Just what I expected

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Absolutely Fantastic

Henry Thomas plays a soul dead guy who's senses are very high. He works in a place where they make artificial flavors for food and he has a keen sense of taste and smell. But his life is empty. He is separated form his wife and son and trying to feel something. Out of the blue he starts feeling the emotions and physical pleasures of a woman he never met and is far away. And he falls in love with her because he feels her from the inside. So he sets out to find her.Mick Garris' movies are considered horror movies, but if you really watch them there is more than blood, guts and gore. They are usually human stories with a horror like twist like Riding The bullet. I got that one right away, but most people were disappointed with it.This one I liked because I feel for Henry Thomas. When you hit middle age you do kind of get bored of life. I like the movies that have characters that I can relate to, because it does trigger feelings for them. Isn't that what a story is supposed to do?

The Masters of Horror television series only lasted "two seasons," but while it was "on," it was a breeding ground for amazingly original ideas. Mick Garris's self-written Chocolate, from one of his books (if I'm not mistaken, A Life in the Cinema), is a brilliant and fascinating idea. Involving a bored single (newly divorced) man (played by the gorgeous Henry Thomas) who works in a chemical laboratory developing artificial food flavors, suddenly begins receiving sensory projections from an unknown woman. Then when the sensations end, he becomes obsessed with finding out where they came from, discovering the woman he thinks he's in love with isn't exactly an angel. The potential here for taking horror into new directions, making it dark and vague and interesting, is almost limitless. There's so much a good director can do with this material. But then, consider who the director is... It's Mick Garris. A man who got his "Masters of Horror" badge with television series, most of which would get a PG-13 rating, were they to have been inspected by the MPAA. A director whose previous film involved a college student having to decide whose soul the Grim Reaper should take- his or his mother's. A great fan of drama, but not a great director of drama. And unfortunately, he brings his trademark soggy, heavy-handed, all-wet approach to this film as well.So it plays as an emotional discovery film, not a creepy horror movie. Which means that when the intended shocks come in, they're as horrific as an old sock. I guess Garris was going for a first-person kind of thing. To try and put the audience in the position of the character, Jamie. So that when something bad happens to him, they're upset. Well... they might work for a mainstream thriller or a Lifetime TV-movie. But not a horror movie. I think all the best horror films that tried this kind of formula knew that a remove is very important. To be able to look at the whole situation as though it's comedy. It's over the top and grating, and takes itself much too seriously. The best attribute to the film is style. Garris definitely knows how to make a good looking movie (his previous, Riding the Bullet, was almost breath-taking for a TV movie) and the music score by his frequent collaborator Nicholas Pike (though some of it goes into the ultra-clichéd Classical genre), is also incredible. But without a real horror twist- something darker than what we're left with, it's just blah. Especially since they mix in elements of sexuality. They could have even gone the Clive Barker route, and made the character discover he likes some sexual experimentation (anything would've been fine), change him around somehow. Anything to make him talk in fewer poetic speeches, which all feel totally phony.On the positive side, the best thing about Chocolate is that it was shot in Canada. The locations they shot at are so beautiful, I want to go there. So, the scenes in the second half are pretty much better than those in the first half. Except for this whole sub-section where Jamie tries to make his best friend Wally (played the handsome, very well-aged Matt Frewer) believe him. Anyone else wish he had just kept it to himself? It would have been more adult to not have him care what other people think. It's a film about psychic transmissions anyway, no one ever believes people in those situations. Even I wouldn't believe anyone in that situation! When they finally get into 'the world' of Jamie's fantasy woman, we know almost exactly what's going to happen (the person I watched this with said right out loud what would happen before it did and she was right; and no, she hadn't seen it before) - the periodic narrations give that away - it's almost too late to care that it's not horrific. So I kind of marveled at how amazing the production / set design of her apartment was. The has this elaborate jungle painting all over her walls and it's a shame the scene wasn't longer or hadn't gone here before. Again, this points to what a good style director Garris can be at times. At least he gives us something to look at while we're waiting for it to end.But I can't help going back to just how much potential this piece had. It's done in a manner that only gives us traditional sensitivity in return. It doesn't pull any truly disturbing or dark strings. Take for example, the scene in which Jamie's having a psychic vaginal orgasm in bed... in front of his ex-wife and his son. His son thinks the woman Jamie spent the night with previously had done something to him and tries to sort-of attack her while the mother pulls the kid away. All the while, Jamie's writhing and groaning on the bed (without a hard-on, naturally, since again it's vaginal and taking place in his psyche). You could call this scene uncomfortable, but not for any reasons related to the genre. I don't really call embarrassment a typical reaction to a piece of horror. At least, not to one this shallow. Even when the film turns Jamie into a kind of stalker, the tone remains light and only casually mysterious. The only reason I finished watching this was because of the style. As a mystery, it's a big flop. It won't make you feel excited, it won't thrill you, it doesn't stir any deep emotions, and it doesn't play with your mind. It doesn't even play with your eyes, much. Had this been directed by someone who knew to change it or make it more dangerous, and the script been modified considerably, it could have been an epic. Or more refined and balanced than Clive Barker's bloated Lord of Illusions.

While I was watching "Chocolate", I couldn't help thinking it looked a lot like Stephen King's horror novels, so I wasn't surprised when I learned it was written by Mick Garris, a die hard King fan.It's not the stereotypical horror story with lots of blood and/or monsters from hell, and focuses on psychological horror, just like in the best Stephen King's novels. It's really worth a watch and if you like good horror stories you can't miss this one.The acting is fairly good and the story is easy to understand and follow, with a very nice twist at the end. The only bad thing I see in it is that it is a bit short and the story has a few holes that could have been filled if it had been made into a full length movie and not just a TV series chapter. I really do think the script deserved a movie.

I on the other hand thought Chocolate was a nice spin in the horror genre. Grant it, compared to what most people call a "horror movie" this was not in your face slashing or straight up gore, instead we have a story that dwells deeper into an individual tale about one's own fear and wants in life.The acting compared to most horror movies was very good - don't know how the other post said bad acting, I saw something completely different. The cinematography on this movie was excellent! Being a cinematography major I thought that with this additive it helped the story flow better and wrap the viewer into what is on the screen.Those wanting a good scare, will not find it in this movie - but does that mean it is not a horror movie? No! This movie is a horror movie just like the others selected for Masters of Horror, not all horror movies have to have a ton of blood and guts to have that title.The thought of having your vision taken away at any moment and seeing through someone's else's eyes especially w/ what happens when the visions stop - who wouldn't be freaked out by seeing that. The way it was conveyed on screen leads you into the character more and for that I give thumbs up to Mr. Garris for providing a new twist and a story that really reels you in.I hate when people are saying this series is not scary or not worth it - we are not going to see the "best" horror movies ever made folks, just not going to happen w/ the budget and time line for shooting. But instead we get a great array of individual films by these directors to tell a tale how they so choose to tell it, without all the studio execs saying don't do this or do that. That to me is worth it and that is why I have loved watching this series so far.Looking forward to more from this season and the next.Nice work Mr. Garris!