MovieChat Forums > Blood and Chocolate (2007) Discussion > Took me two years just to realize what I...

Took me two years just to realize what I truly thought of this movie

posted 15 years ago by YanderePrime
10 replies | jump to latest

Well, to start things off, I read the book Blood and Chocolate back in sixth grade. I liked the book for what it was. When I heard they were making a movie I was a little excited for it.

I was one of the few that managed to see this in theaters. As I was watching it, all of my anticipation for this drained away. I left the theater, thinking about what I just saw. I didn't know whether I liked it or hated it.

Now, I know what I think of it. I will explain by using an example

Many people believe that the Twilight series raped their childhood memories of vampire movies. While I don't care for the series, I have read the books and seen the first movie (most likely will see all of them just for the CGI werewolves). However, this is nothing compared to what this movie did to the werewolf genre with me.

This has got to be the worst excuse of a werewolf movie I've ever seen, not to mention the worst adaptation of a novel I've ever seen. Everything about it was awful and it was boring to boot. This was the same year we were graced with Skinwalkers which featured Stan Winston's worst creature effects worst and poor excuses for werewolves (Warwolves has surpassed this though).

What really got to me was the werewolves. They used wolf-dog hybrids for this movie. Wolf-dog hybrids have never really been used effectively in a werewolf film (though the ones in Wolfen are an exception). It made this movie feel like a poor sequel to Wolfen. I'd have rather had some CGI bipedal werewolf or some fake makeup effect than these wolves. I don't care how beautiful they are, people who are werewolves cannot transform into normal looking wolves.

Then the optical effect that made the humans glow as they transformed into wolves. These transformations were a joke.

A werewolf is a monster, not a furry. Now you can have a movie that has good werewolves, but you can't make them toothless. They made these werewolves seem like friggin vampires. I could do better with werewolves if I had the money and resources.

But truly, the reason why I hate this movie is they have the nerve to call this Blood and Chocolate when it has nothing in common with the book it was based on. If they called it something else, I may have been kinder to this movie.

Now this is my opinion, you people can go on liking it, but just know this is not a good adaptation of a book.

The only good thing I can say is that the screenwriter of this was a co-writer for Transformers Revenge of the Fallen which was a far superior film to this. Oh, and the cinematography was decent.

As a normal movie, I'd give it a 4/10, as an adaptation, I give it a 2.

And yes, a better version of this movie could have still been PG-13. Enough with this let's make every horrorish movie rated R and put a ton of gore in it just to try and make it even more unscary. Blood and Chocolate was never meant to be gory and scary anyway. Horror movies are mostly dead now. Only things we have are torture porn or low budget, critically acclaimed or panned borefests.

"You think you can mess with me?!? I eat SyFy movies for breakfast!"

[–] MelivaME 14 years ago

I have never read the books so I can't say anything on the matter of it being an adaptation but as a stand alone film I really don't think it was as bad as all of that.
I have to disagree on several main points.
First of all the use of actual wolves/dogs was a strong point in my opinion. It brought it back to an almost different genre where it wasn't about "how creepy can we make these things look?" While an American Werwolf in London is still one of my favorite werwolf films of all time, I have to say I really enjoyed this one.
I do agree with the fact that their glowing while shifting really did take away from it, but I understand what they were trying to do there.
Transformers II was... well... crap in comparison. The CG was amazing, the dialogue was funny but there was no character development and if Megan Fox said one more thing about love I was going to puke. Literally. Although she did look hot on that motorcycle.
And the horror genre is not dead (not that this aimed to be a horror); you are just looking in the wrong places.

'Cause we all end up in a tiny pine box, A mighty small drop in a mighty dark plot.

[–] RhiaAki1185 14 years ago

I agree Meliva.

I actually appreciated that they were wolves when they transformed.
If I want to watch a horror movie about werewolves then I prefer for them to be monster-ish because I think wolves are beautiful and good.
But this wasn't a horror movie. And outside of said horror flicks I hold with the belief that weres would tranform into wolves. When people write/talk about any other kind of were they always transform into the animal. Why is it that only werewolves transform into monsters? Poor wolves. :-)

As for the movie, I liked it. And yes, I have read the book.
They were so very different that to me they aren't the same story, not an adaptation, not a retelling, nothing.
It's like Practical Magic. The only thing that's the same are the names.

Anyway, I'm done now. :-)

[–] poppet90 14 years ago

just because people call them "werewolves" does not mean they are the weres Westerners are taught to think of. These are loup garoux.

As for the book to movie adaptation, there is none. In my opinion, the movie Blood & Chocolate is inspired by the book Blood & Chocolate.

[–] red_rackham_77 14 years ago

I have yet to read the book but have seen the film and yes it was not worth seeing, I mean come on, leaping into the air and turning into wolves then you are naked in the woods? I didn't get it at all, I hope the book is more explanable then the film and yes I detest Twilight, the films and series.

The only vamp book that I loved and still do today was The Silver Kiss by the same aurthor of Blood and Chocolate, I wish that had been made into a film and not this twilight crap.

[–] DarkenedHeart 14 years ago

"I don't care how beautiful they are, people who are werewolves cannot transform into normal looking wolves."

Actually, in the older and original myths werewolves were people who transformed into wolves. The wolf/man hybrid monster forms are mostly hollywood. Actual werewolf myths were of humans becoming wolves. Full wolves. It's even how the term "lycanthropy" came to be - from the Greek story of the first wolf. In that myth King Lykaon of Arcadia tried to trick Zeus by secretly putting human meat in the food. Zeus, angry at this, turned the King into the beast he should be. The King became a wolf. The word for wolf in Greek is lykos from the King's name. The word for describing a man turned wolf is "man wolf" or "lykos anthropos" (anthropos is man in greek) which has since become lycanthropy.

On another note, I don't think this was supposed to be a horror. It just struck me as a werewolf variant of Romeo & Juliet.

------------

http://www.darkenedheart.com

[–] YanderePrime 14 years ago

The wolf/human hybrid forms are not just from Hollywood. There's also been myths and legends about them as well.

As I'm saying, my main complaint is how unfaithful it is to the book.

"Why are you screaming? I haven't even cut you yet. . ."

[–] DarkenedHeart 14 years ago

I had no comment about the rest of your post only that one line saying werewolves don't change into normal looking wolves. While I know there are some myths about changing into a hybrid form, the number is remarkably small and most werewolf myths, especially the ones dating back thousands of years, all describe werewolves as being people turning into normal looking wolves. Your line goes against myths, the definition of the word itself, and its history.

That's the only thing I had issue with.

The rest of your post is simply opinion based on preference.

Personally, I have no problems with a movie being different than the book. I don't expect book-based movies to be an exact representation. I only expect them to be "inspired" by books. I treat book-movies (and game-movies, tv show- movies, anime/manga-movies, et cetera) as singular entities. This is because if I expected the movie to be similar to the book 9/10 I will be disappointed to some degree. It's an entirely different format and even the writing process and style and formation of everything is completely different than a book. A book can explain everything, it can impart knowledge directly through narration and character thoughts. A movie does not have this, not in the same way. The book "builds" things in your mind, a movie simply shows it. Since they're different formats, with different methods and tools, with different creative processes and different intentions (movies are a lot more audience-based) there's going to be a lot of changes.

Books can provide an immensely more immersive world. It's one writer (maybe two) who took months to years developing a world and conveys this world and things with through words in a book. When you read, these words get into your head, building that world in your mind. Understanding of characters, the world, the plot, comes naturally and without explaination because you have it in your mind evolving in your conciousness like a living thing. A book uses words to bring you into the word.

A movie, builds nothing. It's a series of pre-made images and sounds. All that thinking, that conciousness, that building has been done by somebody else and you're merely shown a result. Because they have less at their disposal they have to convey the same messages with just actors speaking and moving. Also, we digest sounds and pictures a lot slower than we can digest words. So, it takes a lot longer in movie to convey something that takes almost no time at all in a book.

Comparing movies and books is like comparing VHS (movie) to Blu-Ray (book). Movies are great things, but they're just there to show you something. A book is a world in written form which you absorb and build in your head. A movie shows, a book builds.

If a movie is able to be very close to the book, then that is an insult to the book writer.

I find it best to treat a movie as nothing more than a standalone show that is merely, loosely, 'inspired' by the book.

------------

http://www.darkenedheart.com

[–] Edren 13 years ago

A werewolf is a monster, not a furry. Now you can have a movie that has good werewolves, but you can't make them toothless. They made these werewolves seem like friggin vampires. I could do better with werewolves if I had the money and resources.

Less said about the werewolves the better really. They were super sh*t.

"A lot of people say to me...... get out of my garden" - Stewart Lee

[–] gerbilsrcute 13 years ago

I'm one that actually preferred the movie over the novel. I absolutely couldn't stand the characters in the novel and Vivian actually got on my nerves. All the characters struck me as being shallow and while (if memory serves me correct..been awhile since read it) they at times compared them to wolves they certainly didn't act anything like so (the fighting for dominance thing as wolves hardly ever actually do that) The novel BloodTrail about a family of werewolves stalked and being killed seemed to handle a similar type theme so much better than this novel.

The movie on the other hand was quite enjoyable. I actually cared about the characters and what happened to them...loved how they did the shape shifting and the fact that they turned into actual wolves. I've read many novels where this was the case, The Wolf's Hour by Robert Mccammon for instance. Again I would rate this book much higher than the Blood and Chocolate novel.

In summary I'd put Blood and Chocolate down as by far one of my top fav werewolf movies but would list the Wholf's Hour as my favorite werewolf novel.

-----
"They have to stay. Or else we haven't learned a thing." - Abraham Bernstein

[–] wiccandreams169 13 years ago

I agree with the last poster. This is one of my favorite werewolf movies but I didn't really like the book at all.
The movie is about finding out who she is, outside of being werewolf or human and finding someone who loves her. It is about breaking free from what she has been taught and thinking for herself.
The book is about staying true to your own kind, even if that means being with someone who you have hated your whole life. Gabriel is a jerk and he has always been cruel. At the end of the book she just turns into a new person and decides to love him because they are both werewolves.