I wanted to but couldn't!

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

What starts off suspenseful, interesting and promising becomes repetitive and ultimately a bit absurd. Enjoyable enough for a once off viewing.

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.

As the gentlemen towards the end of the movie says "You tell a good story, friend. But sad to say, I'm not moved. I don't feel anything." This movie does not do justice to Barker's writing in any way.The downsides:The acting is wooden - Facial expressions are practically non-existent, especially the leading lady appears to be in a constant daze. Body language does not match the action or the words. The main character overcompensates by acting as if he were part of an amateur ensemble told to really get into it. His pecker totally steals the scene.The script-writing makes me cringe - Exchanges between the characters mostly consist of lined up one-liners with no natural flow or credibility. Saying things like "I don't want to lose you" and the excessive grieving after the break-up of a relationship that was not really one to start with is just not believable. And why does the lady suddenly go blonde at the end of the movie?The pace is slow - I'm fine with slow movies, if the pace is required to establish relationships, motives and characters, but the acting and script allow for none of these to develop, so the results is..... BORING!Special effects - The dragonflies scream CGI. Loudly.Redeeming qualities:Special effects - The writing on the young man's skin looks really nice when it first appears.The pecker shot - Not really my thing, but it firmly establishes that this is not a Hollywood movie.The sex scenes - Well..... they're good. They're the only time the actors actually show some emotion, albeit of the physical kind.Conclusion: The sex scenes were the best thing about this movie - How bad must a horror flick be to elicit such a statement?

Barker's story isn't flawed in the pace department, as some complain here. I didn't feel the plot dragged on. Rather, I found the characterization to be flawed.The student cheats his teacher by faking supernatural signs in the house. Where the hell did that come from? A totally unnecessary and puzzling plot-twist. However, much worse was Sophie Ward's totally inexplicable and illogical transformation from a normal woman to blood-sucking, amoral, brutal quasi-vampire. Just because a few insects landed on her face she made a 180 and turned into Satan's emissary? That was rather stupid. No explanation given, not even a hint. Suddenly she's the bad guy, period.No, Clive, landing a couple of insects on the character's face does NOT qualify as an explanation. Nice try, but no cigar.Was anyone truly surprised by that pathetic, predictable plot-twist involving Ward as being the person who hired the psychopathic killer? I saw that coming a mile away.And how the hell did she manage to fill that hole-riddled cottage with a pool of blood? Don't liquids leak through holes? So she established contact with the dead: fine. She reads their little stories: fine. But how does that suddenly turn her into an all-powerful witch? And since she is so powerful, why even bother to hire a killer?As for the dead, I have no clue what fascinating stories they might have had to tell the living. Perhaps about how bored they get in the after-life? How terrible the food is in Purgatory? About how dull it is to walk around like a zombie and stand in line for a chance to write down a few experiences on the skin of a living person? Did they get numbers when waiting in line? Did fights break out between the undead as they impatiently waited to cut his skin? The visuals offered of the crossroads of the Dead were very good, I thought, but I can't escape the nagging doubts that the dead were just a bunch of bored zombies who overvalued their own stories, to the point where they thought that a hot female teacher should read them from the skin of her hapless pupil.