User Reviews (199)

Add a Review

  • I enjoyed this film. It isn't life changing, deep or even particularly thought provoking, but it does draw you in and keep you 'entertained' throughout.

    Many of the comments below extol the book and damn the film, you'd think they would know better to expect a fairly run of the mill film to outshine the fiction it was based on. I haven't read the book but I may now.

    The story is compassionate and attempts to re-consider the wolf-person theme by treating them as an oppressed minority, I couldn't help but think that they were a metaphor for the Roma, a thought that bears scrutiny I think.

    The cinematography was atmospheric and Bucharest became the star, lots of beautiful rococo buildings and a pleasantly eastern soundtrack. I kept wondering if the film wasn't a Hollywood offering because the characters all seem normal and manage to avoid behaving in the usual American manner (not an "oh my god" in earshot), but no, the ending isn't European.

    I was really pleasantly surprised with the beautiful human to wolf transitions, the makers restrained themselves from fx to the benefit of the film, it reminded me of the early eastern European fairytale films (the singing ringing tree). Don't be concerned about gore or substance abuse as mentioned below, there is little more blood than a few cut fingers and bloodstained clothing, and the only substance that gets abused is absinthe (which may well be an illegal substance in your country as it is here), it gets drunk sparingly, injected once and burnt fairly often. See this film.
  • sewiltz11 July 2007
    "Blood and Chocolate" is a surprisingly good movie. I was expecting it to be some terrible, low-budget horror-wannabe movie in the vain of "Dracula II: Ascension," "The Prophecy: Uprising," and "The Prophecy: Forsaken". Instead, "Blood and Chocolate" was a well-done film. This movie was nearly pitch-perfect. The acting, set design, score, cinematography and story were nothing short of wonderful.

    Olivier Martinez gave an outstanding performance in what could have been a clichéd role. His portrayal of Gabriel was multi-dimensional and none of his screen-time was wasted. He brought all of the elements together as leader, father, and lover (even though there are no sex scenes, he is constantly smoldering with an animal rapacity). He gave a credible performance, especially in light of Gabriel's fate. (I also enjoyed his commentary on the DVD. He is a very thoughtful and funny person.) Agnes Bruckner's portrayal of Vivian was well done. Her acting was not robotic. Vivian's nature is pent-up and bland; she has no outlet for her inner turmoil other than running, and according to the rules of the pack, she must not form close relationships with humans. It is important to remember that this character is not the same as Selene from "The Underworld" series who seethes with vengeful ferocity even while she's strapping up her bustier. Hugh Dancy was adorable and believable; which is always a difficult feat in the role of romantic interest. Also, in the character of Aiden, the filmmakers were able to acknowledge their respect of the loup garoux storyline; they were practically screaming, "This is not some cheesy werewolf story!" Katje Riemann and Bryan Dick also gave nuanced performances as Astrid and Rafe. (The movie suffered from trimming Astrid's storyline. I strongly recommend watching the deleted scenes on the DVD. I think the fate of Astrid's storyline was the result of studio executives wanting to focus on the two younger characters more, but ultimately that decision hurt the overall movie.)

    The soundtrack was nothing short of amazing! In my opinion, it suited this movie perfectly. The percussion was not overdone, nor were the synthesizers. Each drumbeat not only heightened the excitement, but also helped to intertwine the dual nature of the loup garoux (human and wolf). I felt it as if it were the quickening pulse of the loup garoux giving in to their wolf nature. I think the decision to stay away from gypsy music (which I love) was a good one. The synthesized music was good and helped to the ground the story in youth and freshness, rather than some overwrought Romanian folklore manner.

    On the dual nature of the loup garoux, the transition from human to wolf was beautiful. I loved the notion of the "leap of faith" involved in the transformation and the mythical element of that transformation. Also, the coloring of the loup garoux eyes were spot on. The respect of the transformation from human to wolf translated to the great execution of this premise. The entire story could have been a cliché since the story is mostly "Romeo and Juliet" for the loup garoux set, but it was well-done and well worth watching.

    "Blood and Chocolate" had a few missteps. Nothing in the movie makes this title appropriate, other than a short, barely-audible line by Astrid. Not until visiting this web site was I aware that the movie was an adaptation of a book. Whatever occurred in the novel to make "Blood and Chocolate" a suitable title was omitted from the screenplay and the movie suffered for it. As I have stated, Astrid's storyline should have remained intact in the film. My final criticism is that the story is so well-done, I would have liked to have seen an R-rated version of the movie. Meaning, I would love to have seen an even more serious treatment of this story. My understanding is that the novel is geared toward pre-teens which explains the light treatment of the storyline.

    I highly recommend "Blood and Chocolate" to anyone looking for an interesting and well-crafted film.
  • flingebunt3 September 2007
    The Matrix has a lot to answer for. Post Matrix every vampire or werewolf movie (Van Helseign, Underworld, Blade) seems to involve copious amounts of special effects, Martial arts and the main character decisions being whether they kill the bad guy with a gun, sword, falling building, poison that makes people explode, or giant stake improvised from the radio antenna on top of the Empire State building.

    Blood and Chocolate follows the traditions oh movies from the 1980s (The hunger, Wolf, Cat people and even The Lost Boys).

    Characters are not fighting over whether to enslave the human race (if vampires planned to enslave the human race, wouldn't it be easier to let everyone know, and 1.3 Billion people versus a few thousand vampires or werewolves will be a very short battle indeed).

    Blood and Chocolate tells the story of a teenage werewolf who wants to escape what she is being told she should be and a young American writer/artist who has already escaped from his domineering ex-ranger father).

    In this story, werewolves are blessed, not cursed, they are the best of man and the best of beast. Though perhaps that is what they should be, and some of them are the worst of both.

    This is a human story at the human level. Some of the characters merely tend to turn into wolves. The movie is more about mood and excitement and action. The action is realistic, not modern son of Honk-Kong martial arts over the top stuff. I loved it, even though I also love the modern effects driven movies. In fact the special effects are so bad, it is likely that was a conscious choice (I think the transformation is a homage to Cat People).

    If you like this movie, check out the old stuff from the 80s.
  • Well, it was neither the worst nor the best movie I've ever seen. It was a testament to movies that you should watch as a last resort when browsing your rental place. Parts of it truly bugged me, like the unparalleled clarity to the viewer of what any rational human being would do, but, if you're fairly consistent about ignoring rationality, it shouldn't be a problem. I'm told that this movie didn't follow the book (the friend who accompanied me rather vehemently pointed out differences). It's hard to really point out what was wrong with this movie: the acting wasn't terrible, the characters were fine (albeit a little weak), and the story was sound. However, it just leaves you unsatisfied at the end, and you find yourself chuckling at some of the effects. It was nothing special, but it's not the worst movie either.
  • I have read the book. I have seen the movie. I would've been mad if I had seen it in theaters but I rented it and so I wasn't as angry about the changes. Basically, the book and movie have very little in common. If you can't get past that, you won't let yourself give the movie a chance. After original indignation I sat back and watched and I wasn't totally horrified by what I saw. Have I seen better movies this year? Yes. But I didn't hate it and demand the hour plus of my life back. I actually really enjoyed the Rafe character. He made me laugh several times and in my opinion, saved the movie for me. After I cast all things in the book from my mind, I enjoyed the premise of the movie and the new take in the werewolf genre.
  • code-1212 April 2008
    The movie was great, and not like those other kind of werewolves movie where the creatures looks like masculine gorillas. But this showed another nature of werewolves, as well how wolves behave. And just using real wolves gives this movie a plus.

    The acting wasn't bad at all, and i was glad this wasn't a typical werewolf movie where the main female (Vivian) is just some pro-ana matrix woman who kills everyone in matrix style, and can carry big guns, just like in the Underworld movies. I was also glad to see Aiden wasn't some superhero who suddenly become a strong guy and kills everyone in some awesome way. Thru out the movie he showed he was weak, but had courage.

    The romance was cute, and it showed how the relationship was developed between Vivian and Aiden. It wasn't like "I hate you because you're human" then suddenly the both persons screws each other and suddenly loves each other which makes it epic.

    It also showed the werewolves just wanted to survive, and could be friendly than just the kind who hates everyone and want to take over the world.

    Although if you're a typical sci-fi Gothic nerd who just want a movie with sexy slim tomboy girls, large gorilla looking wolves and feminine vampires which hates each other and fights just like how they fight in the matrix movies. Then this movie ain't for you. I then point at the Underworld movies.
  • Let me preface by stating that I grade my movies against their genre peers, not across the board. Ten stars for a Fellini film and 10 for BLOOD & CHOCOLATE translate into two different animals. For a modestly budgeted, PG-13 supernatural thriller, B&C ranks high in its class.

    That is not to diminish the directorial skills of Katja von Garnier, who also directed the quirkily charming, award-winning BANDITS. Thanks to her very capable hand, BLOOD & CHOCOLATE joins the ranks of recent memorable movies (THE HOWLING, WOLFEN, GINGER SNAPS, American WEREWOLF, CURSED) in a generally anemic sub-genre.

    BLOOD & CHOCOLATE is less of a horror film (splatter addicts will hate its lack of gore and nudity) than it is a supernatural romance, lush with gorgeously photographed Medieval locations, a sensual soundtrack, and beautiful actors in every role.

    The international cast is led by rising American starlet Agnes Bruckner, perfectly cast as the Juliet to Hugh Dancy's star-crossed Romeo, caught in a deadly interspecies tryst. Olivier Martinez and Brian Dick are superb as "homo lupine" royalty.

    Subtle attention to costuming enhances the characterizations. In his black leather jacket and tousled hair, Martinez's dominant scent practically wafts off the screen. Dick plays his son and heir apparent, a snidely confident Brit preppie leading a pack of hormonally driven young followers.

    Katja Riemann is the lean, sexy MILF of the pack, which is made up of dozens of hot young Romanian actors who perform their minor roles with vigor. It's nice when even the background players take their roles seriously and contribute greatly to the atmosphere, and too rare.

    The one area I could quibble with is the special visual EFX, but I won't because the single faulty effect is very minor, the kind that turns up frequently, even in big Hollywood blockbusters. Garnier makes effective use of action and stunts coupled with some great animal casting. The animals, by the way, are excellent actors as well.

    Blessedly, she forgoes the slash-and-burn digital editing effects so popular among lesser directors who rely on it to disguise their lackluster direction. She actually knows how to drive an action sequence without digitally blurred swishpans and chopshots that break the narrative flow to remind you how clever the filmmaker is. Instead she frames her shots masterfully, gets plenty of coverage, and uses traditional cross-cutting to add dynamism and suspense.

    The cinematography and production design are topnotch, taking full advantage of the architectural treasures of Romania, from palatial mansions to grungy industrial cellars. The soundtrack is excellent, the music hip but not obtrusive. The sound efx are rich and clean.

    The screenplay is by Ehren Kruger (THE RING, BROTHERS GRIMM, SKELETON KEY) and Christopher Landon (DISTURBIA, and son of Michael!). Their screenplay is pretty straightforward, ticking along like clockwork. It's based on a novel by Annette Curtis Klause, who's written some interesting, off-the-wall novels. Not having read her book BLOOD & CHOCOLATE, I can't comment on any possible differences, but the screenplay is well-crafted and the characters nicely drawn.

    Based on a book by a woman and directed by one, this is a great movie for couples or family viewing, with a good story told well, plenty to like, and nothing too exploitive or controversial. Its sexiness is very low-key but I suspect it would be a good tool for seduction. When the werewolf king flashes his wolf eyes, I'm sure hearts will melt and knickers will get misty.
  • we went into this film because everything else at the theater seemed boring. The name blood and chocolate almost made me miss it. I expected some Spanish arty film with that name. IMDb writers said enough to make the idea of seeing this film especially since most of the academy award nominees seem like freak show films.

    The era of classic vampire and werewolf movies has been over for over 20 years. Since than, we have seen a few, but those films were parodies or desperately tried to be different. This film is more a throwback to the old werewolf films. It is set in Bucharest, so the scenery is terrific. Nothing is too graphic. Many old classic, Gothic buildings and rainy Romanian nights are shown. The special effects are good when people turn into wolves, we see real wolves. The wolves are not that scary unless they growl but the situations are tense at times. Silver is still the main protection against werewolves.

    The idea that the wolves hunt in packs add a new tense dimension to wolf man movies.

    The 3 lead actors are fine. The first ten minutes with dance club scenes seem as if this film may be a cheap sleazy type film but it quickly veers into a film with a story full of Eastern European atmosphere. The major complaint by viewers seems to be that it was not like the book. This was also the complaint for Eragon. For viewers who had not read the book, this would not be a problem. This is not a film that pushes tolerance or some morality issues. It is just a werewolf film and the werewolves are not entirely bad. The film obviously is not a major classic like the old Hammer American International films but it is worth a look! Is destiny or personal decisions the main point? Perhaps one says one thing but the evidence contradicts the statement.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Blood and Chocolate (2007) ® D: Katja Von Garnier 3 of 5

    'Blood and Chocolate' is an adaptation of a young adult's book that dusts off the old forbidden love story line and gives it a fine lair of fur.

    Vivian (the cute Agnes Bruckner) is a young woman who loves to run and be free. But her simple life has hides a secret, one that will come into play later. Aiden (Hugh Dancy) is a graphic novel artist roaming Romania searching for art inspiration. Their paths cross in an old church and Aiden immediately becomes smitten with her. After finally getting in the proverbial front door, Aiden soon realizes that Vivian comes from an ancient line of loup-garoux. Secretly through the years the werewolves have ruled Romania after being run out of many other countries. Vivian was promised to the leader of the pack Gabriel (Olivier Martinez) something which she doesn't desire of course. In time Vivian falls for Aiden but the clash of their two worlds and Gabriel's refusal to let her go leads to the final confrontation that just may extinguish the loup-garoux forever.

    I can't compare the book and the film but I imagine that things were changed and redone. That's the nature of the beast so to speak. 'Blood and Chocolate' isn't a bad film per se. it just seems to cover the same ground that dozens of other films have tread. Think Shakespeare's 'Romeo and Juliet' but with fangs and fur and you have a broad but accurate idea. Two young people involved in forbidden loves while their families, cultures or fate attempt to tear them apart. Been there and done that. Using Romania as the backdrop certainly makes the film more visually pleasing but not enough to move the needle too much higher. The direction is solid but derivative. The acting is adequate. The two leads do a good job as the cursed lovers. The music (a big film component for me) was ultimately transparent and unremarkable. I liked the more magical approach to the transformations (even though it doesn't translate as well as it could) but the script in the end is the big crutch that the film relies on and fails.

    In short 'Blood and Chocolate' is a decently acted film that is hindered by its clichéd script and adequate but bland direction.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    What a terrible movie. How could a pack of werewolves be so weak that one guy with a silver necklace and a silver butter knife defeat them? They show a tremendous amount of strength by jumping and doing other things, yet when it comes to fighting this weak guy in the story, he beats them all and throws them around. He beats her cousin easily with a necklace, COME ON! A necklace? Who writes these things? Don't waste your time. A weak hero and a dainty girl defeats the entire pack of werewolves and go off hapily ever after. You'll do much better reading the ingredients on a box of laundry detergent. Life's too short, don't waste it on this movie.
  • victoriuonas28 February 2007
    I gave this movie a 5 rating, because it deserves it. The sets were beautiful, but lets be honest, especially us Romanians. We know what Bucharest is like, and you really have to look deep to find that sort of inner beauty. At time it resembles that city from the movie, but normally Bucharest, is not as romantic as the movie portrays it.

    I enjoyed the movie, but was very disappointed by how it ends, very sudden. The ending didn't fit the storyline, not one bit. The acting was mediocre, but acceptable. Another user described Viviane as robotic, this word pops in my mind as well. The movie, is not a masterpiece, but I enjoyed that description of Bucharest, which most of the time, eludes us.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    First of all, Blood and Chocolate is one of my all-time favorite books. Therefore, when I saw that they were making a movie based on the novel, my first thoughts were "Finally! I get to see how the author saw it in her head!"

    Sadly, this was completely untrue. It seemed that "based on the novel" means, we took the very very VERY basic storyline and added our own twists and revisions in Hollywood lingo. First of all, in the book, they were still in high's how they met. And Astrid was so not Vivian's aunt! Aidan was a hippie-wannabe kind of, Rafe was NOT her cousin (Ulf was Astrid's son), and Gabriel was only 24 (and he'd never been married before!!). Also, Vivian's father was the only family member she lost in the book, not her mother too. I don't know, it seemed that the movie strayed so far from the book that it lost the meaning of Blood and Chocolate all together.

    But if you step back and forget the book, it was a pretty decent adaptation of the werewolf myths and legends...

    So, my final words of wisdom: *If you haven't read the book, I'm sure you'll enjoy it. *If you have read the book, don't spend the entire movie comparing the two or anticipating things to happen like I did. Just sit back and watch the movie as just that: A movie.
  • I Read the book for this a long time ago, it was given to me by a friend and while it is not the sort of book I would usually buy while browsing for a new read I was enthralled by it and read it in one sitting (its not that big anyway) and then again the next day.

    Knowing this I watched this movie with some trepidation, I was expecting the usual rip off (ala Lord of the Rings, Narnia etc.) with too much special effects and most of the story missing including some of the most important/memorable parts.

    Now while there is a fair bit of the book missing here and a few changes, I was very pleasantly surprised, This film does manage to portray the storyline very well, the acting is believable and the characters look right. they also hit the nail on the head with the wolf side, These are not giant monsters who could tear a man apart with one hand they are wolves, pure honest to god wolves. It makes such a refreshing change to see a werewolf film these days that does not rely on special effects and all out action, One that tells a story and tells it well.

    I finished watching this movie with a sense of satisfaction that the job had been done properly, this is the highest praise I can give those involved in this film. it will be added to my collection asap and watched many times.

    I cannot say whether I prefer the movie or the book as I feel that both stand on a par, the book fills out the world and the movie brings it to life. So if you've only read the book OR seen the movie, then do the other as they stand better together
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I liked this movie a lot. It is nothing like the book but it was great and able to stand on it's own. I really enjoyed it a lot. It was so romantic and I would see it again. And I will definitely buy it when it comes out on DVD. It is a great werewolf movie and the transformation itself is very wonderfully done. I did like the fact that Aiden and Vivian ended up together.

    The book was great too. It was so dramatic and nice. I kinda liked that the movie wasn't like the book because it would have been dismissed as another teenage-cliché film which wouldn't be fair to the book. The book was so much more than that and it deserved a great movie for it.

    I really loved the fact that Vivian worked in a chocolate store and I liked the fact that Aiden stayed with her despite her being a werewolf. It really made it seem like love can conquer anything.
  • I have to admit, I didn't walk into the theater with high hopes. All the talk about it not being close to the book creep-ed me out and I braced myself for disappointment. But it didn't come. The movie did have some down points that could have been avoided, but that wasn't enough to make it bad.

    Hugh Dancy's acting was great, and he was unbelievably cute in the movie. Agnes Bruckner was not much to watch. She didn't really bring anything special to the screen, and her acting was very robotic. The rest of the cast was awesome.

    I think the best part about the movie was the Cinematography. I really enjoyed the effects and the camera movements were highly skilled and a joy to watch.

    Now the bad part. For all the people out there that have read the book(which includes me) and liked it, you could be in for a wild ride. They made drastic changes to major parts of the book, one would be the removment of Vivians Mother, Esme, which through the movie off balance for a bit. It does, however, pick up the pieces and comes off with a very interesting story instead.

    One other thing I didn't fancy about the movie was Rafe and the Five. The fact that they ended up to be Vivians cousins, or at least Rafe, which takes away another good story found in the book. Gabriel certainly isn't like his character in the book and that really saddened me. Out of all the characters, he was very one dimensional.

    Now, the movie is nothing like the book except for a few major details and the producers added there own twist to them. If you ask me, lots of the changes were un-called for, but you just have to look past them. If you put the book out of your mind when you go to see it and try not to compare (which ended up to be very easy since the movie is so different you can't even tell it was based on the book) then I think you will enjoy this. You have to to try to like it for what it is and not hate it for what it should be. Oh, and don't bring you little kitties to this. There are a few gore scenes(not to explicit but enough) and some mature content. I wouldn't have categorized it as horror, but it does have a certain atmosphere that gives you the chills. I highly recommend this movie for it is the best werewolf movie you will probably ever run into. I rate it 9/10, and that is only because it is not enough like the book that is should be.
  • JMauer28 January 2007
    If you've read the book, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. This movie butchered the book, the story was chaotic, didn't fit with the book. The characters didn't fit as well, the only thing that the movie had in common with the book was the character names. The script was terrible and the acting was poor. I almost died when I watched the movie, it was boring, wanna-be Underworld material. Even if you didn't read the book, it's still a pretty dull movie. There were about ten people in the theater when I watched it, my friends and I included. I'd say I've never been so embarrassed by a movie in my life. One good thing about the movie was that it was shot very well. The action wasn't all too bad either. However, as picky as I am about good story lines and books fitting with movies I'd say this is terrible. If you want to find a sci-fi movie that fits nicely with its book counterpart, find something like Interview with the Vampire. But don't see this movie if you've read the book, you'll be sorely disappointed.
  • Who did they make this film for? The story of a romance between a werewolf and a human, in its prototypical story of mismatched cultures, is the sort of thing thats been done to death in countless films and books. If you're going to do it yet again you have to have some reason. I'm sure that using the source of a well loved, and occasionally banned young adult novel would be the perfect reason to trot out the story line yet again. Unfortunately the film makers have botched the job and we're left with a barely okay little movie.

    Why use a well known story if you're going to change things around? great chunks of the book have gone missing. Worse still is the way the film has been shot. It looks more like a TV movie of the week rather than a movie to be seen in the theater, if they were going to make a movie that looks like it belongs on TV why not just release it straight to DVD? The acting is okay but the characters are all stereotypes of stereotypes. You know whats going to happen simply because it seems to have been written that way. Its not engaging or surprising simply because once a scene starts you can tell how its going to play out, actually once the movie's basic premise is set up you'll know whats going to happen, regrettably you won't care.

    Not worth bothering with unless you need a lesson in how not to adapt a book for the movies.
  • I read the book. That alone made the movie terrible. But I would have been upset whether I read the book or not. The first thing I noticed was that, unlike the book, Vivian and Aidan were made to be incredibly lonely. The original Aidan had a mom, dad, and little sister - he had a ton of friends. The original Vivian is proud of her heritage and of her pack. They were high school teenagers, but they were pulled out of society in the movie and the creators of this movie did the same thing they did to Underworld. No one smiles. Ever. Everyone is lonely all the time. The entire screen is blue for the duration of the movie. The characters are empty. It's all about the woman with fangs and/or a gun. I hate that this book was reduced to that. I don't see what was wrong with the plot in the book that they had to tear it apart. They essentially took the names and changed everything else. And not even for a good reason... the plot they created was miserable.
  • In Bucharest, Romania, the orphan Vivian (Agnes Bruckner) was raised by her aunt after losing her parents ten years ago in the Rocky Mountains, Colorado. His family belongs to a bloodline of werewolves and Vivian is promised to the leader of the pack, Gabriel (Oliver Martinez). When the American cartoonist Aiden (Hugh Dancy), who is researching werewolves for his publisher for the next edition of his magazine, meets Vivian, they immediately fall in love for each other. However, the evil son of Gabriel and Vivian's cousin Rafe (Bryan Dick) poisons Gabriel about the love of Vivian, forcing her to choose between her bounds with her family and her passion for Aiden.

    "Blood and Chocolate" is an entertaining romantic adventure, with an attractive story, good performances and great special effects. The gorgeous Agnes Bruckner and the great actor Hugh Dancy show an excellent chemistry in the lead roles, and Bryan Dick and Oliver Martinez are great villains. The wonderful locations in Bucharest are highlighted with the angles and movements of the camera, in a magnificent cinematography. I enjoyed this underrated movie a lot, and my vote is seven.

    Title (Brazil): "Sangue e Chocolate" ("Blood and Chocolate")
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie was boring. Very much like Underworld, only even less interesting. It's not much of a werewolf movie and no where near a horror film. The lead couple were boring. I totally didn't care about Vivian and Aiden. And there was so little character development that I didn't care about any character in the film. The plot was paper thin. The transformations were basically nil. I did like the wolves themselves, might as well have have done a wolf documentary, I would have liked that better. I wouldn't recommend this movie. I didn't find it fun or interesting. It just drags and everyone in it is a boring drag. This movie could win an award for how not to make a werewolf film.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Never once have I seen a movie so drastically different from the book. The only things these two have in common are the name of each piece and some character names.

    1. Aiden is a total tool in the book, not a over-glorified "graphic novelist". He isn't courageous. He doesn't have any substantial feelings for Vivian. From the film's perspective he comes off as totally hokey. Why would he care about some obviously disturbed young woman hanging out in closed churches? She obviously doesn't have a thing for him (which later in the movie he asks her "Why didn't you make me stop?" when she had made clear that she didn't want to talk to him.) If werewolves were "hunting" me in Romania, I would flee the country as soon as possible, not hang around to be rescued by the girl I'm suddenly afraid of.

    2. Gabriel is tall, not old, and certainly not her uncle. His character is very one-dimensional in the movie, where in the book he takes a more deeper role. The accent the actor had was the only one in the movie that actually seemed like it might have fitted in Romania, even as faked as it seemed, whereas the rest of the cast either had misplaced British or American accents that the only reason I could draw from was because they congregated in Romania from different areas. This fact not being presented in the movie, but only taken from my own desperate attempts to try and rationalize the movie.

    3. Who, with the exception of Goths, drinks absinthe? As a person that traveled through Europe, the only bar or club I ever went to that had absinthe was a goth club in Leipzig and the only ones drinking it were American tourists.

    4. If they were at least to differ from the book, I had at least hopes that they would maybe make the history believable. How can I say it, right...They had wolf-people in the stained glass in the cathedral! Any high school student with the most brief of World History classes could tell you that Europe went through a rather large movement that burned witches, werewolves, vampires, and the like. They did not revere them at all, especially not in churches. Heck, even the species of the European Wolf was hunted to near extinction (even currently "critically endangered") because of this. In the movie they said that the humans killed them but once in another scene they said that they had just "gone extinct" or something to that extent with no explanation. They could have at least blamed the plague and I would've been happier.

    5. The general character development of the entire movie was a sham. What a massacre of great characters. Someone earlier said that they destroyed the message from the original book about knowing who you are and coming to terms with it. This movie completely compromised that since Vivian decided to run off with her "graphic novelist" and go to "the Age of Hope". Vivian had no depth other than "vague" and "defiant", for no apparent purpose. Apparently the makers of the movie didn't even keep the author informed of the works in the movie and she had to get all her info online.

    6. Why does everyone in this Romania speak English, even with other Romanians, except for the one poor lady that worked in the chocolate shop? She must have a hard time getting around.

    Don't see this movie. Regardless of having read the book or not, its a bad movie. It seems that the makers of Underworld couldn't sell the idea of Underworld 3, and so stole the name "Blood and Chocolate". They took vampire wars out of the picture, kept some of the names accurate, and the title to attract the book's previously established fan base to make a quick buck.

    I'm going to go buy the book now, not the movie edition, and make sure I give some of my money to the real deal.
  • Aside from the saving grace of Hugh Dancy's presence, this movie was a complete disappointment. Hollywood would have done much better to have taken Klause's book as it was. The character's names and the basic premise of the movie were the only things that remained true to the novel in this movie. It lacked a good plot, it turned every character with the exception of Vivian completely around, making the werewolves evil and the poor humans the victims. The supporting characters built by Klause were completely shafted. If I were Klause and I had written such a great book, I would have sued at the mincemeat they made out of Blood and Chocolate.
  • From the producers of Underworld, this movie looks like a cheap cousin to the popular wolves versus vampires movie starring Kate Beckinsale. Based on a book by Annette Curtis Klause, and directed by Katja von Garnier, it's difficult not to draw comparisons because of the subject material and similar themes, this time though doing without the vampires, and sets the spotlight firmly on a group of hunted werewolves called the Loups-Garoux. Sexy sounding, but essentially a useless name for useless beings.

    The group of Loups-Garoux proudly stands by their tradition of being able to transform into wolves at will (and that is their only power mind you), and because of their abilities and lust for blood, they are hunted down by Men with their guns and silver bullets (who and what else). In order to survive persecution, they go underground and keep their identities secret, only to come out during the night for frequent partying at rave clubs (and to pick up chicks), as well as attending strange rituals such as gathering in the woods to partake in hunter-prey chases with wounded men as victims.

    In essence, they're a bunch of self-preserving cowards who hunt in packs, believing whole- heartedly that unity is strength. As mentioned, they got unimpressive abilities which probably forces them to do so, not by choice - only remarkable agility and the preference to scale walls and run along rooftops. Led by an uninspiring, cowardly leader Gabriel (Kylie Minogue's ex Olivier Martinez), he holds on to the unexplained hokey prophecy as well as the tradition of the leader of the pack to handpick a wolf-maiden to bed every 7 years. No wonder he's holding onto power without the necessity to do much to further their cause (which is?), and sets his sights on marrying Vivian (Agnes Bruckner).

    Vivian however, being the headstrong ingénue, falls for a plain human, graphic novelist Aiden (Hugh Dancy), and this is where references to Underworld come into full swing. The reluctance in the formation of a forbidden relationship from the girl with secrets, the revenge killings and the hunting down of Aiden, and with Vivian protecting her love, all reeks with familiarity. While Underworld had a rich backstory created for its characters and beings, Blood and Chocolate failed to have anything interesting in either wolf or man to engage the audience.

    And the execution here is painfully boring. No special effects, not even the baring of fangs, save for coloured contact lenses. It's relatively low-budgeted, and the transformation of man to beast, is so cheap, even a 10 year old kid with a no-frills video editing software will be able to achieve. Fights are confined to chases between wolves and man, and the usual scruffy fisticuffs. Don't forget the loopholes galore too after transformation, which is seldom seen on screen as it'll pose more questions.

    The only redeeming grace however, is the on-location filming in the streets of Bucharest, a beautiful romantic place, totally ideal for a romanticized tale of man-beasts. The soundtrack too had a tinge of Hindi(?!) music influences, which I totally enjoyed, but too bad, the film had been intrinsically destroyed by a lack of a strong storyline, plagued with non charismatic and weak villains with zero diabolical plans, with preference to hang around and do nothing, save for showing off their pitiful skills (which I suspect is because of the lack of budget).

    With a strange title, Blood and Chocolate correctly named itself - a weird and silly mix which doesn't go down well at all. Only watch it on disc if you've got time to spare.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'm going to talk about this movie from two different perspectives here. First is from the view of if someone sees the movie and never read (and may not ever read) the book. The second is from someone who has.

    (Movie without book) From a movie standpoint, it was an okay movie. Nowhere near as good as either of the Underworlds but much better than UltraViolet. And I'm not just talking plot line either. The visual effects were iffy in many of the parts, though the wolf transformation was very nice. The characters has very little development and Vivian didn't even seem to truly care that her "love" was killing off what was left of her species. Some of the other characters could have had more air-time, like The Five. The plot was way to similar to Underworld for my tastes.

    (Movie WITH book) As many have stated, other than the title, character names and a few minor parts, the movie and the book are nothing alike. In the movie, Gabriel was a lot older and was the father of Rafe (thus Astrid was once his mate). In the book, Gab was about 24, never mated with anyone since wolves mate for life (Astrid is trying to win his affection) and Astrid was the mother of Ulf, not Rafe. Another important thing is the location. The book took place in Riverview, Maryland. Also, why they moved from West Virginia is very different. The movie has it being Vivian's fault and her entire family was killed due to it. In the book, the original leader of The Five, named Axel, killed a girl from their school. Hunters tracked down the wolves and killed many of them (Viv's father included), forcing them to move. Also, Viv's mom, Esme was a major character.

    One thing from the book that would have made the movie better would have been the "bitch's dance". For those who don't know, it's the ordeal where all the bitches (females of the pack) fight to see who is the one to be the mate of the new leader (since earlier there was a fight for the males). Vivian won it, trying to save her mother from Astrid (who is a horrid evil woman in the book) and thus was supposed to mate with Gab. There was no prophecy! Anyway, if you've read the book and you liked the book, I highly suggest NOT seeing this film.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The reason I decided to watch this movie is that it was filmed in my home city, Bucharest. I was thrilled to discover what image would be attached to it in the movie. As some say, they gave Bucharest quite the romantic look. This city is totally European style and unique at some points.

    In the opening scene, I had to play it backward and forward a few times, because I couldn't believe the actor playing Young Vivian's Father was Mihai Calin. In Romania, he is a quite respectful actor. I've seen him in a play at the National Theatre.

    The scenes with the city that were shown while Vivian was jogging were amazingly beautiful. They showed some places where I love to hang out. They chose some really cool and really old buildings for the places Vivian and Aiden lived in, though dirty and miserable the apartments, I guess that was the criteria they needed, or wanted.

    In 31:15, there's a scene when Aidan comes down the stairs and says "Bunah!" to the receptionist. That means "Hello!" in Romanian.

    The last shot shown with the Arc De Triomphe totally rocked! I wished I knew about it at the time the movie was being shot, I would have auditioned for some small role or something. Any movie with Hugh Dancy shot in my city sounds perfect to me.
An error has occured. Please try again.