Clive Barkers Dread

This movie was a real positive surprise. It felt both original and well done. Simply a real good movie to watch.

It's perhaps hard to place this movie in any particular genre. Psychological-horror would be the best way to describe this movie. It plays on the deep rooted fears of people but please don't expect from this movie to give you plenty of scare moments, or anything of that sort. It's not really an horror in the classic most common sense of the word. The drama plays an important part as well, which only strengthens the movie its psychological-horror aspects. In that regard alone this movie already works out as an original and interesting one.

But above all things, it's also a really well done film. It has a good build up and narrative, some fine actors and the movie has a good look over it as well. It's not a big budget movie that had a big cinematic release anywhere but you can't really tell that, judging by the movie its looks or just overall greatness. Actually hard to believe that this was the first ever movie for director Anthony DiBlasi, who was also rumored to direct the new Hellraiser movie for a while. He would had certainly been capable of it and he had worked with Clive Barker, the creator of the Hellraiser franchise, before, which was on this movie actually, that got based on a short story by Clive Barker. His approach of the horror and more serious story aspects, which he shows that he is capable off with this movie, would had been great for a new Hellraiser movie.

The movie has a story that steadily but slowly progresses. Yet the movie becomes never a boring or dragging one because it is capable of getting you involved with the characters and their stories. It's a real intriguing movie to watch and because it's being so original, you also can't really predict all the time what is going to happen next in it. No, not everything works convincing or works out as strong and effective as it could had but still this movie feels like a breath a fresh air and is perfectly watchable.

A nice, original, well done little film.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

I actually have to get some Clive Barker books and read some of his stories. This is again one of the adaptations of one his stories and it's a pretty decent effort. The idea behind the story/movie is pretty great and has to do with human behavior/fear. While other movies might have exploited the "torture" part of that more, this movie is more subtle.

Of course you could see this as a bad thing, but I quite liked the movie. Even/despite characters, that are all more or less not likable. You are not really rooting for one of the characters that much, they are all human, with flaws (some psychological, some physiological). The good thing is, that the movie does stir away from the books ending. Some saw it as something bad, but I like when the movie takes a chance (and succeeds in my opinion)!

While I disagree with your review, I respect your opinion. However, the last line you wrote makes no sense.

You wrote, "We all know already what humans can do to fellow human beings. We don't need to watch it over and over again." Why watch anything then? We all know humans fall in love, so why watch Romantic Comedies? We all know cops bust criminals, so why watch Action films? And Dramas are full of the things we all do as humans, so why watch those?

This film is a solid effort and one of the better Barker adaptations to date. It contains all of the elements of classic Clive; sex, revenge, desire and, of course, blood and bodily harm.

Keep those Books of Blood coming!

Three students decide to study people's fears for a video documentary college class as sort of a "fear study". Initially they simply interview their subjects but then one of the students progresses to setting up situations where the subjects are forced to confront their fears.

Pretty much universally positive reviews from horror magazines and websites were given to this film, and I feel bad that I cannot be as supportive. While I think this film has a lot of strengths, and may be better than the average film, it also has some weak points, too.

I have to say the film is very admirable with regards to the gore on the topless dancer, and the dismembered girl in the bed. Other gore scenes were also decent, and there is no short supply of blood, and a special effects that shines beyond the budget. I also enjoyed the gritty sex scene, reminiscent of the style of "Derailed" (though the sex scenes are quite different).

The film as a whole has a lot of sexuality to it, which I find to be a flaw. I liked the painting of nude woman, with the addition of her blue hair, but soon realized it was just he first step towards more and more nudity. Usually, I am the last one to frown on nudity, gratuitous or otherwise. But I felt this film was using it as a crutch, that despite having a strong story, they felt they could not get by on merit alone. And that is a shame.

As far as being compared to recent Clive Barker films, this one is clearly better than "Book of Blood" (which was just boring), and on par with "Midnight Meat Train". I may like "Train" slightly better, but both have their strong and weak points. Barker's original story is roughly 40 pages, including some casual references to Kant and Bentham (and unfortunately Dickens). The film tends to ignore these intellectual touchstones and veers off into more pornographic territory. They do, however, take the "fear of meat" to a new height.

"Dread" was chosen as the 2010 horror film of the year by HorrorHound contributor Dave Kosanke (with Jon Kitley agreeing). Kosanke thinks the film is "primordial and raw" and "even manages to one-up the story". Another HorrorHound contributor, Aaron Christensen, disagreed and felt the film was too long and would work best as an anthology coupled with one or two other Barker stories. Incidentally, he chose "Black Swan" as the year's best.

Thankfully, none of them picked "Harpoon" like Aaron Crowell did (that film had few things right going for it). And I have to agree with Christensen that "Black Swan" easily trumps "Dread" (though I think Adam Green's "Frozen" was also a worthy contender). I would not put "Dread" in my top three for 2010.

I would, though, not necessarily endorse Christensen's idea that this be squeezed into an anthology. While "Book of Blood" clearly ran over its needed time, this film seemed to go over by mere minutes for me. The writer added enough to the original story to really have it stand on its own two legs. I would say that it could be trimmed five or ten minutes, as some scenes just went on too long for me. But it has enough story and depth to really be its own film.

Ultimately I do not see this being one of the strongest films of recent years. The gore effects are amazing, and I hope the crew behind that goes on to bigger things. The cinematography is also stellar. But beyond that, I do not know. I feel it went on a tad too long, and what should have been a story about "dread" became too exaggerated for me. It pushes the level of realism too hard and enters a surreal stage. And that is not dreadful. Psychologically unstable, maybe, but not scary.

Taking a glance at the cover in the video store, I almost arrogantly assumed it would be a terrible slasher flick, due to it's title and the lack of pictures, and also due to the fact that it went out of it's way to mention that Jackson Rathbone, "Star of the Twilight Saga", was in this film. I felt a little uncomfortable until I glanced a bit longer and noticed that it was "From the mind of Clive Barker". But alas, this is a review of it's content and not it's cover.

I'm glad I did pick it up however because it turned out to be a decent psychological thriller, more so than it was a horror film. The characters are convincing, in particular Quaid, the protagonist bad guy, who we feel isn't all right from the very beginning of the film. I feel as if I was led to question whether the motives of Quaid were inherently bad or environmental, due to a childhood of significant psychological torment. When an audience is opened up to the possibility of these influences, immediately it changes from a horror film to an intellectual psychological thriller, that borders existential exploration of the human psyche. I couldn't help but feel as if some scenes of the film kind of reminded me of Fight Club, as Quaid attempted to groom Stephen in to his mode of thinking, but unlike Fight Club, this was unsuccessful and we saw the further polarisation of the characters involved in the college project from Quaid.

All in all, Dread is a film which won't cater to your grisly, sleazy gore driven desires, mostly due to the fact that a lot of the gore is paced out through the film and used tactically in order to keep it relative to the conceptual element of the film, and also to keep the suspense. For those who enjoy psychological thrillers, college sociopathic sadists and existentially driven plots, will enjoy Dread. Fans of Clive Barker can rest assured that Anthony DiBlasi has effectively captured Clive Barker's depiction of the story and doesn't buck to the sleazy needs of Hollywood gore and torture-without-reason films (Saw) and manages to effectively convey the terror, torment and disorientation of Dread.