book of bloodMary Florescu, a paranormal researcher/investigator, is a visiting professor.  She is in the city to conduct an investigation into a house that has had some gruesome activity, the most recent of which was a teenage girl being horribly killed.  “Horribly” as in her parents found her with her face ripped off.

Helping Mary, other than her tech guy, Reg, is a student, Simon.  Simon’s history is sprinkled with paranormal activity, dating back to when he was eleven years old and “saw” the death of his brother.  Once Simon begins staying in the house, all manner of things begin to go bump in the night.  One recurring phrase is “Don’t Mock Us”.  That’s one bit of advice the researchers should heed and take to heart (as well as a lot of filmmakers).

Mary, herself with a macabre past, begins to be troubled by the house and the spirits within.  She has difficulty, at times, distinguishing reality from illusion.  And it doesn’t help that she has begun a romantic relationship with Simon; it only seems to give strength to the supernatural incidents.

Book of Blood, based on two Barker short stories, “Book of Blood” and “On Jerusalem Street”, is no Midnight Meat Train.  Yes, those are very two different films, but Train is by far the superior in both story and quality.


As gruesome as the title sounds, Book of Blood, the movie is not too gory.  That’s not a bad thing, though.  Book takes its time to tell its story, it doesn’t rush to the money shots (so to speak), it develops its characters nicely, slowly building.  But it all feels so familiar, so been there-done that.  It’s not until the final scenes with Mary and Simon in the house that it has any ambition and offers an interesting take on the world of the dead.  And the movie takes itself so seriously at times, it verges on silly.

Good, but a little lifeless.

3.5 out of 5
the_novacula