Search
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning (1985) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
Tommy Jarvis has grown up, but killing a psychopath at twelve years old really takes a toll on your psyche. Tommy is enrolled in a mental institution in hopes of moving past the events in the last film. The same day he arrives, a fellow inmate is killed by somebody else enrolled in the institution and things only seem to get worse from there. Tommy is haunted by the image of Jason and sees him behind every corner, but when the inmates start disappearing Tommy realizes that his worst fear may have finally become a reality.
This might be my least favorite film in the franchise. I loathe the ending. I mean, they couldn't even get Jason Voorhees for a Friday the 13th film? Are you kidding me? That's beyond weak. Then, on top of all that, they make "Jason" be Roy the ambulance attendant. I'll admit that the "twist" is kind of interesting, but by the time that rolled around I had pretty much already lost interest. Let's pretend Jason was in the film and everything but the ending was the same. It'd still be pretty lame.
The kills are rather mediocre, at best. Ethel and Junior are two of the most annoying characters to ever be featured in a horror film. Both of them give Franklin from Texas Chainsaw Massacre a run for his money for most annoying douchebag in a horror film. Most of the kids in the halfway house are just a-holes and you can't wait for them to die. I can understand going in a new direction for the franchise and I admire the writers and director for having the balls to do something like that, but it wound up falling flat especially when it's sandwiched between two of the greatest films in the franchise.
This might be my least favorite film in the franchise. I loathe the ending. I mean, they couldn't even get Jason Voorhees for a Friday the 13th film? Are you kidding me? That's beyond weak. Then, on top of all that, they make "Jason" be Roy the ambulance attendant. I'll admit that the "twist" is kind of interesting, but by the time that rolled around I had pretty much already lost interest. Let's pretend Jason was in the film and everything but the ending was the same. It'd still be pretty lame.
The kills are rather mediocre, at best. Ethel and Junior are two of the most annoying characters to ever be featured in a horror film. Both of them give Franklin from Texas Chainsaw Massacre a run for his money for most annoying douchebag in a horror film. Most of the kids in the halfway house are just a-holes and you can't wait for them to die. I can understand going in a new direction for the franchise and I admire the writers and director for having the balls to do something like that, but it wound up falling flat especially when it's sandwiched between two of the greatest films in the franchise.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Fun Size (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
While this may be your typical Nickelodeon movie, it will bring you back to those days when the Beasties reigned supreme and Elizabeth Shue was having her Adventures in Babysitting. Wren (Victoria Justice) is your typical, slightly geeky, fairly hot high school student who thinks that going out for Halloween dressed as a Supreme Court justice is cool. Her friend April (Jane Leavy) is more in tune with high school social status and wants them to go to the popular boy’s party. They are actually discussing how this will never happen; when he rolls up and invites them to come. He may even sing a song for Wren.
Wren is getting ready to leave for the party when her mother (Chelsey Handler) tells her she needs to take Albert trick-or-treating. Albert is almost your typical little brother; there is an opening montage of all the sweaters he has destroyed of Wren’s. The small catch: Albert doesn’t talk. Wren takes Albert out and he gets into your usual mischief, but it’s not until they get separated in a haunted house that things really start to go wrong.
Wren realizes she has lost Albert and must find him and various hijinks ensue as Albert is exposed to the adult world of Halloween. Wren and her friends are caught up in all sorts of trouble looking for Albert, including their Volvo having an intimate encounter with a giant mechanized chicken.
Appearances by Kerri Kenney and Ana Gasteyer as the “moms” as well as Johnny Knoxville as the guy everybody can’t stand round out the cast and add some more adult humor to the story. All in all a cute movie, Fun Size will be enjoyed most by the Nickelodeon set, but parents will laugh as well. I laughed throughout the whole thing.
Wren is getting ready to leave for the party when her mother (Chelsey Handler) tells her she needs to take Albert trick-or-treating. Albert is almost your typical little brother; there is an opening montage of all the sweaters he has destroyed of Wren’s. The small catch: Albert doesn’t talk. Wren takes Albert out and he gets into your usual mischief, but it’s not until they get separated in a haunted house that things really start to go wrong.
Wren realizes she has lost Albert and must find him and various hijinks ensue as Albert is exposed to the adult world of Halloween. Wren and her friends are caught up in all sorts of trouble looking for Albert, including their Volvo having an intimate encounter with a giant mechanized chicken.
Appearances by Kerri Kenney and Ana Gasteyer as the “moms” as well as Johnny Knoxville as the guy everybody can’t stand round out the cast and add some more adult humor to the story. All in all a cute movie, Fun Size will be enjoyed most by the Nickelodeon set, but parents will laugh as well. I laughed throughout the whole thing.
London's Secrets: Bizarre & Curious
8.0
Rate It
Book
London is a city with an abundance of bizarre and curious places and stories, being ancient, vast...
Make Your Own Video Games!: With the Free Tools Twine, Puzzlescript, and Scratch
Book
Making video games is a great way to express yourself, tell a funny or spooky story, and, of course,...
Mrs Engels
Book
Longlisted for the Guardian First Book Award Love is a bygone idea, centuries-worn. There are things...
Eleanor (1463 KP) rated The Whisper Man in Books
Jul 11, 2019
Spine chilling atmosphere set up (1 more)
Jake the cool if spooky kid
Not much mystery in the crime (1 more)
Poor police characters
If you leave a door half open, soon you'll hear the whispers spoken.......
This book got off to a great start with a really creepy feeling to it. A spooky kids rhyme will always get the chills going.
Jake and his father Tom are struggling with life after the death of Jake’s mum and a fresh start in a new house doesn't lead to the new start Tom hopes for when Jake continues to keep saying freaky stuff and knowing things he couldn’t possibly know. There is a very supernatural feel to the beginning of this book that is well done, and how that is wrapped up is also well dealt with.
However I felt the crime plot let this book down, the killer was obvious to me as soon as they were vaguely mentioned but the police detective Amanda Beck just seemed flat out incompetent. I nearly screamed out loud at her when she gave herself the proverbial pat on the back for a job well done. Staying up all night because a kid has gone missing does not in itself make you a good cop - doing some good old style investigating that actually gets results does.
I liked the complex relationship between Jake and Tom but a lot of the other characters left much to be desired for me. Reformed alcoholic cop Pete Willis; haunted by his past felt like a character I have read/ seen a hundred times before. And the reporter with morals seemed a stretch.
All in all I’d recommend coming to this book for the chills but don’t expect the crime mystery to knock your socks off.
Jake and his father Tom are struggling with life after the death of Jake’s mum and a fresh start in a new house doesn't lead to the new start Tom hopes for when Jake continues to keep saying freaky stuff and knowing things he couldn’t possibly know. There is a very supernatural feel to the beginning of this book that is well done, and how that is wrapped up is also well dealt with.
However I felt the crime plot let this book down, the killer was obvious to me as soon as they were vaguely mentioned but the police detective Amanda Beck just seemed flat out incompetent. I nearly screamed out loud at her when she gave herself the proverbial pat on the back for a job well done. Staying up all night because a kid has gone missing does not in itself make you a good cop - doing some good old style investigating that actually gets results does.
I liked the complex relationship between Jake and Tom but a lot of the other characters left much to be desired for me. Reformed alcoholic cop Pete Willis; haunted by his past felt like a character I have read/ seen a hundred times before. And the reporter with morals seemed a stretch.
All in all I’d recommend coming to this book for the chills but don’t expect the crime mystery to knock your socks off.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Widow's House in Books
Dec 24, 2017
crazy (1 more)
fascinating
Jess and Clare Martin met at Bailey College, in the Hudson River valley, but have been living in New York for years. Jess wrote a successful first novel not long after graduation, but that money has long been spent. He's been working on his second book for ages; it's long overdue, and he needs a new muse. So the two decide to move back to the Hudson River area, where Jess can focus on the book without distractions. They take on duties as caretakers at Riven House, the home of their former college professor, Monty. They can live in a nearby cottage in exchange for helping the elderly Monty with chores. But the setup has its own issues: it's Monty, after all, who wrote a review of Jess' first book that torments him to this day. And as they settle in, Clare begins to hear a baby crying at night and see shadowy figures around the pond of Monty's property. As she investigates local history, she thinks what she sees may be tied to the house's tormented past. The locals say the place is haunted and destroys everyone who stays there. Are Clare and Jess next?
You know how sometimes you start a novel and immediately know, from the first page, that you'll enjoy it? THE WIDOW'S HOUSE was that way for me. It sucked me in immediately and kept me interested throughout; I read it in about 24 hours. The book is filled with complicated characters, starting with Clare. You start to realize she's the ultimate unreliable narrator, but are never able to tell exactly how much. She appears unhappy with her selfish author husband and her marriage. She had a rough childhood--growing up in the Hudson Valley not far from Monty's estate, which has clearly affected the way she sees the world. The entire story is told from her point of view, and we're stuck with all events being filtered through her lens. It's genius really, and it is a refreshing change from so many novels lately that change narrators and time periods. You find yourself working and guessing with Clare as she unravels local history and the events unfolding at Riven House.
The novel is certainly told in the Gothic tradition. I first fell for Goodman via her excellent novel, The Lake of Dead Languages, and this book reminded me of that one in some ways. Unlike some Gothic novels, you do not have to suspend much disbelief as the creepy events unfold around Clare and Jess. There are parts of this book that are incredibly spooky, and it's quite well-done. I loved that I was frantically flipping the pages, constantly second guessing everything and wondering what was happening. There are some great twists that shock you, even as you're still trying to figure things out in you're head (much like Clare). This novel will leave you guessing. It's crazy and confusing, but fascinating and incredibly hard to put down. It's completely enjoyable and stays with you after you've finished it, going over various plot points. Highly recommend.
You know how sometimes you start a novel and immediately know, from the first page, that you'll enjoy it? THE WIDOW'S HOUSE was that way for me. It sucked me in immediately and kept me interested throughout; I read it in about 24 hours. The book is filled with complicated characters, starting with Clare. You start to realize she's the ultimate unreliable narrator, but are never able to tell exactly how much. She appears unhappy with her selfish author husband and her marriage. She had a rough childhood--growing up in the Hudson Valley not far from Monty's estate, which has clearly affected the way she sees the world. The entire story is told from her point of view, and we're stuck with all events being filtered through her lens. It's genius really, and it is a refreshing change from so many novels lately that change narrators and time periods. You find yourself working and guessing with Clare as she unravels local history and the events unfolding at Riven House.
The novel is certainly told in the Gothic tradition. I first fell for Goodman via her excellent novel, The Lake of Dead Languages, and this book reminded me of that one in some ways. Unlike some Gothic novels, you do not have to suspend much disbelief as the creepy events unfold around Clare and Jess. There are parts of this book that are incredibly spooky, and it's quite well-done. I loved that I was frantically flipping the pages, constantly second guessing everything and wondering what was happening. There are some great twists that shock you, even as you're still trying to figure things out in you're head (much like Clare). This novel will leave you guessing. It's crazy and confusing, but fascinating and incredibly hard to put down. It's completely enjoyable and stays with you after you've finished it, going over various plot points. Highly recommend.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Widow's House in Books
Feb 8, 2018
Jess and Clare Martin met at Bailey College, in the Hudson River valley, but have been living in New York for years. Jess wrote a successful first novel not long after graduation, but that money has long been spent. He's been working on his second book for ages; it's long overdue, and he needs a new muse. So the two decide to move back to the Hudson River area, where Jess can focus on the book without distractions. They take on duties as caretakers at Riven House, the home of their former college professor, Monty. They can live in a nearby cottage in exchange for helping the elderly Monty with chores. But the setup has its own issues: it's Monty, after all, who wrote a review of Jess' first book that torments him to this day. And as they settle in, Clare begins to hear a baby crying at night and see shadowy figures around the pond of Monty's property. As she investigates local history, she thinks what she sees may be tied to the house's tormented past. The locals say the place is haunted and destroys everyone who stays there. Are Clare and Jess next?
You know how sometimes you start a novel and immediately know, from the first page, that you'll enjoy it? THE WIDOW'S HOUSE was that way for me. It sucked me in immediately and kept me interested throughout; I read it in about 24 hours. The book is filled with complicated characters, starting with Clare. You start to realize she's the ultimate unreliable narrator, but are never able to tell exactly how much. She appears unhappy with her selfish author husband and her marriage. She had a rough childhood--growing up in the Hudson Valley not far from Monty's estate, which has clearly affected the way she sees the world. The entire story is told from her point of view, and we're stuck with all events being filtered through her lens. It's genius really, and it is a refreshing change from so many novels lately that change narrators and time periods. You find yourself working and guessing with Clare as she unravels local history and the events unfolding at Riven House.
The novel is certainly told in the Gothic tradition. I first fell for Goodman via her excellent novel, [b:The Lake of Dead Languages|120274|The Lake of Dead Languages|Carol Goodman|http://images.gr-assets.com/books/1320554718s/120274.jpg|3159707], and this book reminded me of that one in some ways. Unlike some Gothic novels, you do not have to suspend much disbelief as the creepy events unfold around Clare and Jess. There are parts of this book that are incredibly spooky, and it's quite well-done. I loved that I was frantically flipping the pages, constantly second guessing everything and wondering what was happening. There are some great twists that shock you, even as you're still trying to figure things out in you're head (much like Clare). This novel will leave you guessing. It's crazy and confusing, but fascinating and incredibly hard to put down. It's completely enjoyable and stays with you after you've finished it, going over various plot points. Highly recommend.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 03/07/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
You know how sometimes you start a novel and immediately know, from the first page, that you'll enjoy it? THE WIDOW'S HOUSE was that way for me. It sucked me in immediately and kept me interested throughout; I read it in about 24 hours. The book is filled with complicated characters, starting with Clare. You start to realize she's the ultimate unreliable narrator, but are never able to tell exactly how much. She appears unhappy with her selfish author husband and her marriage. She had a rough childhood--growing up in the Hudson Valley not far from Monty's estate, which has clearly affected the way she sees the world. The entire story is told from her point of view, and we're stuck with all events being filtered through her lens. It's genius really, and it is a refreshing change from so many novels lately that change narrators and time periods. You find yourself working and guessing with Clare as she unravels local history and the events unfolding at Riven House.
The novel is certainly told in the Gothic tradition. I first fell for Goodman via her excellent novel, [b:The Lake of Dead Languages|120274|The Lake of Dead Languages|Carol Goodman|http://images.gr-assets.com/books/1320554718s/120274.jpg|3159707], and this book reminded me of that one in some ways. Unlike some Gothic novels, you do not have to suspend much disbelief as the creepy events unfold around Clare and Jess. There are parts of this book that are incredibly spooky, and it's quite well-done. I loved that I was frantically flipping the pages, constantly second guessing everything and wondering what was happening. There are some great twists that shock you, even as you're still trying to figure things out in you're head (much like Clare). This novel will leave you guessing. It's crazy and confusing, but fascinating and incredibly hard to put down. It's completely enjoyable and stays with you after you've finished it, going over various plot points. Highly recommend.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 03/07/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in TV
Nov 13, 2018 (Updated Nov 13, 2018)
Predictable jumpscares (2 more)
Bad acting
Crappy script
Overhyped Garbage
The Haunting Of Hill House is a 2018 Netflix series directed by Mike Flanagan, who directed last year's fantastically creepy adaption of Stephen King's 'Gerald's Game'. Hill House even features some of the same cast members in Carla Gugino and Henry Thomas, whom I both really like. Before diving into it, I thought that this show was going to be tailor made for me, with a brilliant cast and the same subtle but terrifying horror that Flanagan used in Gerald's Game.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Book of Blood (2008) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
"The dead have highways. Highways that lead to intersections and intersections that spill into our world. And if you find yourself at one of those intersections, you should stop and you should listen because the dead have stories to tell."
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.