Tom Ramcigam (magicmarmot) wrote,
Tom Ramcigam

Once in a while, a movie comes out that redefines the way that movies are made for a generation.

Blood & Chocolate is not one of those movies.

The movie is adequate. It is a decent low-budget movie. The story is coherent, it is told in a pretty linear fashion, and there are very few WTF moments.

Thing is, there just aren't any surprises.

The story is one that we've heard before: boy meets girl, but they are from two different worlds and their forbidden love must keep them apart, but because their love is strong, they defeat the evil that was keeping them apart. And oh, yeah, there's a prophecy.

It's a lot like Underworld was; considering this movie is from the same producers, that makes sense. It many ways it's a better film. Where Underworld had tons of flashy effects and CGI, Blood & Chocolate can't depend on them, so they have to depend on the actors.

And the actors are... well, adequate. No standouts. Had there been more intensity, it may have been better, but it would also run the risk of being over the top (cough Underworld cough).

The cinematography is... adequate. The soundtrack is... adequate.

Don't forget: pump your loins, children!

Let's say 6/10.

  • (no subject)

    Two words: Zombieland Rocks.

  • Oh HELLS YES!!!

    Link to the AICN article and LA Times here

  • (no subject)

    Just got back from Coraline. Gaiman kicks righteous ass, but you already knew that. I'll say go see it. Onto the bike now. Wish me luck!

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.