Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

the audience applauded

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

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.

Wyburd (Clive Russell), a sociopathic goon who procures victims for a particularly macabre "collector", has just selected Simon McNeal (Jonas Armstrong), a handsome but sickly looking young man he spots in a diner. He escorts the young man away, to a secluded cabin where he prepares to flay this unfortunate soul. First, however, he is curious enough to know his captives' story, especially when he sees that so much of his skin is covered with bloody marks and printing. In his recent past, Simon had been helping author / professor Mary Florescu (Sophie Ward) conduct some research, by investigating a "haunted" house where a horrible, mysterious murder had taken place.There's enough here that is by now overly familiar (including the fact that Simon was a haunted individual with the power of second sight, a la 'The Dead Zone') to prevent "Book of Blood" from being anything special or great. But that doesn't mean that it isn't compelling, in a very sad and sordid way. Director / co-screenwriter John Harrison, who adapted the Clive Barker stories 'The Book of Blood' and 'On Jerusalem Street', does manage a fairly good balancing act here, combining mood, atmosphere, pathos, gore, sex, and nudity into a reasonably effective whole. Admittedly, the whole idea of the human body turned into a journal of sorts for those that have passed on is a good hook. The deliberately drab look adds to the overall sense of doom and gloom, and the ending IS one that could stick with some viewers. Some interesting visuals are created throughout.The four leads (also including Paul Blair as Mary's associate Reg Fuller) do capable work. Studly Armstrong is remarkably sincere, and for those who are interested, he gets nude but stops shy of doing full frontal. The lovely Ward is quite easy to watch. Be sure to watch for the cameos by Simon Bamford ("Hellraiser" 1 and 2) and Doug "Pinhead" Bradley.Good bloody fun for 101 straight minutes.Seven out of 10.

CLIVE BARKER'S BOOK OF BLOOD is an adaptation of his work that comes across as a traditional haunted house flick, albeit with a few Clive Barker-style flourishes. The main characters are a trio of paranormal experts who become interested in the history of a creepy old building that may just be the gateway to hell, so naturally they decide to live there while they carry out their investigation.What follows is a traditional spook-fest that tends to move quite slowly and doesn't really offer up much we haven't seen before. We're in definite Barker territory here, with some face-tearing gore, bodily mutilation, a Doug Bradley cameo, and an ancient arcane book of lore, but there's a general seen-it-all-before sense to the proceedings that means you'll need to be in a forgiving mood to really enjoy it. Me, I wanted something more than a typical haunted house/evil CGI ghost movie, and I didn't get it. Jonas Armstrong's poor acting is more of a hindrance than a help, although Sophie Ward gives a neat performance as the protagonist.

Let me get one this straight...I am not a fan of horror movies. I LOVE thrillers. Not horror. The only reason I watched this movie is because I am a fan of Jonas Armstrong. After watching this, all in all, it was NOT that bad. Of course, it could of been much better. First things first. The story. I know this is based off of a short story, but it seems like the writers wanted to make sure they didn't change anything. Because it was taken from a short story, there was plenty of room to develop a storyline around the paranormal activity. On that note, the character development was absolutely dreadful. Simon's was...OK...but everyone else's was HORRIBLE! Am I the only one who thought everyone in this movie came off as really perverted? Because, they did to me. Since we, as an audience, don't identify with the characters on any personal level, this movie lacks the emotional story that it could have had. Next, the love story. I don't even know if you could call in a "love story." The relationship between Simon and Mary is never fully explained and, like I said before: Since we, as an audience do not identify with the characters there is no emotional content there. Their relationship was so random! Couldn't they have just made her his employer and given him a younger girl? Or better yet, have no love story at all! Which brings me to the love scenes...please keep in mind that this is not a movie for youngsters. And since there was no emotional connection to the love story, those scenes were very awkward and came off as very perverted. Lastly, the SCARES. This, in my opinion, is the worst part of this movie. Every single "wanna-be-scare" in this movie is exactly the same. In you are writing a horror or thriller movie that is very repetitive in terms of suspense, you have the same thing happen, but under different circumstances and situations. Different things have to happen in order to keep the audience interested. Most movies like this, the scares star small and then get big or they start big, get small and get HUGE at the end. This movie...they start big and they stay big. There is nothing special about it. Now, you're probably wondering why I'm giving this a 7/10 after all of this criticism, but like I said earlier the movie was not THAT bad! Minus the emotional content and good scares. The acting was OK. I'll be honest, I think Jonas Armstrong saved this movie. All I'm saying is that is was an OK movie, but it could have been a lot better.