicating their lives to hunting and killing monsters. Let's hope they get a stronger script, a bigger budget and a few acting lessons in the interim.

3 Stars For the Effects Only!

[jordanjanssen · 3/10 · 16 May 2020]

Really sub-par acting with wooden delivery throughout most of the film.

A woman bites a chunk out of a guy's neck and then starts clawing a pentagram into his chest and he doesn't even complain!

Actors in their mid-thirties pretending to be 18, for goodness sakes!

The effects are fun and gory, I enjoy a good amount of splatter and entrails, and they are the only thing that persuaded me to give this schlock three stars.

Book of Monsters: Pleasant surprise

[Platypuschow · 7/10 · 23 March 2019]

This British horror comedy had a budget of less than 100k and though I entirely support independent movies I always believe in not over-shooting. What I mean by that is don't make a movie above your means, if you have a micro-budget then maybe avoid monsters, aliens, giant spaceships and explosive action. Considering the subject matter here for that reason I had my concerns, I didn't need to apparently.

It tells the story of a girl celebrating her 18th birthday by having a house party. Before they know it they're under siege from an array of monsters, will they survive the night?

I liked this, we don't see "Monsters" as much as we used to so it was a nice refreshing change seeing people under assault from them instead of the usual generic slashers or zombies.

With a neat little competent unknown cast (Though too old to be playing teenagers), impressive effects for the budget and a fair bit of originality I was very impressed by what they accomplished here.

Sure it's hardly groundbreaking and the budget limitations do show in places but they made the best of what they have and that right there demonstrates the talent both in front of and behind the camera.

I'd actually like to see a sequel to this, it's an underground movie that deserves considerably more attention than its likely to get. More of these and less Hollywood trite please.

The Good:

Looks great for the budget

The Bad:

REALLY poor casting for teenagers!

Stock sound effects

Largely bland

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 26 January 2020]

BOOK OF MONSTERS is another British indie horror flick heavily indebted to the likes of NIGHT OF THE DEMONS et al. About the only thing it has going for it is the female-focused cast which makes a refreshing change from the norm. Unfortunately, the execution and scripting are both bog standard and offer up nothing in the way of surprises, while the cheapo special effects are laughable in the wrong way. The whole thing plays out with a kind of tired predictability and is neither funny nor outrageous enough to make an impression; instead, I found it largely bland.

The 80s called...

[cthulhudanceparty · 7/10 · 13 June 2019]

Book of Monsters is the type of film we are seeing a lot more of on the indie horror scene these days. Take what people loved about those classic 80s horror movies and put them in a blender with a dash of British humor and you end up with this film. There are many faults to find with this movie - the ropey FX, cliche characters and budget which shows on screen more often than not. But I'm giving this film a 7 because despite these things, boy this movie is a hoot and even made me laugh out loud more than once. With killer garden gnomes made out of rubber and a cast of attractive "teens" who either die horribly or use chainsaws to fight the monsters, this movie is entertaining. The three main girls are like-able and I actually cared about what happened to them and its a plus that they are easy on the eyes too. An easy way to scratch your horror itch and not feel like you've wasted two hours.

If your rating this a 10 you aren't a real viewer

[Markyajv · 2/10 · 21 August 2019]

Oh, where do I start? How about the fact that all the actors look 30 yrs old. Or that the acting is horrendous, or that the second monster looked like the costume they used in The Village? A failed attempt at an 80s throwback. Maybe in the UK, but not in the US.

My Review Of "Book Of Monsters"

[ASouthernHorrorFan · 8/10 · 17 March 2019]

"Book Of Monsters" is a fun, high energy, bloody good time. It is a micro-budget horror comedy that is reminiscent of classic 80's movies, such as "Evil Dead" and "Night Of The Demons". The story is a patchwork quilt of typical horror tropes, setups, and characters, but because Sparke knows the film he is trying to make, the familiarity is more a tribute to the genre than a copycat. It isn't perfect, there are times the humor falls flat, or the scene stumbles a bit, but the pace and the energy over-takes any real flaws.

Special effects are blood-soaked, gory practical elements that soak up the spotlight in "Book Of Monsters". It's like an 80-something minute long episode of 'Todd And The Book Of Pure Evil' on steroids. Sparke goes for broke creating visceral scenes of carnage, so much so that even the moments that fail are fun and enjoyable to watch. The creature designs, practical effects, and so many characters battling for "Scream Queen" gold are so captivating on screen.

Overall "Book Of Monsters" is a great indie horror comedy that gets so much right and does so much on such a small budget. There are some downers, the exposition material drags a bit- but how could they not after so much high energy scenes of monsters and guts and screams! For the most part "Book Of Monsters" is a must for indie horror fans, and is a prime example of why we love indie horror!

Fun Fluff!

[bridgetgibbs-00075 · 7/10 · 12 June 2019]

Rubber monsters, hot girls and fun scenes where they chainsaw up a spider creature that reminded me of the Alien Queen from Aliens. Not a bad way to spend an evening. I'd watch a sequel if it had a bigger budget.

So many fluff reviews

[realityinmind · 1/10 · 6 October 2019]

This is weak. Basic. Pedestrian. Juvenile. Nonsensical. Not funny. Not scary. And why does one black man (not a boy, as he looks 30) go to an all-girls catholic school?? So weak

Shocking

[hello-86522-88861 · 2/10 · 21 January 2020]

35 year old women pretending to be 18, but they did well making the £27.50 budget last. It was like a school production. Time's too precious for this tripe.

Don't believe the hype!

[niavasha · 2/10 · 23 March 2019]

Poor direction and consequently poor acting from the vast majority of cast, or certainly not enough time put in to get a good take with actual empathy, compassion or actual fear!! Very shallow development of each character and also plot. The book was nonsense. Costumes for monsters probably came from the local party store to the filming location. Effects for the torso with spine where about the only thing that gives this a two. Either way, a disappointing missed opportunity.

Only missing Robin Askwith

[mrrcave · 3/10 · 15 November 2019]

Dreadful, tawdry horror film with the only one endearing feature ala Paul Raydon/Bunny Hill school of showmanship.

Good Bad Vs Evil

[AlbusDumbledore · 7/10 · 20 March 2019]

I say Good Bad as it's one of those films you know you shouldn't watch but somehow end up seeing through to the end.

Although I am on my second bottle of wine as I write this review.

The actors perform well above par for this kind of fare (if you can accept the Hollywood Style Teenagers - where the average age is 16 going on 30, although this could be a piss take).

The film definitely tries it's best to keep up the tension and action. Which is quite impressive given it looks like there was virtually was no SFX or make up budget. Or any budget at all really.

To summarise: a passable film to watch on your second bottle of wine.

"I Know A Good Dry Cleaners!"...

[azathothpwiggins · 24 July 2019]

When Sophie (Lyndsey Craine) has a few friends over for her 18th birthday, she has no idea that her past is about to rear its ugly head. As a child, Sophie went through a tragic event involving her mum and the BOOK OF MONSTERS. Now, her dad has given her this terrible tome, and left her and her friends to have their party.

Two things happen that make for a very interesting evening: THING #1- Someone has invited a small army of strangers, who get busy drinking and destroying the house. THING #2- One of the "guests", a mysterious redheaded woman, opens and reads from the beastly book, with wicked intent! Unthinkable, blood-spraying, dismembering madness soon follows! Will anyone survive the night?

BOOK OF MONSTERS is a low-budget, wonderfully cheeezey-on-purpose, gloriously non-CGI, horror / comedy from the UK. It's refreshing to see movies that don't resort to using computer-generated, cartoonish "blood" or "monsters"! Here, we're treated to old school, practical effects! No, they're not "Hollywood" perfect. They are decent though, and perfect for this particular movie. The story is also good, though it certainly pays homage to past films of the genre. The characters are not -at least not all of them- a bunch of idiots, and the monsters are game!

A gut bucket full of fun for the fear fanatic!...

Book of Monsters

[dcarsonhagy · 2/10 · 21 March 2019]

Very low, low, low film about a book and some monsters. It's nice to see the Brits can also turn out cheaply made bombs like their Yankee counterparts. This dud involves Sophie turning 18 and what has been awaiting her all these years.

I am not going to savage this film too much because the film stayed true to itself. Made on a budget of only $76,000, there is no CGI here, no really cool monsters, just lots and lots of fake blood and guts. A shout out to those involved who had (obviously) very little to work with, but managed a few nice kills.

The movie is rated "R" and has some language and lots of gore.

Bedtime Stories

[zeldarhymes · 7/10 · 6 April 2019]

An enjoyable way to fill your evening that won't offend but also won't wow you. I think this film was made for a specific audience, aka fans of 80s creature features. For those people this could really be a 10 but for me the budget holds things back a bit.

The Good: Acting - especially for a low budget film Monsters! - good designs, fun kills Soundtrack - 80s style Story - not groundbreaking but fun.

The Bad: Budget shows sometimes Editing can be choppy to hide cheaper monsters

Horrible

[windsorenquirer · 1/10 · 28 December 2019]

Atrocious acting, stupid story (like there is any to begin with), not funny, not scary, just plain stupid. Actors looking well over 30 years old playing high school kids! Monsters? There were better monsters in 1970's movies. Stay away from this stinker.

A deeply enjoyable 80s throwback

[wondergurl-51029 · 9/10 · 20 March 2019]

I took a chance on this on Vudu and I don't know what I was expecting going in but I was pleasantly surprised to find a really fun throwback to 80s creature movies like Ghoulies and Critters. It doesn't take itself too seriously and has some great practical FX and the acting was surprisingly great for a low budget flick. Some great gore and kills if you're into that kind of thing. I would recommend to any fans of 80s horror but don't go in looking for jump scares.

Not Great, Not Terrible

[tonytonesbow · 7/10 · 13 June 2019]

Normally when you watch films of this type you're rolling a dice and thankfully this one came out with the odds in my favor. It's an enjoyable horror movie, very much in the vein of 80s schlock complete with practical effects. The cast were surprisingly like-able which is rare in a film like this where it's clear they had pretty much no budget. The lead girl was a breath of fresh air and actually felt like a real human being, not some cookie-cutter bimbo with her assets on display. The rest of the cast were also good with the Stripper being a highlight. There are negatives, the main one being the monsters are a bit low rent and some scenes really drag but the film gets a pass on this for being a mostly entertaining ride. Obligatory post-credits scene sets up a sequel that I honestly wouldn't hate to see. As long as chapter 2 has more original monsters.

Good SFX but...

[WiseMan26 · 4/10 · 20 November 2019]

Lame story, bad acting, oh God why?? It's spoil my mood. That 4 stars for the creature, it's fun to watch but bad acting spoil it. I think it's not necessary to watch this movie.

What a movie... 😂😂😂

[drgugi28 · 1/10 · 10 August 2019]

Absolute crap of the movie. One star only for idea for the movie and gore effects. All the rest can be flushed in the toilet. Actors... What a laugh, You can't even call that acting. That fat redhead chick who try to act as a seductress? Bwahahaha, hahahaha OMFG, so lame, so sad. In what universe that fat girl can be seductress? Acting, so slow, so bad. Dear director: Please, don't make movies anymore.

Over and out!