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.
209 Reviews
fairy like sets
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.
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.
I know book v. movie yadda yadda
taco_potter9 July 2007
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.
Movie without book = okay. Movie with book = HELL NO!!!
Roselite26 January 2007
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.
(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.
Worth watching if there is nothing great available.
tifrap25 June 2007
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.
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.
Awful
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.
S10 Review's Blood and Chocolate (2007)
suspiria1026 November 2007
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.
'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.
After gutting the source novel the movie turns out to be just another TV movie of the week
dbborroughs10 February 2007
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.
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.
Mild werewolf thriller for teens
TdSmth529 January 2007
I haven't read the book so this is a commentary on the movie by itself as a movie. For some reason I was expecting this movie to be darker, edgier, perhaps even a horror movie. The PG-13 rating didn't phase me as so many horror movies are coming out now with PG-13 rating. But this one borders on PG on it good-heartedness and gentleness. It's not particularly entertaining since there's not much drama in the movie, not much to look forward to. The main character is too reserved and withdrawn to be particularly interesting. The main bad guy is hard to understand because of his thick accent. There's some ambivalence here on the good/bad dichotomy as the werewolves aren't really bad by nature, they're just trying to blend in and protect themselves, so you can't dislike them all that much. Plus it's hard to dislike wolves. My concern here that the wolves may have been harmed during filming. At the end of the movie there is no disclaimer that no animal was harmed, instead there's something to the effect that efforts were made avoid injury, which isn't quite the same. The love story didn't convince me all that much. Does it always have to be the American tourist? On the positive side, I like the fact that this was filmed in Bucharest, it sure looks like an interesting city so there are some great sights here. The mythology behind the story is good too. I like the special effects and the transformations. They look very unique. And something can be said for a movie that's not as malevolent as most movies. This is a good film for teens.
Coulda-been
galensaysyes28 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I read the book after seeing the movie and didn't care for it, finding it somewhat trashy; but trashy books often make good movies, and this one certainly could have. The story of a teen girl's exploration of her attractive power over boys, which she finds as irresistibly stimulating as it is doubtfully controllable, and which has an even tighter grip on her than it would on a normal girl because it affects her through her werewolfry--this story would have an obvious appeal to the young audience for which movies are made: an appeal of one kind to girls, and of another kind to boys: and I don't understand how the movie makers could be blind to that and turn the story into one with little appeal to anybody.
To begin with, take the title (which is the best thing about the book): it's drawn from a Hesse quotation, also used as an epigraph, about a person running in fear and tasting both blood and chocolate in his mouth, one tasting as bad as the other. This is a wonderful metaphor for the heroine's state: torn between her human and wolf sides, savoring each but equally fearful of both. The movie dispenses with the epigraph, and instead introduces the character working in her aunt's chocolate shop! I can understand how the book's title might have suggested to the movie makers the erotically charged chocolates of "Like Water for Chocolate," and led them to want to link the same symbol to werewolves. But they didn't; so why is it in the movie? In the book the characters are in high school--or in and out, as with the Five, a teen gang who favor black jeans and T-shirts, and fall somewhere between being the heroine's nemeses and her pet peeves. In the movie they've become decadent twenty-something clubgoers. In the book the heroine is 16, just of an age to be discovering how her sexuality operates on the boy she wants, as well as on herself; she's the one who initiates the contact, then steps back, re-initiates, and so on. In the movie she's no longer a girl but a woman, and the guy is no longer a high school poet on the fringe of campus life but a fugitive from the law (and a comic book artist, to boot), it's he who comes on to her, in a manner as unattractive as that of her wormy cousin. She initially puts him off, but then gives in, as he's confident she will: hey, you know you want it. I would have thought a female director would have taken the chance the book offered to show a female protagonist in an uncompliant, proactive role; but no.
In the book the heroine's clan is driven from their home because of the Five's delinquent behavior; in the movie it's because she went for a run(!). She's a great runner, prone to kicking off from building walls, and both she and her clanmates scale buildings in a trice; very like heroes of martial arts movies and very unlike wolves, or anything resembling them. In the book they don't turn into actual wolves, but things bigger than wolves; in the movie they're just ordinary wolves. In the book they metamorphose in "Howling" style, with crunching of spines; this is one of the things that make the heroine aware of the pain her body brings her, as well as the pleasure. In the movie the werewolves have become magical acrobats, taking great swan dives and transforming in mid-air, shimmering yellow like Tinker-Bell; it looks cool, means nothing.
In the book the clan is a slightly white-trashy family that has relocated from West Virginia to Maryland. In the movie they live in Bucharest but all talk in different accents, none Romanian. In the book nearly the whole pack want to lead normal lives and agree that to insure that--and indeed, their survival--one necessity is to keep their true nature secret from humans. And so the characters keep saying in the movie; yet the head of the clan is some kind of underground boss--but apparently not a crime boss, since he despises criminals--and has a standing deal with the police, who supply him with "meat" for the pack. This seems a big exception to the rule of keeping humans from knowing; but maybe the police are considered safe because of their known tolerance for eccentricity and cult murder.
At the end of the book the heroine learns she can't be something she's not when, in her effort to live a divided life, she gets stuck between the human and animal states, unable to be all one thing or the other. Her boyfriend isn't sure or strong enough to accept her for what she is, the pack can't risk having him around, and the two are forced to separate. In the movie she rescues him like Lassie, and they drive off to Paris (why Paris?), in an ending that's smiley-faced but not really happy, since the conflicts between their natures--between _her_ natures--remain unresolved.
But the difference in the movie that hampers enjoyment the most is that whereas the book characters behave conventionally, within the realm of young adult novels, those in the movie for some reason have been made as annoying as possible. Every other line is a threat or some other kind of oneupsmanship: you'll be sorry; you don't belong here; you won't get rid of me; I gave you your chance; etc. I prefer to steer clear of people who deal in that way.
There have been many good vampire movies, never a good werewolf movie. Had this one stuck to the book, it might have been the first.
But no.
To begin with, take the title (which is the best thing about the book): it's drawn from a Hesse quotation, also used as an epigraph, about a person running in fear and tasting both blood and chocolate in his mouth, one tasting as bad as the other. This is a wonderful metaphor for the heroine's state: torn between her human and wolf sides, savoring each but equally fearful of both. The movie dispenses with the epigraph, and instead introduces the character working in her aunt's chocolate shop! I can understand how the book's title might have suggested to the movie makers the erotically charged chocolates of "Like Water for Chocolate," and led them to want to link the same symbol to werewolves. But they didn't; so why is it in the movie? In the book the characters are in high school--or in and out, as with the Five, a teen gang who favor black jeans and T-shirts, and fall somewhere between being the heroine's nemeses and her pet peeves. In the movie they've become decadent twenty-something clubgoers. In the book the heroine is 16, just of an age to be discovering how her sexuality operates on the boy she wants, as well as on herself; she's the one who initiates the contact, then steps back, re-initiates, and so on. In the movie she's no longer a girl but a woman, and the guy is no longer a high school poet on the fringe of campus life but a fugitive from the law (and a comic book artist, to boot), it's he who comes on to her, in a manner as unattractive as that of her wormy cousin. She initially puts him off, but then gives in, as he's confident she will: hey, you know you want it. I would have thought a female director would have taken the chance the book offered to show a female protagonist in an uncompliant, proactive role; but no.
In the book the heroine's clan is driven from their home because of the Five's delinquent behavior; in the movie it's because she went for a run(!). She's a great runner, prone to kicking off from building walls, and both she and her clanmates scale buildings in a trice; very like heroes of martial arts movies and very unlike wolves, or anything resembling them. In the book they don't turn into actual wolves, but things bigger than wolves; in the movie they're just ordinary wolves. In the book they metamorphose in "Howling" style, with crunching of spines; this is one of the things that make the heroine aware of the pain her body brings her, as well as the pleasure. In the movie the werewolves have become magical acrobats, taking great swan dives and transforming in mid-air, shimmering yellow like Tinker-Bell; it looks cool, means nothing.
In the book the clan is a slightly white-trashy family that has relocated from West Virginia to Maryland. In the movie they live in Bucharest but all talk in different accents, none Romanian. In the book nearly the whole pack want to lead normal lives and agree that to insure that--and indeed, their survival--one necessity is to keep their true nature secret from humans. And so the characters keep saying in the movie; yet the head of the clan is some kind of underground boss--but apparently not a crime boss, since he despises criminals--and has a standing deal with the police, who supply him with "meat" for the pack. This seems a big exception to the rule of keeping humans from knowing; but maybe the police are considered safe because of their known tolerance for eccentricity and cult murder.
At the end of the book the heroine learns she can't be something she's not when, in her effort to live a divided life, she gets stuck between the human and animal states, unable to be all one thing or the other. Her boyfriend isn't sure or strong enough to accept her for what she is, the pack can't risk having him around, and the two are forced to separate. In the movie she rescues him like Lassie, and they drive off to Paris (why Paris?), in an ending that's smiley-faced but not really happy, since the conflicts between their natures--between _her_ natures--remain unresolved.
But the difference in the movie that hampers enjoyment the most is that whereas the book characters behave conventionally, within the realm of young adult novels, those in the movie for some reason have been made as annoying as possible. Every other line is a threat or some other kind of oneupsmanship: you'll be sorry; you don't belong here; you won't get rid of me; I gave you your chance; etc. I prefer to steer clear of people who deal in that way.
There have been many good vampire movies, never a good werewolf movie. Had this one stuck to the book, it might have been the first.
But no.
Surprisingly Good
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.
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.
Romance In the Land of the Werewolves
claudio_carvalho16 July 2007
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")
"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")
Read the book, but I wouldn't have liked it even if I hadn't.
ringroundthemoon31 January 2007
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.
Okay
tony-camel5 March 2007
What a fine accomplishment for German director Katja von Garnier. She has delved into the traditionally all-male world of directing a genre monster movie and turned it into a Romeo & Juliet with style. There's a distinct lack of gore, and the violence isn't overbearing, while the astounding art direction and overall moodiness of the movie is only heightened by filming on location in Romania, a perfect backdrop for the heavy gray feeling of Blood and Chocolate. Even when the couple in love is happy, there's a brooding nature that permeates the streets, even in daylight. Most amazing is the graceful and poetic transformation of the humans into their alter wolf egos. They run into a frenzied pitch and then leap into the air and become real wolves, rather than the usual cheesy werewolves accentuated by special effects. It's quite breathtaking.
Simple, but beautiful.
aura77223 March 2008
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.
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.
Avoid at all costs
monkius_stupidius26 January 2007
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.
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.
geography
notmeno4 February 2007
I've been reading these comments and i just want to say..what has Bucharest to do with the "rainy Hungarian nights"?!?! it's not in Hungary! Apart from that..after reading how everyone who read the book is so disappointed by the movie i became interested in reading the book, it seems to have much better characters and a better story. I've only seen about two movies that followed the book..interview with a vampire and dune. they can't really summarize in an hour and a half a story and complexity of characters that takes hundreds of pages to describe. so..stop expecting to see the book on screen when you go to the movies.
Wow a Werewolf film with 3-d characters...hmmm
azurecielo5247925 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This film managed to surprise me by having actually complex characters (well at least one, the Aunt Astrid), and a love story that develops without the use of T&A. All in all not bad, but watch out for the cheesy, 30-second, swan-dive, metamorphosis extravaganzas complete with angelic music--I cracked up laughing. Other than that, this was definitely one of the better ones in its' genre. Worth seeing ***Spoiler Warning*** There were only three main problems with the plot that I found issue with: 1. Gabriel (and Rafe for that matter) never saw the error(s) of his/(their) ways: I just think that the highly intelligent and supposedly ethical leader of such and old "people", would have had more experience with reevaluating his motives. Plus he didn't stick to his code of ethics by not attacking the human once he crossed the river. 2. Where the hell did the serum/antidote silver come from? I know that this is Bucharest and the werewolves were supposed to have been there for 5000 years, but who did it? the humans? the werewolves? 3. We know that Vivian never killed a human and just liked to "run free", so why were the hunters who killed her parents following her in the first place? Were they just wolf-hunting or what? She blames herself--as do the others when feeling spiteful--but something else had to have happened to bring the hunters around initially.
A Nutshell Review: Blood and Chocolate
DICK STEEL11 March 2007
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.
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.
Better than I expected
ladymcbeath3 February 2007
I saw this with my husband, otherwise I probably wouldn't have seen it in the theater. I had to pick something we would both enjoy. We really enjoyed it even though it's not a great film. It's shot in Bucharest so the scenery is fabulous. What a fascinating city. It's a new take on the werewolf story, a little bit like the back story of the vampires in Underworld, that they have been hunted to extinction and there is this one last enclave that is running the crime scene from an absinthe factory. The werewolves-as-crime-family story is weak, the love story is weak, but Hugh Dancy is wonderful and Agnes Bruckner grew on me. What is strong about the movie is the setting, the action, and the wolves. It looks and feels a little bit like The Bourne Identity with wolves. It's not life changing but it's definitely entertaining.
Worst Movie Ever!
notrealforwebs17 June 2009
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.
Old school werewolf
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.
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.
I liked it
bjlockie28 January 2007
I liked it.
I found it entertaining.
I was interested in how the love story turned out.
Yes, a lot was predictable but most movies are predictable these days.
I also liked The Covenant and both Underworld movies.
It didn't have a great plot but it had a plot which is more than can be said about a lot of movies.
Go see it and decide for yourself, especially if you liked The Covenant and Underworld movies.
The ten line minimum for comments sucks.
I found it entertaining.
I was interested in how the love story turned out.
Yes, a lot was predictable but most movies are predictable these days.
I also liked The Covenant and both Underworld movies.
It didn't have a great plot but it had a plot which is more than can be said about a lot of movies.
Go see it and decide for yourself, especially if you liked The Covenant and Underworld movies.
The ten line minimum for comments sucks.
An Excellent book into an Average Movie
Woodbane7728 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I understand what people are trying to say about putting the book out of your mind when watching this movie, but the fact is without the book as a reference this movie is rather annoying. Its the same old boy meets girl Hollywood crap. The only thing decent about this movie was the way they portrayed the shifting from human to wolf it was rather impressive, but dancy's acting was a little pathetic. He came off as Mr sensitive and then suddenly grew bold and heroic as if out of nowhere, not to mention that Vivian's character became this whiny this girl with no appreciation for what she was which totally takes away from the way she is portrayed in the book. The whole reason behind the blood and chocolate title was because she both enjoyed and hated her humanity and her beastly nature, without accurately portraying that they shouldn't have even used the book as a guideline for the movie. The fact is they turned a complex story into an average love story with a few special effects.
No Blood and Bitter Chocolate
Carrigon31 January 2007
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
