Popular reviews

• 

  Review by Josh Lewis ★★

  seems like genuinely creepy material from clive barker, couple nasty ideas and there's even some decent gore (the 2nd short story in particular has some Hellraiser-adjacent cosmic body horror), but not really sure why they hired an anonymous network tv guy to direct it like a cinematic universe of horror stories. doesn't really thread the stories meaningfully (there's no way the 3rd one even counts, it's really just 2 stories) and there's hardly any style or texture to it at all.

• 

  Review by MJsays ★½ 1

  I literally don’t remember a thing.

• 

  Review by Philbert Dy ★½ 1

  For this to have been a good Clive Barker adaptation, it would have needed to be:

  63% weirder.
  32% gorier.
  97% dirtier.
  5312% hornier.

  That's just math.

• 

  Review by Sofa Sinema ★★★½ 4

  I kind of hope that the stories don't all end here. Not sure if Hulu was intending this to be a launching pad for a series. but I'd be game for more of this thoroughly downbeat and clever slow burn horror show. It has some intense gore and strong acting. It also bends expectations in cool ways that are just shy of being pretentious. Clive Barker sensibility is here, but I wasn't expecting to see Seth MacFarlane among the executive producer credits. 7.6/10

• 

  Review by haley ★★ 2

  i started this two years ago and just now finished it. i think that's enough information for you guys to understand how i feel about this.

• 

  Review by Mister Cap ★ 17

  Sag, kennt ihr diese Dinger, mit denen sie in "Clockwork Orange", Alex die Lider an den Schädel getackert haben, damit seine Augen gewaltsam offen bleiben und er gezwungen ist, sich brutale Filme anzusehen? Ja? Selbst die hätte bei mir nichts geholfen und ich wäre trotz dieser Dinger bei diesem Film sicher mehrfach eingeschlafen.

  "Books of Blood" ist eine Anthologie, die auf Clive Barkers Horrorgeschichten-Buchreihe basiert. Drei Geschichten bilden die Anthologie, die alle in Zeit und Raum miteinander verbunden sind.

  Die Anthologie beginnt mit zwei Gangstern auf der verzweifelten Suche nach dem titelgebenden Buch. Nach diesem Prolog, vergisst der Film die beiden fast eine Stunde lang wieder. Aber dazu später mehr.

  Die erste, VIEL zu lange Geschichte handelt von einer in…

• 

  Review by Brian Tallerico ★★

  Books of blah.

• 

  Review by B E R T ★★★½ 1

  Interesting. I think overall the 3 segments work well as individual stories, however, not having anything really connecting them made this feel less like an actual anthology film and more like 3 episodes of The Twilight Zone slapped together and called a movie. The production value of the stories is all really good, far better than some of the Into The Dark entries, and there is an impressive cast throughout. So all in all I liked it, it’s not the most amazing anthology flick but it’s entertaining and I had a fun time with it for the most part.

• 

  Review by Paul Thomas ★ 1

  One of the biggest issues with anthology horror is it's a mixed bag in terms of quality. Some stories are good and some are bad which makes for an inconsistency. Well good news to those who find that frustrating, because in Books of Blood, they are all equally, consistently terrible

• 

  Review by Tony the Terror 🎃 ★★★

  Far from amazing and far from being one of Barker’s better adaptations, I still found this to be entertaining in a sort of generic but good looking kinda way. Plus, im a sucker for anthology films so that helped a lot. 

  The middle (of three) stories is hands down the best and not just because the lead actor spends a lot of screen time nude…although that never hurts in my book ohkayyyyyy. The first one was fun too but not very Barker-esque. The third one was really barely a story and then the finish was a little displeasing with the whole “character you’ve followed for the whole movie suddenly turns out to be an entirely different person” trope which only…

• 

  Review by Zay ★★

  I really wanted to like Books Of Blood but it kinda sucked. Each story was bleak and rather boring. The first story was to long and anticlimactic. The second story at least had some really cool nightmarish imagery towards the end. The third story felt rushed. It does kinda sorta tied the other stories together but not in a clever "ooh that's dope" sorta way.

• 

  Review by RepoJack ★★★ 4

  The biggest sin this movie commits is not putting Clive Barker's name above the title card. Does no-one in Hulu's demographic know who Barker is?

  This was just ok -- probably should rate it lower but I finished it so that's saying something. I think the 2009 version is better but I can't remember it that well. This almost felt like a gory broadcast TV version of the Creepshow movies without the crypt keeper but with a shit ton of roaches and rats and the "Motel Hell" psycho foster family. The acting was TV movie level meh with the exception of Britt Robertson who was great (she was the best thing about the middling Under the Dome TV series.

  Two…