Books of Blood (2020)

If you've gone through all of the Shudder and Halloween titles you can find, every time something new pops up it usually incites two emotions- excitement and skepticism. Most of the modern horror is a complete let down. And with the rare exception (Snatch, Crash) most tie-in movies are even worse. This is a little gem, though. You won't be able to tie together the stories, and you wont' figure out what the book of blood is. This isn't very "horror" like, but it does have a little gore and some disturbing revelations. It's a bit different than most, but with just enough traditional Clive Barker elements to keep the viewer satisfied. If you're looking for something new this Halloween, look no further than Books of Blood.

Fmovies: To be brief, this is just another middling, bland horror movie served up by Hulu as a Halloween drop. There's a little flavor here, but overall, it's a forgettable bite from an unremarkable meal.

I'm a sucker for a horror anthology whether good or cheesy, but this one treads a fine line. Three interconnected stories that all start off almost blandly acted and poorly written, but as the stories unfold, the insanity starts to ramp up. It interweaves human monsters with ghostly ones and the result is some very unsettling content. I also like that the visionaries for this film didn't rely heavily on CGI, and added a heavy dose of practical effects, cinematography and good editing to naturally disturb me. Learning that this is based off the work of Clive Barker, it makes so much more sense as it feels like a dark poetic nightmare from the 80's. Where the film falls short is the over-extension of one story, a loosely threaded connection and failure to captivate the audience out the gate with something truly compelling. Otherwise it was a good watch.

Books of Blood fmovies. I can save you some time: if you want to watch this story told well, watch 2009's Book of Blood. It's better in every regard: more faithful to the source, more creative, more nuanced, better performed, visually superior... it's simply - possibly objectively - better. This new version is anemic and clumsy by comparison.

The only thing it contains that its predecessor doesn't is a single story which, while not terrible, is more of a distraction than an enhancement and which also, as far as I can discover, isn't actually adapted from a story out of the titular books.

Just don't bother with this version unless you've already seen its predecessor and are morbidly curious.

It is based on Books of Blood by Clive Barker and the second film adaptation after Book of Blood (2009). But this time they made into an anthology and the end result is good. I enjoyed this one n so far this one is the best horror of this Halloween season.

The best part about this one is that it moves at a steady pace, it has twists n turns, the lighting is amazingly done, nothing is shot in the dark, no annoying flickering lights, there r few good jump scares and the end very satisfying.

I'm not sure why this has so many bad reviews. I really liked it. The first two stories are better than the last, but I never found myself bored (which is saying something when you watch every horror movie and TV show you can find and nearly half of them bore you). I liked the first adaptation of Clive Barker's Books of Blood and I like this one too. If you're looking for pure gore or jump scares, this isn't the movie for you, but if you're looking for something creepy and unnerving, I would recommend this one.