Chocolat

Rating:
Summary: Simply a superb, ingenious, wonderful piece of filmaking!
Review: This movie is very entertaining and simply wonderful through and through! It is an informal and clever treatise on how individuality and one's true personality and zest for life can be construed as being 'sinful' or 'wrong' by some fundamentalist...As a longtime freethinking agnostic with my own beliefs about the meaning of life and how to live it properly, the film reminded me of how so many fanatics have tried to ram their own religion and agenda down my throat over the years...You know, the Greeks have a saying, which loosely translated means "too much Kyrie Eleyson even God tires of", which in essence, could be the underlying philosophical theme of this phenomenal movie. If you value individuality and your own personal beliefs and convictions, don't miss this milestone of a movie! In my opinion, the year's BEST film easily!

Rating:
Summary: Feel good love story
Review: I love this movie! Yes, the story of Vianne as the scandalous new woman in town who changes the lives of the old stuck in thier way villagers is quite predictable but this is a great, excellent, wonderful feel good movie that is best viewed cuddled with your sweety.

Alfred Molina deserved an award as the Count whose obsessions with Vianne almost destroys himself and Johnny Depp is hot as ever as Irish river rat Roux.

The DVD extras include a "making of", deleted scenes, the trailed (which in my opinion should not be classified as an extra), little something about chocolate and a piece about the costumes.

This is a great one to own for us time.

Rating:
Summary: And lead us into temptation
Review: I would not have rented *Chocolat* and would not have bothered to review it if it had not become such a sensation in Objectivist circles, after philosopher Leonard Peikoff declared : «This is the best movie I've seen in decades.»

As a former Objectivist who still sticks to a great deal of Rand's esthetic theory (if not much else), I was very curious to see this film, all the more so as Objectivist praise for movies is extremely rare and therefore tends to be quite reliable (I rather enjoyed early recommendations for instance, such as *Dangerous Beauty* and *October Sky*). Such enthusiastic praise from the highest Obejctivist authority - and a man who sells an 18-hour course on how to appreciate great drama- could only mean one thing : that *Chocolate* might reconcile me with an artform that gives me fewer and fewer memorable moments as years go by.

However, I found very little to praise in this manipulative little film, which did not seem to me to have anything great even by Objectivist standards. For one thing, like many books adapted from novels, it makes extensive use of voice-over, something which Rand specifically condemned as the very negation of drama in film (for an illustration of this, I recommend Scorcese's *Wise Guys*, whose inept script is so drowned in voice-over that one feels the movie never even starts.)

Of course, from an Objectivist point of view, *Chocolat* is good in that it has a theme (the opposition of catholicism and paganism) and is wholly integrated around it, down to its facile colour symbolism. But I suspect that what drew Peikoff's praise was not so much the dramatic skill evinced in the writing as the anti-catholic propaganda that infuses the whole film.

To believe *Chocolat*, Catholicism is a religion led by an autocratic buffoon, whose ministers are well-meaning but deluded simpletons, and the believers in which are a host of miserable souls to whom the pleasures of the flesh are sadistically and morbidly denied in the name of a non-existent future life.

The film dramatizes the conflict between this religion and its secular foe by showing us a small French village of the 1950s which seems to have been drained of all its colour by a stifling, frigid religious authoritarianism. Into this lost village come two red riding hoods, red as the devil, a mother and child, who choose to open a chocolate store right at the beginning of Lent, a season where Catholics undergo voluntary deprivation in order to learn to strengthen their resistance to temptation.

Now the chocolates sold in this shop are no ordinary chocolates. Based on some forgotten, occult meso-American knowledge, they seem to combine all the effects of modern drugs, from Prozac to Viagra, bringing back life (i.e. mostly lust) to the mortified inhabitants of the village.

Confronted to this wonder-working technology, the Church- a mere puppet of the state- is simply powerless, as evinced in the gluttonous explosion of the repressed mayor and the parish priest's futile attempts to reform an alcoholic, moronic wife-beater with the rote-learning of catechism and the empty ritual of confession.

Of course the devil wins, the pleasures of the flesh (including extra-marital sex) are recognized as innocent, and the evil Catholic mayor redeems himself by joining the crusade of modern political correctness : the fight against «exclusion.»

I will not deny *Chocolat* has a certain charm, but I think this is precisely part of its evil. I found it an insidious, snide attack on religion, via caricature and the use of strawmen, suggesting ultimately that the very effort to control one's impulses is the very source of debauchery and violence, and that he who lets himself be gently led into temptation will find his own balance and moderation- a popularized Freudianism that is belied by the modern pandemic of obesity and increasingly depraved pornography, to mention only two examples.

As for the movie's depiction of life in a French village, as a Frenchman who has spent most of his holidays in one of them, I can say that it is almost as laughable as any attempt by Americans to capture things French. The nickname of the old-age pension itself, «le Mortoir » is not even good French : we would say «le Mouroir », and this is precisely how the French subtitles «translated» the term.

I gave the movie two stars however, as I would reserve the lowest rating (one star) to films I could not finish (like for instance *Jefferson in Paris* or *The Gospel According to St Matthew*) and I think any film that has Carrie-Ann Moss in it deserves at least two stars (even that Mars movie, for no other reason.)

Rating:
Summary: In a Word-Delicious!
Review: Yummy-boy did I enjoy this flick. If I had but one complaint it would be that it was not spoken in its native tongue. I found it rather odd that it was situated in a small French villa and everyone spoke perfect English. Aside from that it was splendid! Juliette Binoche was wonderful with her majestical chocolate. Now, being a hugh chocolate lover myself I could have easily been cast under the fantastick spell of the treats she cooked up. More important is the message that this heart warming film revealed-that love should have no boundaries or labels and that each should be accepted as is. The towns people came to realize what Judy Dench knew all along-and that is to enjoy life to the fullest. Johhny Depp is yummy as well and very hard to resist. I am thrilled that he came back to fix the squeak in the door (wink wink).

Rating:
Summary: The 8th face of Dr. Lao
Review: This movie is essentially the same story as George Pal's "The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao," i.e., mysterious stranger comes to town, offers downtrodden residents insight into whatever ideals Hollywood is pushing this year, is opposed by the forces of conservatism, yadda yadda. The main difference is this movie is not portrayed as a fantasy, and we are expected to regard the heroine's role as the chocolate fairy hawking her medicinal goodies with absolute seriousness. If you can do this (and some will do it more easily than others) you then have to look past the cliched, cardboard characters; the ultra-conservative religious civil leader, the degenerate wife beater, the crotchety old dowager with a secret heart of gold. Once that is done you must look past the blatantly predictable storyline, plot "twists" you can see a mile off and "symbolism" that hits you with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. If you like Johnny Depp (which I do), be prepared to see his talents wasted as his understated character serves two purposes 1) to serve as a downtrodden misfit whom the heroine can befriend and prove how politically correct (i.e., "good") she is and 2) to provide a sex scene, which all modern movies must have, because "how can there be love without great sex" asks the modern scriptwriter.

After doing all this I concluded that "Chocolat" was an entertaining date movie, but not in any way great art, or even a great film. See it sometime when you're not feeling too critical and you will be fine. or better yet, watch "The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao." The original is still the best.

Rating:
Summary: Sour Chocolat
Review: I did not like how this movie sterotype it character's. I have a hard time accepting a good natured athiest who seem's to now what is best for everybody. On the religious side they all then to be the unsymabethic and either extreme or weak with no substance to their belief's. Just because a person is religious does not make him right. The mayor was controlling and was a poor example for a relighous leader. What I did not like was that the movie dealt with extrems. I cannot see many town people fallowing a mayor who is so controlling. A priest who stands for the mayor rewriting his sermons "I don't think so". Can a town possibly be this repress. Then comes the lady with the chocolat and the knowing smile. She pushes all the right button's. That's the problem. Two extrems and no middle ground. Know if you have two character's who had there difference's but both had good strong belief's but did not see eye to eye. Then you would have a good movie. But this movie telegraph it punches. It is the lazy way out. It is easey when you deal with extreams. But you need more thought when you are dealing with honest difference's or deep rooted belief's. It take's more than a cup of chocolat.

Rating:
Summary: Mary Poppins Meets Pleasantville And So Much More
Review: For me, much of the pleasure in this film lies in the way in which it taps into so many of the classic stories with which many of us have grown up. There is so much here that comes from other tales, myths, movies, etc. There is the "clever North Wind" bringing Vianne and Anouk to the village (not unlike the wind upon which Mary Poppins flew in and out via her umbrella). There is also the "suspicious" influences of Vianne and Anouk in the village which are akin not only to those of Mary Poppins in the Banks' household, but also of Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon when they entered Pleasantville.

Of course, and as other reviewers have pointed out, another wonderful feature of this film is its amazing sensory appeal. The appeal is not, however, limited to taste, as one might expect of a film entitled *Chocolat*. It's rich in visual appeal--sunlight, firelight, candlelight, clouds, shadows; tactile appeal--snow, water, fire; and auditory appeal--with a beautifully haunting soundtrack and some very fun songs played by Johnny Depp as Roux and his fellow river rats.

The only real problem I had with the movie really concerned the Comte de Reynaud. He seemed, unlike the other characters who managed to combine comedy with deeper thoughts and emotions, to be an entirely comic character. I personally believe that this is due to shallow character development. I wanted to know more about his personal life--what, in more detail, he was hiding from the townspeople that made him so pompous; what he thought about that made him so adamant about resisting temtation. He just didn't seem. . . tortured enough. Although he had certain traits that were familiar, his was a character that I have not encountered before and therefore needed more information in order to relate to him better.

Despite my problem with the Comte de Reynaud, I think this is a wonderful film--perhaps even one of my all-time favorites--and therefore deserving of no fewer stars than five. The time of the film's setting--during Lent--is perfect for that which the film accentuates. Comedy, drama, mysticism, magic--it depicts so much in life which is there for us to enjoy. Watch it, and perhaps it will change yours.

Rating:
Summary: Scrumptious!
Review: Beautiful movie. Wonderfully acted, produced, written. This film calls to mind Babette's Feast, but has even better defined characters than the older film. Time well spent!

Rating:
Summary: 2001's best film
Review: Everyone has read the story, so it will not be repeated here.

Not being a fan of Binoche *at all,* I was reluctant at seeing this at first, but having heard the delightful soundtrack (recommended by Amazon reviewer and friend Victoria Tarrani) I went ahead, and was not disappointed.
Movies without guns and violence are so rare these days, they are difficult to appreciate when seen.

Wonderful performances by Molina, Binoche, Judi Dench and even Johnny Depp add credibility to this story. The chocolate seems sooo delicious, you want to be a guest of Vianne's shop to drink the thick hot chocolate and eat the delicate tasty chocolates.

Definitely the best drama of the year. Five stars.
(And ten stars to the producers who have decided to produce this instead of a Rambo-type film.)

Rating:
Summary: Melts in Your Mouth, Not in Your Hand
Review: Joanne Harris, the writer of the novel, Chocolat, is apparently a confectionery genius, for this story leaves a wonderful taste in your mouth. Although I have not read the novel, the movie is delightfully rich and creamy.

Vianne (Juliette Binoche) is a "chocolatier extraordinaire," having the best chocolate in all of France and possibly the entire world. She and daughter, Anouk, set up shop in a small French village rife with religious zealots led by the mayor, Comte de Reynaud (Alfred Molina), who is intent on keeping the town chocolate-less. It is the timeless game of religious piety versus sincere brotherly love as portrayed in the lead characters.

Vianne seeks to sweeten the lives of the villagers in town with her secret panacea, especially the religious rejects like Armande Voizin (Judi Dench). She is a crusty old woman, the antipathy of her daughter, forbidden to see her own grandson living in town. Moreover, there is an abused wife (Lena Olin), who finds refuge from her husband, not in the church, but in the chocolate shop. And finally, if this is not enough to drive a group of religious fundamentalists insane, there is Roux (Johnny Depp), a member of the River Rats, a nomadic tribe of gypsies, who develops an interest in Vianne. What will become of this little village? Will chocolate win out in the end, or will the town remain a traditional vanilla?

Binoche is sweeter than chocolate in the lead role, and equally impressive is Molina in his role as the mayor. Judi Dench and Lena Olin put in outstanding performances in their supporting roles as well.

This is a movie with substance, dealing with societal issues; and furthermore, showing the power of human kindness and tolerance for those with differing lifestyles. This one melts in your mouth, not in your hand.