Blood & Chocolate (2007)

Needs to Be Observed while Imbibing Godiva Chocolate Liquer into Your Bloodstream.

I loved Annette Curtis Klaus's novel. It did for werewolves in a smaller amount of time what Ann Rice's Vampire Chronicles series did for vampires: Made them human and empathetic.

Klaus's story wasn't just one of people who became wolves at night and preyed on humans, but of the inner struggle their human part has with their animal part. Vivian learns eventually that she cannot help being what she is and that it's not so bad with a good, strong leader like her father once was.

Here is a disgusting story about nothing but senseless bloodshed, bad special effects, and it leaves you cold once the end credits begin to roll. There is no moral to the story about being true to yourself--just one long, cheap bloodbath that couldn't even begin to satisfy the most hardcore horror fans. Klause's book had some charm, humor, and heart in it among the truly eery moments. This so-called film adaptation offers nothing but cheap thrills and a meaningless waste of 100 minutes of your time you will never get back. Read the book, please! July 26, 2008

Way, Way Off

I usually try to appreciate films based on books for their own merits. This film is visually appealing, but as I absolutely love the original story, I truly cannot overcome my horror at how badly the story was butchered to make this into a film. I don't even know WHY it was butchered so badly, as it certainly doesn't improve the story, which was fine as it was. Agnes Bruckner is good in the role of Vivian, as are the actors who portray the Five; aside from Rafe's penchant for the occasional murder in the film, these six characters maintain their essence in the adaptation, though no other character does. In the novel Gabriel is sexy, strong, and cool, not hateful and perverted. He is not Rafe's father, and he does not switch mates every seven years.

Anyway, I was terribly disappointed with this film because I believe a film based more on the original novel would have been MUCH, MUCH better. July 14, 2008

Fluffy Werewolves and Biting Humans

First I'll say I haven't read the novel so I wasn't let down by it because it differed from the original story. I've seen nearly every werewolf movie ever made from old black and white classics like the Wolfman or Henry Hull's Werewolf of London to the first 7 of the Howling movies (some of which I couldn't believe I actually wasted the calories watching the thing), Dog Soldiers, Wolf, Beast of Bray Road, American Werewolf in London/Paris, and even Cursed and Gingersnaps along with countless others.

These werewolves were certainly a bit more fluffy on average than the lurking monsters in some of the other films, towering on two legs with dribbling saliva, wild eyes and 3 inch claws. Like the original Howling, they didn't change by the moon. While some argue this takes away from the mythos, it also has the potential to put an edge on a movie. At least if they only change under the full moon you don't have to worry about being ripped to shreds during the daylight. And how many movies have been made where it's glaringly obvious something is going to happen because people are taking a stroll (or making out... monsters hate people making out in their woods) under the full moon? With a free transforming werewolf the danger is real and present at any time, any place, and you're never safe.

The second thing I applauded the movie for was the human being actually having a brain and a spine. Particularly in recent vampire/werewolf genera it's too often reduced to Lois Lane and Superman syndrome. The buff, cool good-monster type is the object of a human's love, and the supernatural character has to go charging to the rescue every two seconds. In this movie, the romantic interest actually managed to look after himself.

The transformation sequences were also more fluffy, but since they weren't as savage or scary as many of the horror movies, I didn't mind. I'd rather have seen that than a bunch of cheap and badly done CGI anyway (Bad Moon, anyone?)

I found it different enough to be refreshing, a bit sappy (wasn't overly fond of Underworld although I own both of those, too), and certainly not your standard horror flick. That can be good or bad depending on how you look at it. If you want fluffy wolves and a romance plot which happens to involve werewolves and a certain amount of peril, then it's not bad. If you want a horror movie with plenty of splatter, definitely bury this one in the back yard.

As werewolf movies go, there's certainly a lot worse out there. June 15, 2008

Not the book...

Ok, this movie wasnt so good...it was ok, but not good. Mostly if you had NEVER read the book then you could make it work for you, maybe. I for one went to see this movie becuase i loved the book "Blood and Chocolate" by Annette Kurtis Clause. I was sadly disapointed to find that the ONLY things this movie had in common with the original book was: It was about werewolves, the girls name was Vivian. Thats it. NOTHING in this movie was anything like the book. I know that movies based on books are almost always a dissapointment but this was SO badly done it was ridiculous. Since the rating was only PG13 i dont even know WHY they changed Vivians character...the only reason the book is even seen as somewhat controversial is becuase Vivian starts the book as a 15 year old girl that loves to think about sex (what young teenager doesnt?) to make this less of a BIG deal they changed her to a 20something chocolatier that doesnt even live in the US (again having nothing to do with the book, she is in HIGHSCHOOL in a southern state possibly Tennessee with all the moutnains). Overall, like i said if you had NEVER read the book you might be able to overlook most of the cornyness...otherwise be prepared to be dissapointed. April 24, 2008

Bad acting + Childish special effects + Slow pace = Boring

This movie is not worth watching beccause of the bad acting, childish special effects and slow pace. It's very boring. April 22, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...