Books of Blood backdrop - movieMx Review
Books of Blood movie poster - Books of Blood review and rating on movieMx
2020107 minHorror, Science Fiction

Books of Blood

Is Books of Blood a Hit or Flop?

FLOP

Is Books of Blood worth watching? With a rating of 6.315/10, this Horror, Science Fiction film is a mixed-bag for fans of the genre. Read on for our detailed analysis and user reviews.

6.315479 votes
RateYour rating
Advertisement

Books of Blood Synopsis

A journey into uncharted and forbidden territory through three tales tangled in space and time.

Advertisement

Top Cast

Britt Robertson
Britt RobertsonJenna
Freda Foh Shen
Freda Foh ShenEllie
Nicholas Campbell
Nicholas CampbellSam
Anna Friel
Anna FrielMary
Rafi Gavron
Rafi GavronSimon
Yul Vazquez
Yul VazquezBennett
Andy McQueen
Andy McQueenSteve
Kenji Fitzgerald
Kenji FitzgeraldGavin
Paige Turco
Paige TurcoNicole
Saad Siddiqui
Saad SiddiquiDan

Official Trailer

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Books of Blood worth watching?

Books of Blood has received mixed reviews with a 6.315/10 rating. It might be worth watching if you're a fan of Horror, Science Fiction movies.

Is Books of Blood hit or flop?

Books of Blood has received average ratings (6.315/10), performing moderately with audiences.

What genre is Books of Blood?

Books of Blood is a Horror, Science Fiction movie that A journey into uncharted and forbidden territory through three tales tangled in space and time....

You Might Also Like

Explore More

Critic Reviews

tmdb28039023Aug 30, 2022
★ 2

Books of Blood is a horror anthology ostensibly based on an eponymous series of short story collections by Clive Barker. The movie is divided into several segments, but there are only two distinguishable stories, and only one of them has its origin in a Barker text. There’s about 30 minutes worth of a good movie here; visually evoking the best of Hellraiser and narratively full of rich irony and poetic justice. Even if Barker was not involved (and I assume he wasn’t), and even if the filmmakers take creative liberties, the strength of the source material shines through; it’s recognizably Clive Barker and it’s given a first rate treatment. The problem is that the rest of movie has nothing to do with the original Books of Blood, and doesn’t come close to the Barker’s level of sophistication and intellect; it doesn’t even qualify as a pastiche. This is not to say its ideas aren’t sound, and in fact it has a couple of neat tricks up its sleeve (in particular the composition of certain shots). This is the director’s is first feature film and it shows potential, but next time he might want to work without the comfort, or the constraints, of a figurative safety net. Why not make your own movie, tell your own story, make a name for yourself, instead of sheltering under an iconic name that ultimately won’t attract praise any more than it will repel criticism? Even if he failed, at least it would be on his own terms.