Strange? Hey, we're talkin' Clive Barker here. Pretty much typical horror/zombie/love story. I did watch the entire movie so it rates a 5, because it does have a certain a'peel'. The best that can be said for the flick is Jonas Armstrong has a fine rear end. If that offends you, no skin off my nose, just his.

It is no secret that it was the promise of another Clive Barker horror story that lured me in to watch "Book of Blood". And the synopsis for the movie also did sound fairly interesting.As the movie came to an end, I was left with a sensation that this was definitely not the best of material from Clive Barker. Especially because the story was mediocre at best and it was so predictable that it was almost a farce.The story started out quite well and it did have potential. However, it quickly became quite predictable to the point where there were no surprises or anything overly impressive to be witnessed throughout the course of this movie. At best, then the storyline can be summarized as being generic.It should be said that the acting in the movie was adequate, and people actually managed surprisingly well in the face of having a very generic and predictable script to work with.The concept idea of the story behind "Book of Blood" is quite interesting, but it suffered tremendously under a very generic script, which hardly did the concept idea much justice.There were some interesting enough scenes throughout the movie, and I did like the way that the main character served as a medium for the entities at the gateway. And it was quite graphic at times, and that worked in favor of the movie - providing you can stomach things like that, of course.What topped off the experience was the ending of the movie. The movie went from being mediocre to being downright ludicrous at that moment. It is without a doubt some of the most laughable attempt of making a movie interesting that I have seen in a horror movie in a long, long time. And it didn't serve the movie in any positive way, quite the opposite actually."Book of Blood" had potential to be a good and interesting horror movie, but it just failed horribly given the poor script and the direction that the movie took at the end.

The imagination of Clive Barker has always fascinated me. His greatest work is, indeed, the 6 Books of Blood. An unnerving and fascinating anthology. So going into this, I was confused as how they would adapt it. I expected it to be an anthology comprising of some of the more memorable stories, but what I got was quite different - and ultimately I was quite pleasantly surprised.The movie itself is not based on The Books of Blood, but rather the eponymous "Book" itself - a man named Simon. It must have been a tricky process as this portion of the actual Books was short and only served as the introduction; never truly mentioned again. However there is enough creativity here to make the story interesting.One of the strengths of this picture is that while it embraces cliché at time, it knows how to use classic spooks and suspenseful tones rather than blood and gore. There is some gruesome imagery - especially with a murder taking place at the beginning, but this is not a film where guts are spilled regularly. This is a clever and inventive ghost story, and like the ghosts in this film; it is a story that is begging to be heard.The film follows Simon McNeal, a humble but troubled man with an interest in the supernatural. He agrees to take up an offer granted by his tutor, Mary Florescu, to investigate a home in which two very unnerving deaths have occurred that is flocking with supernatural activity.The film explores an interesting take on the afterlife. There are "Intersections" that cross their world with ours, and the dead are trapped in these intersections... begging for their tales to be told. However - no one will Listen, and the story mostly follows Simon, Mary and her partner Reg as the dead begin to take interest in Simon and the revelations of their intents. It is well thought out, clever, and the ending is quite smart.There are flaws. The acting is a mixed bag, and while the film can use cliché to its advantage (Actually making classical ghost effects somewhat creepy again) the use of it in some of the scare scenes don't work. It's also strange and even uncomfortable when sex scenes come in to play, as they always seem to play out at an inappropriate time; usually directly after the more disturbing events.All in all... you should give Book of Blood a chance. It is one of the better films based on a Clive Barker piece, and it has the imagination of all the other stories that were told. It makes a great companion to the books themselves - and it saddens me that this is relatively obscure.

I just finished watching this and found myself thoroughly impressed with the acting, story and pacing. Usually Clive Barker flicks are too concerned with blood and guts gore, which this one also has some scenes...but this movie was more supernatural and ghostly or creepy than gory. The creature designs were creepy, not over the top with nonsensical decorations or pins. The acting and direction was pretty realistic, in regards to reactions, actions, and details of what people would do in such situations. I enjoyed the detail of the characters actions in each situation. As with any movie, you can pick it apart if you so desire, but this one has enough attention to detail to cover its tracks for a movie. I gave it a 9 out of 10 because it was an unexpected treat for me, a fan of ghost stories. The production value was good too considering it was not a major Hollywood flick. Cinematography was good with nice dramatic lighting and great wide shots of scenery. I did not give it a ten because it started out a bit goofy with the forced narration at the beginning... I suppose trying to show the mechanism of the ghost visitations would be a bit challenging and time consuming so they took the easy way out via narration.I recommend it for fans of ghost stories. It is a well paced film, not too fast, not too slow. Although at one time, I got a bit tired of the imagination vs. reality effect.