Where's Buffie when you need her?

Response from Head RAZZberry: OOPS! "Buffy" was a VAMPIRE slayer, and the characters in BLOOD AND CHOCOLATE are werewolves. Or did you mean "Buffie," the little girl who was alwaze hugging her Mrs. Beasley doll on TV's FAMILY AFFAIR? A movie depicting that Buffie torn to shreds by voracious werewolves is something I would pay money to see! 

How come this Movie was not on The Screen in The Movie might be Razzied next year.

Originally posted by FeetOfClay Oliver Martinez deserves a Worst Supporting Actor nomination for this one.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I took a day after I posted the above to consider Blawed and Chuck-It-Up's "Razzie"-ness, and it didn't take long for me to decide that, yes, it is indeed very "Razzie".  Besides everything I've already mentioned and much I didn't, there's few things worse than a horror movie created in all seriousness that has zero scares.   What more can be said?

THIS CONTAINS MILD SPOILERS

"When we are children, we believe in magic."  And Blood and Chocolate would have us believe more in magic than in good scenes and dialogue.

Blood and Chocolate is based on what many say is a good book, its title derived from Herman Hesse's Steppenwolf:  "I have the taste of blood and chocolate in my mouth, the one as hateful as the other."  If MGM's marketing department reminded people that Steppenwolf wasn't just a 60s band with two great songs, maybe more of us would have seen Blood and Chocolate rather than scoff at an otherwise stupid movie title. 

But that's not the only way Blood and Chocolate failed to involve the audience with the story.  The special effects sucked. The werewolves glowed as they morphed from humans to wolves, often wearing clothes, yet when they return to human, they're naked.  Too many scenes had no life at all.  Just when bad apple Rafe finally decides to abide by the rules of the werewolf pack, he gets killed.  The film relies on Agnes Bruckner's acting, and she has several brilliant scenes, but in the end she doesn’t carry the picture.  But even if Bruckner was great in every moment, the climax is so full of holes nothing can save it, and the ending is the worst letdown of all.

Not surprisingly, many people say the book is better than the movie, but in this case, the negative reactions are so strong that I feel screenwriters Kruger and Landon and director Katja von Garnier left out both the spirit and the best parts of the book.  There were some good points to the movie (many of Bruckner’s scenes, Hugh Dancy’s performance, Bryan Dick’s performance).  But the rest was less rather than more.  It makes one wonder why the screenwriters and director strayed from the source material.  There’s little here to sink our teeth into.

Poor MGM, it was a great studio during the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's and yet 60's. Now it only distributes crap that nobody else wants to -- Films with big budgets and catastrophic box office. In 2006, MGM put its lion on such boredoms & failures as Material Girls, Arthur and the Invisibles, Bobby, Harsh Times, Flyboys and Black Christmas. And it's starting this year with BLOOD & CHOCOLATE! The studio urgently needs its logo on a good film, with a decent box office run. Even Rocky Balboa wasn't that good, and even though Casino Royale was good, the studio shared credit on it with Sony-Columbia Pictures. 

Response from Head RAZZberry: And you're forgetting that M-G-M's Leo logo was also on the head of one of our most RAZZIE-nominated titles of 2006: BASICALLY, IT STINKS, TOO. How the once mighty have fallen...can you imagine Louis B. Mayer letting his studio's banner grace a silly, salacious piece of you-know-what like B-I 2?? 

I went to Boxofficemojo.com, and it has Blood and Chocolate coming in 12th place, and it did $2,103,000.

Response from Head RAZZberry: You got the estimated B.O. Figure right, but not the ranking -- B &C ended up in 15th place. Considering the promotional budget behind it, that's actually quite pitiful!!

Actually, the movie is (very, very loosely) based off a book of the same name.  Although I have thoughts of blood (Blood) in my poop (Chocolate), these thoughts only apply to the movie.

Originally posted by ITbeast I think we will have a new category for the 28th annual Razzie awards "Worst title for a movie"; and this one should shoot up the charts to at least the top five, with a Silver Bullet!

Also, why is this the Worst of the Weak?  Right now, it looks like it should be second worst, behind Epic Movie.

Response from Head RAZZberry: If you'll check out the actual reviews, and not just the TomatoMeter at RT, you'll see that BLOOD AND CHOCOLATE is getting far more ripping write-ups than EPIC MOVIE. And with about 30 reviews collected, BLOOD is getting a lowly 7% approval, while EPIC had (as of this writing) less than 10 reviews showing up on the Meter, with some of those actually being "mixed" rather than out-and-out pans (see specifically the New York Times review). I'm not saying EPIC won't end up getting RAZZIE consideration come year's end, but right now BLOOD sure looks like a bigger box office and critical debacle than EPIC does...

JUST ADDED: A FORUM for DISCUSSION (and INFO) on EPIC MOVIE...HERE's a LINK

WHEN WE SAW the TRAILER for THIS ONE on the HEAD of ROCKY BALBOA, THE GUFFAW-FULL AUDIENCE RESPONSE ALMOST MADE UP for ROCKY NOT BEING a RAZZIE...

CAN IT POSSIBLY BE AS DOOFY AS ITS TITLE? AND WAS IT DUBBED INTO ENGLISH LIKE IT LOOKS?? NOW THAT IT'S OUT on DVD, YOU CAN FIND OUT for YOURSELF...

Wolfgang: "Is that cat pee I smell, or just film critics whizzing all over this wolf-dropping of a werewolf movie??"