FIRST LOOK

1

The photo above gives new meaning to the term "skin flick". I'll be looking for more on this one in the future. Not much to go on as of yet...

C-Young on Feb 11, 2008

2

I'm always in for a great horror flick.

Curtis on Feb 11, 2008

3

The picture where she is holding that skin is pretty horror to me. I believe I will have a nightmare tonight because of that.

whynot on Feb 12, 2008

4

Hey, I warned you not to read ahead!! Now look what's happened... 🙁

Alex Billington on Feb 12, 2008

5

And all he wanted was a face-lift 😛

avoidz on Feb 12, 2008

6

I started reading this book years ago, dropped it pretty quickly. Rubbish.

Dr.Duvel on Feb 13, 2008

7

I wish we had an update on the progress. Especially after all the drama with Lionsgate The Midnight Meat Train. I'm certainly looking forward to this.

tzarinna on Apr 19, 2008

8

Clive Barker is the reason horror has been going in the wrong direction since the late 80's. I've never been a big fan of Barker. Books of Blood were in my view poorly written. The narratives had huge flaws, rank with tautology, overwritten, with weak dialogue, characters, and phallically obsessed. Barker's obsession with genitalia never did it for me. It's puerile. Characters getting hard-ons at the least unexpected moments is plain ridiculous. He wallows in gore like an evil kid stirring his fingers in blood and mucus, or in Barker's case, stirring his fingers in the eviscerated vagina of a gay virgin. He is also another of those horror writers who equates sexual abuse with horror and thinks all women wander about having constant periods. His morality is suspect too, and seriously unhealthy. In too many of those stories from Books of Blood he wants us to sympathise with demons -(nothing wrong in that for a horror story, and it's been done before he did it). But in one story these demons have gang raped a young woman. Barker then tries to convince us that these beasts are loving, caring, gentle souls. When King said Barker was the future of horror, he was right because look what happened shortly after Barker - horror went into a rapid decline and Barker switched to Fantasy. The sooner Barker B-gone, the better.

emir on Jun 18, 2008

9

In response to #8: You're an idiot. Barker has incredible range, incredible control of language, and fantastic sense to detail. He pushed the genre of horror to new boundaries for popular fiction...you're just jealous, or a prude. Enjoy your Dean Koontz.

Stuck@work on Aug 4, 2008

10

Clive Barker is great and his work is suberb and unique. Emir we don't need any religious or moral advice from you if you don't like, stop reading it. I'm sure we'll have Barker for a long long time and i know I will enjoy it.

the_arsonist on Sep 5, 2008

11

man..i dont know what to think of this movie. i saw Midnight Meat Train and LOVED IT.. granted the story was originally VERY short, and they added more things to the movie to make it longer, BUT DID NOT CHANGE THE STORY. this story, was really..just...not that involved..so unless im confused because i havent completed any of the books of blood past vol 2, I dont see how this has enough full story to make a movie. IMO, it was just a introduction to the whole idea that is the compilations called "books of blood".. am i wrong?

werd on Nov 17, 2008

12

There's a second story linked to the first called THE BOOK OF BLOOD (A POSTCRIPT): ON JERUSALEM STREET, this story is in Books of Blood 6

the_arsonist on Nov 18, 2008

13

I am trying to compare the translations of the Midnight Meat Train to Turkish, so I have examined the book throughly. I think, Barker indicates his own style through the short direct speech sentences, mostly descriptions, not the development of the characters, but the chain of the events, light&dark connations, the unexpected ends, horroric details like blood, slaughter, hammer...etc. Not as a translator, but as a reader I really got surprised when I learned that Mahogony was just the 2nd protoganist in the "Subway Slaughters":S and dear Leon had to be the new 2nd while he was trying to take the photo of the truth. How poor Leon is!!! How ruthless Newyork is:S And when I wrote this, i remembered a sentence in the begining of the book: "It was proof of living in that city" Jajaja really this should be the back side of the "promised land"...

c?en on Nov 23, 2008

14

This movie was revolting. The people that made it should be ashamed. These wonderful works by Clive Barker have been violated by this movie. I am proud of Clive Barker for not actually directing this. It never touched on a single actual "Book of Blood" which are short stories, since the movie didn't even allude to that. Also, the sex scenes were too racy and normal to even remotely be attached to Clive Barker's name. If you follow his work, you know that it is a rare occurrence that simple heterosexual sex ending in orgasm and a night in bed together happens. Clive usually throws in a cenobite or at least minimal mutilation. I believe that these people that made this movie, slapped "Clive Barker" on the title and figured it would make money. They didn't get my 18 dollars. Also, the "how books of blood were made" idea of the movie, was not enough substance to even make four paragraphs in a book, let alone a movie. I want my two hours back.

Heather Elliott on Oct 12, 2009

15

The film of ''Book of the Blood'' is so fantastic.Its a best horror movie that i haven seen!!!! It's story about a death want to tell a story to the human. A human was mock them so their so very angry and attack them. We must respect them like we're respect other human. Its to dangerous if us mock them. And a boy,Simon McNeal,was fake it vision. He was want to influence Mary's brain but,all of his secret was know from Mary. Mary is a psychic researcher in his school.The awesome is,Simon's flesh was crave of the death. The crave is like a word.And this word is claims and narrator. Wow!!! that's awesome. That's why i'd like this film and i wanted to read its book.

Ronald on Nov 30, 2009