It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

I honestly don't know why Clive Barker didn't sue to get his name removed from this terrible disaster of a film, since by all reports it's nothing like his book. It's not because of bad acting; the actors are all at least decent in their parts. It's just that they have absolutely nothing to work with.The premise of the film is stated and restated, over and over again, as if it's a particularly difficult concept to grasp. What really is intolerable is the fact that it's repeated no less than three times within the last five minutes of the film. I'm fairly sure if we've lasted that long, it can either be assumed that we get it more than adequately, or it's far too late to try and drive it home.The story is so incoherent and ridiculous that things seem to just happen for the sake of having something to jazz up a few minutes, but they're so random and pointless that they utterly fail. Even nudity doesn't manage to spice this up. The multiple sex scenes -- which add absolutely nothing whatsoever -- are quite a chore and quite a yawn. It's been quite some time that I've seen a film nudity couldn't help, but this one manages ably.Nothing about the story really makes sense. The characters are poorly-defined and unsympathetic, and things spring up randomly to try and backbuild what should have been established long before it's touched upon. The whole thing reads like a peek into a situation that is neither interesting nor compelling, and it ends up a massive waste of time. The framing story is tied in and becomes even more bizarre and less suited to the rest of the film, but by the time this is made clear, it's too late. You've already watched the rest of this inane slog, you might as well see it through. Unfortunately, it's nothing new or interesting, and it's devoid of any of the (strangely) erotic elements that Barker typically tries to work into his writing. Instead, it's all dull as a beige room.The music is forgettable most of the time. Otherwise it ends up sounding out of place and distracting, which is easy to do since the scene you're watching won't be interesting enough to keep your attention. Unfortunately, whoever did the sound production made it another one of those films where you struggle to listen to the dialogue, but the effects and screams are ridiculously loud.The cinematography can be summed up in one word: grey. Everything is grey. Everyone is grey. Every event is grey, every effect is grey. It doesn't help to make an already incredibly boring affair any more interesting.Poor pacing, incoherent and dull script, and bad sound can't be helped by good actors, especially when they're limited by what they have to work with in the script. Don't waste your time on this one. It has some interesting concepts, which I can assume are the only things that were really taken from the source material, but it does nothing interesting with them. This might have worked decently as a short film, but it has no business pushing two hours of length with its story that nobody was waiting to hear.

The reason I watched this was down to the fact I once had an interest in Clive Barker who despite a somewhat pretentious writer could spin a good horror yarn . HELLRAISER remains one of my all time favourite horror movies . Also this film takes place in Edinburgh a city I know very well and if nothing else a lot of entertainment value can be had by shouting out I know that location The bad news is that if you're Edinburgh born and bred you'll find that the main location is the interior of a film set impersonating a large Georgian flat in Edinburgh's New Town and when you've seen one gloomy interior you've seen them all . Don't say you weren't warned because the film starts with a close of a full English breakfast so location spotting isn't the film's strong point which limits itself to a very few establishing shots of the Edinburgh city landscape That said anyone outside of Midlothian won't be interested where the story is set , only in the story itself . One wonders about the obstacles the story might have since the original story by Barker is merely used as a literary device by the writer to book end a series of short stories , one of which THE MIDNIGHT MEAT TRAIN shows one of the problems elongating a short story beyond its natural length To be fair writer/director John Harrison has made an interesting haunted house thriller . It's a very limited subgenre and Harrison does rely on the old clichéd cinematic tricks such as the sound mix to make the audience jump . It's not out and out horror but the few scenes that do rely on violence and gore are very effective when they do happen . It's no HELLRAISER but is engaging enough as a haunted house chiller . One can't help also asking why cinema hasn't taken up more Baker adaptations ? He's not a great writer , relying a little too much on purple prose but like Michael Chrichton his great strength was as an ideas man and there's worse writers studios can draw on for inspiration than Barker

Driven to arrive at a secluded mansion, a paranormal investigator and a psychic find that the house sits at a location where souls pass through to the afterlife and that the dead want their story told but require human skin in order to tell it to others.This here had a lot of potential but ultimately it really let itself down big time with several really big flaws that shouldn't have been there. The biggest blunder comes in the first minutes of the film where it gives off the secret right away, so it's not exactly a surprise what happens within the film, building up to something that's fairly obvious. Also, the film's incredibly long running time leaves a lot to be desired, as this one has a lot of useless running time that could've been trimmed without losing anything of any importance, and there's several plot lines that could've benefited greatly from this due to the removal or trimming done. Still, the theme of what's going on, the outstanding, if limited, gore effects to realize them and a rather intense last half where it's confined to the large Gothic mansion really bring this one up a notch. Not too bad, but could use some minor work.Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language and frequent Male Nudity.

This film pleasantly surprised me. Recent Clive Barker adaptations haven't really been masterpieces (though thankfully there always has been enough talent involved to make them interesting, at least). "The Plague" (2006) just wasn't much to write home about. "The Midnight Meat Train" (2008) was better, but it basically just tried to blow your socks off with extreme violence & bloodshed. And now, "Book of Blood" might just be the finest recent adaptation so far. It relies more on mood & atmosphere and all this is handled well. A duo of paranormal investigators - Mary Florescu (Sophie Ward), the professor & Reg Fuller (Paul Blair), the technician - moves into a reputed haunted house. Mary invites student Simon McNeal (Jonas Armstrong) to come along, for she believes him to have psychic abilities that might tap into the house's paranormal activities. But distrust soon rises between the threesome as they try to determine what's real and what's not in this house of hauntings.Granted, the story remains pretty thin throughout the film, but director John Harrison takes this as an opportunity to not only create an eerie mood and build tension, but also to work on the main characters. There's a disturbing sexual tension growing between mentor Mary & student Simon which escalates in some keen exposure of betrayal. Actress Sophie Ward is an awesome woman and left a great impression on me with her toned-down performance. Both the pro- & epilogue make the movie a bit oddly structured, but it helped to flesh out the story a bit (pardon the pun). The film oozes with that sort of old school British Gothic vibe, but it's much darker portrayed than usual, adding a great deal of atmosphere to the picture. It's a rather little film, don't expect to be blown away, but it's a well-made effort and a clean adaptation carrying on the spirit of Clive Barker's work splendidly. I have yet to see his other recent outing, "Dread" (2009), but I've heard decent things about it already.