
Cheese & Crackers
Blood & Chocolate / Phillip Stephens
In case Pajiba’s general readership hasn’t gleaned this by now, I hate films like Blood & Chocolate, the horror-fantasy-lite flicks that cast supernatural antics across teenage profundity. I don’t know what to call it — nĂ¼-Goth? (See The Covenant, as well as seemingly any show on the CW). They all seem to be selling sex and style in ways too ridiculous not to laugh at. Comic book fantasies tend to succeed when they at least pretend not to be mere playgrounds for youthful artificiality. And that’s not even remotely the case with Blood & Chocolate.
One thing B&C does that might set it apart is utilize werewolves in its star-crossed-lovers template rather than vampires; I guess most people don’t think it’s sexy when someone starts lycanthroping all over the place. Anyway, one day in scenic Romania, an incredibly bland girl (Agnes Bruckner) meets a guy who looks like he has seaweed sitting atop his head (Hugh Dancy). The pair, named Vivian and Aiden, become infatuated with one another for no reason. Their courtship becomes complicated when it turns out Vivian belongs to a group of expatriates who, on occasion, turn into wolves and eat people.
These particular werewolves don’t even seem to be that: When confronting the whole sex-appeal issue, the writers opted for a much less messy version of transmogrification. A werewolf in Blood & Chocolate needs only smell blood and then dive into the air … at this point he or she will turn into a wispy rainbow, then an actual wolf. No, not a gigantic wolf-human hybrid — just a regular wolf. The problem with this is that it ignores what was frightening or disturbing about werewolves in the first place. Blood & Chocolate toys with a familiar mythology to its detriment. They’re still vulnerable to silver, though, allowing Aiden to whip everyone’s ass with a tiny piece of kitchenware.
Coupled with patently silly material, the actors don’t have much to work with, but they still exude a diffidence that is impossible to engage in any meaningful way. Dancy and Bruckner were obviously chosen for their looks, and nobody else in the film manages to show an aptitude for human emotions that might make them believable or sympathetic.
Maybe it seems like I’m being particularly hard on this movie because of my own personal preferences. Perhaps that’s the case, but really, who the hell was Blood & Chocolate made for? Horror fans? There’s no gore to be found here. Randy teenagers? The romance is so tepid it makes Titanic look like Casablanca. Truly, there’s not a blessed thing that Blood & Chocolate has or is able to turn to its advantage. How can the result be a surprise?
Phillip Stephens is a film critic for Pajiba.
A Dork Who Stutters and a Vagina that Bites | | Smokin' Aces
Comments
Ah, the nu-goth films. I was willing to watch a piece of crap film like The Covenant, despite the terrible reviews, simply because I wanted to partake in the hotness of dumb-but-partially-nude boy-witches; in particular, Taylor Kitsch. This film, however, doesn't even captivate me visually unless that Martinez guy re-enacts sex scenes from Unfaithful...which he apparently does not. Thanks for saving me the trouble.
p.s. Where the hell does the Chocolate part come in?
Posted by: CiCi at January 26, 2007 08:57 PM
^Good Question.
Posted by: Me at January 26, 2007 09:15 PM
This is certainly one of the funniest reviews I've read recently. I love this part:
Anyway, one day in scenic Romania, an incredibly bland girl (Agnes Bruckner) meets a guy who looks like he has seaweed sitting atop his head (Hugh Dancy).
Comedy gold, I tell you.
Posted by: Daphne at January 26, 2007 10:43 PM
to the above:
the "chocolate" part of the name comes from how wolf-girl (the heroine of the "story") gets a job at a chocolate factory. that part is true. the whole rumor about her packing fudge is suspect though.
not to be a smartass here, but there's another review that came out earlier today from another website that kinda reviews it in the same way (including a CW joke and a similair stab at the hilarious transformations). not accusing of anything here, but just wanted to let you know in case this happens to get flooded with "wtf! IGN said almost the exact same thing!" posts.
Posted by: Jonny Boy at January 26, 2007 10:56 PM
"Lycanthroping" the move may suck but at least we were present for the birth of a new verb.
Posted by: jbrader at January 26, 2007 11:01 PM
the "chocolate" part comes from the book (which isn't very good but it's entertaining enough........light airplane reading, i guess). but the movie's NOTHING like the book. and i don't plan on seeing it to justify that statement soooo yeah. haha. funny review though.
Posted by: hannah at January 27, 2007 01:13 AM
It really is a shame about this movie. I'm really big on Young Adult fiction - when it's done right, like John Greene's "Looking For Alaska", you'd be surprised at just how good it can be, and "Blood and Chocolate" is one of the better YA reads I've come across. Seems to me that they scrapped everything that was good and real and poignant about the novel, the shades of grey in many of the characters, and turned into just another shoot 'em up teen sex romp.
Or chew 'em up, I guess, given that it's werewolves and whatnot. A very unfortunate adaptation of a pretty decent book that actually WAS classically gothic.
Posted by: Molly at January 27, 2007 03:26 AM
The movie was extremely loosely based on a book of the same name by Annette Curtis Klause. The book is fantastic, the movie is... viewable at best.
Anyway, the title is a metaphor for Vivian's struggle between her humanity and lycanthropy. The chocolate shop has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Kate D. at January 27, 2007 10:07 AM
Olivier Martinez is in this movie. A sexed-up Martinez is reason enough for me...
Posted by: Meh at January 27, 2007 10:52 AM
I, too, love YA fiction, and I ADORE this book, because it's NOTHING like anything that's EVER been on CW, and there's actual progression of character and plot and suchlike. I was SO upset when I saw this had been turned into a movie.
This is the first review I've read, and apparently no one learned anything from the APPALLING adaptation that was Ella Enchanted.
I HATE when scriptwriters go "Oh, this book sells well, there must be money here!", read the first chapter, throw the book away, and make up the script.
Posted by: adrigon at January 27, 2007 11:50 AM
If you feed werewolves enough chocolate, wouldn't it kill them? I'm surprised no one has ever used that in a movie instead of silver bullets.
Posted by: Rob at January 27, 2007 06:04 PM
Where to start.
Romania has been the backdrop to a ton of vampire movies. But werewolves? With English accents?
And using the iconic statue of the She wolf feeding Romulus and Remus (the "founders" of Romania). Now, that just ticks me off. Seriously, go find another country whose history/mythology you can invent. How about England? Why don't you pretend that King Henry the whatever was a centaur?
Posted by: io at January 27, 2007 07:32 PM
The basement-dwelling robe-wearing RPG-playing roomate I have also dubbed this a piece of shiat, and then went back to playing World of Warcraft. If Brian would rather run Stockades than see this movie, it must be a real waste ot time.
Posted by: naive_charm at January 27, 2007 09:52 PM
"If you feed werewolves enough chocolate, wouldn't it kill them? I'm surprised no one has ever used that in a movie instead of silver bullets."
Good one, Rob. A friend's repulsive St. Bernard died from eating an entire box of liquer chocolates.
Posted by: Janis at January 27, 2007 11:01 PM
Romulus and Remus were the founders of Rome, not Romania.
Posted by: nevin at January 28, 2007 04:02 AM
One of the best werewolf films I know (if you're hankering after some werewolf action)
is Silver Bullet, by Stephen King. Particularly in terms of the latexy werewolfy special effects.
The best, hands down, is An American Werewolf In London.
A French Werewolf Whatever was crap, and Ginger Snaps was pretty cool. :)
Posted by: Loob at January 28, 2007 12:09 PM
Anyone remember "Blood & Donuts?"
Posted by: ormond at January 28, 2007 12:22 PM
Blood and Chocolate is such a great book, It's so maddening they can take a story with great characters (Gabe being my fave :P) and turn it into some cliche' not scary teenage horror flick.
Posted by: Ryn at January 28, 2007 01:19 PM
It's a sad day when Underworld and Van Helsing are the superior choices or when the YA book on which it's based is far sexier than the movie adaptation.
I'll never forgive Hugh Dancy for doing this to one of my favorite books as a young girl.
Posted by: Ann at January 28, 2007 02:09 PM
I'd be more interested in watching this turd(fat chance) if at least they transformed from rainbow to awesome Golden Retriever puppies.
WHY? cause everything is better with puppies, and it would make absolutely no difference in this movie's plot.
Posted by: BarbadoSlim at January 28, 2007 02:21 PM
I think I saw the review and though, oh not werewolves again...sort of dug Cursed though, Christina Ricci was amusing...
Posted by: Gina at January 28, 2007 06:24 PM
"I'd be more interested in watching this turd(fat chance) if at least they transformed from rainbow to awesome Golden Retriever puppies.
WHY? cause everything is better with puppies, and it would make absolutely no difference in this movie's plot."
BarbadoSlim - I always get such a kick out of your comments, but that was the best! Oh the visuals....
Posted by: pinkcheese at January 29, 2007 10:32 AM
Oh...my...gosh....SEAWEED SITTING ATOP HIS HEAD.. ha ha ha.... so... funny... WISPY RAINBOW??!!! This review was SO GREAT.
Posted by: Elizabeth at January 29, 2007 11:46 AM
Actually, the Women of the Underworld series by Kelley Armstrong (which I strongly recommend, btw, start with "Bitten"), does a pretty good job with the whole werewolf ethos even though her characters turn into actual wolves, albeit through a far more painful and less "whispy" process.
Posted by: bartap at January 30, 2007 05:22 PM
Hasn't anyone learned from Ginger Snaps? Maybe, just maybe, all this YA fiction needs in a film treatment is something a little more remote and less cgi-bloated, like Ratcatcher or My Summer of Love. Damn it, and the book was so good when I was fifteen...
Posted by: phlox at January 31, 2007 12:33 AM
Blood and Chocolate is only a good book if you're a 14 year old who's never been introduced to actual porn. There was no way this crappy book could have been made into a decent movie, so it seems the filmmakers decided to go in the opposite direction and make it as awful as possible. Mission accomplished!
Posted by: frumpiefox at January 31, 2007 01:04 AM
Blood & Donuts sounds like it might be about dry anal rape. Just sayin'.
Posted by: jakebattey at January 31, 2007 01:15 AM
pinkcheese: You basically stole my entire post right out from under me.
Posted by: Go Big Red at January 31, 2007 01:12 PM
"Bitten" betrays the entire werewolf concept by putting forth an unintentionally hilarious contradiction -- a weak, whiny werewolf. As a heroine. Seriously, Elena is worthless. The supporting cast is all right, though. Misogynist to the point of near-boredom, but not as offputting as Elena. The author put some thought into their culture, at least. But I only finished the thing because it was a birthday present.
Sadly, it's difficult to recommend an alternative. Patricia Briggs is fairly decent, with a heroine that I, refreshingly don't want to either smack or give a chocolate and a "buck up, little camper," but her series is finding the misogyny hard to escape as well. Part and parcel of the "alpha male's are so hawt and I can't suppress my female instinct to just submit," wolf thing, I suppose. Reads like bad romance novels. "Wilderness" by Dennis Danvers is lovely but sadly out of print.
(And now I'm off to rent "Ginger Snaps." :-)
Posted by: mac at January 31, 2007 06:06 PM
Heh -- I said "chocolate" completely forgetting the whole murder aspect of it, with dogs. Didn't mean it that way.
Posted by: Mac at January 31, 2007 06:08 PM
I'm sure the movie sucks ass, but I can't hate on Hugh Dancy. He was excellent in Elizabeth I.
Posted by: Grumblecakes at January 31, 2007 09:25 PM
*SPOILERS IF ANYONE CARES*
I read this book when I was around 14 years old. Aidan (mop head) represents the chocolate. Vivian could never really be herself when she was around him. He was a temporary comfort, a momentary pleasure. With Gabriel (Martinez), she can truly be herself, warts and all.
It's teenage fluff with a slightly supernatural background. I don't think any of this makes sense with the way they adapted the novel for the movie. In the book, the story takes place in a high school.
Posted by: Liz at January 31, 2007 10:36 PM