Viewers friendly with a kind of a deep story. I didn't really got the story until I read some reviews after the movie.Not really horror except for 2 scenes - the backstory and the creepy end. There are also some sex scenes with nudity. In the very beginning the viewer meets the main character who actually tells us the story "how he ended like this".There are a hot teacher, tough guy obviously not her husband and a freshman (student).There is a haunted house where things are supposed to happen.The backstory of the house is the only good thing about this movie - scary and brutal, there is violence, blood, skin torn apart. They show you things you wanna see in the movie but you never see.Killings close to none. Nothing paranormal. A little blood, a little more blood and a lot of blood in this movie. Disney's Pirate of the Caribbean was a better horror movie.Nothing is what you think it is.I lost interest in watching it after some time, but finished the movie. The sex scene was a big distraction for me. Most of the time nothing really happened.I would have voted 3/10 but there were like 2 good scenes.

This film pleasantly surprised me. Recent Clive Barker adaptations haven't really been masterpieces (though thankfully there always has been enough talent involved to make them interesting, at least). "The Plague" (2006) just wasn't much to write home about. "The Midnight Meat Train" (2008) was better, but it basically just tried to blow your socks off with extreme violence & bloodshed. And now, "Book of Blood" might just be the finest recent adaptation so far. It relies more on mood & atmosphere and all this is handled well. A duo of paranormal investigators - Mary Florescu (Sophie Ward), the professor & Reg Fuller (Paul Blair), the technician - moves into a reputed haunted house. Mary invites student Simon McNeal (Jonas Armstrong) to come along, for she believes him to have psychic abilities that might tap into the house's paranormal activities. But distrust soon rises between the threesome as they try to determine what's real and what's not in this house of hauntings.Granted, the story remains pretty thin throughout the film, but director John Harrison takes this as an opportunity to not only create an eerie mood and build tension, but also to work on the main characters. There's a disturbing sexual tension growing between mentor Mary & student Simon which escalates in some keen exposure of betrayal. Actress Sophie Ward is an awesome woman and left a great impression on me with her toned-down performance. Both the pro- & epilogue make the movie a bit oddly structured, but it helped to flesh out the story a bit (pardon the pun). The film oozes with that sort of old school British Gothic vibe, but it's much darker portrayed than usual, adding a great deal of atmosphere to the picture. It's a rather little film, don't expect to be blown away, but it's a well-made effort and a clean adaptation carrying on the spirit of Clive Barker's work splendidly. I have yet to see his other recent outing, "Dread" (2009), but I've heard decent things about it already.

I must really be missing something after reading some of the other reviews. I thought this was a complete was of what should of been an enjoyable movie experience.To sum it up there is a professor who studies the paranormal and just happens to get a new student in class that happens to be a clairvoyant, how convenient, that she can use in here new research project. From that point on it just gets predictable. Professor and student start sexual relationship, student turns out to be a fake who sets up paranormal activity in house being researched, when project is set to be shut down student shows back up and swears he didn't fake all activities and just to prove it runs upstairs where ghosts just happen to appear at the right time to try to tie up the lose ends of this horrible story. A few obvious twists here, add some there and you end up with a very bad film. Not recommended for the avid Barker fan, very disappointing.

I just finished watching this and found myself thoroughly impressed with the acting, story and pacing. Usually Clive Barker flicks are too concerned with blood and guts gore, which this one also has some scenes...but this movie was more supernatural and ghostly or creepy than gory. The creature designs were creepy, not over the top with nonsensical decorations or pins. The acting and direction was pretty realistic, in regards to reactions, actions, and details of what people would do in such situations. I enjoyed the detail of the characters actions in each situation. As with any movie, you can pick it apart if you so desire, but this one has enough attention to detail to cover its tracks for a movie. I gave it a 9 out of 10 because it was an unexpected treat for me, a fan of ghost stories. The production value was good too considering it was not a major Hollywood flick. Cinematography was good with nice dramatic lighting and great wide shots of scenery. I did not give it a ten because it started out a bit goofy with the forced narration at the beginning... I suppose trying to show the mechanism of the ghost visitations would be a bit challenging and time consuming so they took the easy way out via narration.I recommend it for fans of ghost stories. It is a well paced film, not too fast, not too slow. Although at one time, I got a bit tired of the imagination vs. reality effect.