Masters of Horror (TV Series) Chocolate (2005) User Reviews

Mick Garris, a Man Out of Step With His Peers

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 29 November 2006]

In Chicago, the lonely Jamie works in the food laboratory of a company developing flavors with his best friend Wally. Jamie divorced from his wife a couple of months ago and misses his son. Jamie is on diet but after eating a chocolate, he becomes psychically connected to a beautiful woman, seeing through her eyes and feeling her sensations.

The name "Mick Garris" is not a household horror name, at least not for many less-seasoned viewers. If they know him, it might be as the director of Stephen King's "Sleepwalkers", "The Stand" or simply as the man running the show behind "Masters of Horror". Garris has made a niche for himself largely focusing on King adaptations. He brings with him Matt Frewer and Henry Thomas, both of whom he has worked with repeatedly.

Many have said this is one of the weaker films in the "Masters of Horror" series. Along with Tobe Hooper's "Dance of the Dead", it ranks as the least appreciated film of the first season. But the truth is, it is not a bad film at all. Just different. No serial killers, no slashers, no aliens, no zombies and no post-apocalyptic world. Just a man with visions and a woman he becomes obsessed with.

If you are looking for gore and guts, this is the wrong film. One scene has a little blood, but overall this is pretty tame. However, the other horror staple -- sex -- is here, and in multiple variations. If you like your horror tales to be a little more sensual, that is probably a good thing.

Regarding the casting, Matt Frewer is something of a horror and science fiction icon. This is another thing "Masters of Horror" seems to be good at, plenty of cameos. And here he is playing a 45-year old lab technician by day (who looks more like 60) and punk rocker by night. A perfect casting choice.

There is also one key scene that stands out as what will make this film memorable. Without giving too much away, there is a part that is in some ways very much like the grotesque assault scene from "Strange Days", except now it is inverted and becomes incredibly welcome. It is safe to say the kind of sexual pleasure that takes place in this film you will never see in any other film again, which is almost too bad.

Keep an open mind on "Chocolate". It is not gory, it is not even scary in the traditional sense... but the storytelling is decent and it is certainly one of the most unique tales in the "Masters of Horror" series.

Additionally, the DVD provides a few bonuses. Some behind the scenes features, an interview with Garris. A commentary where Garris talks not only about this film, but the "Masters of Horror" series in general. What is most interesting is how many years this script was around getting revised, going from short story to feature to "Masters of Horror". And even a clip of Garris interacting with Roger Corman, the godfather of modern horror and science fiction.

Mick Garris is a master CREATOR, not a master director.

[Coventry · 5/10 · 20 August 2006]

I'm very grateful to Mick Garris for being the creative mind behind the whole "Master of Horror" series that I truly enjoyed watching, but it's not much use denying that his very own episode is one of the weakest installments of them all. The story, also penned down by Garris, is definitely ambitious but the build up is far too slow and hence the mini-movie lacks a whole lot of spectacle. Also, the script is a little too implausible and we're just supposed to believe that it's perfectly possible for one person to perceive things through someone else's senses, and all this for no apparent reason? Henry Thomas, the annoying brat from E.T. that grew up a little, stars as a lonely food researcher who wakes up one morning and suddenly realizes that he's psychically linked to an unknown woman. It all begins with the inexplicable taste of chocolate in his mouth, hence the title. This mystery woman quickly becomes an obsession and he wants to meet her, even though he witnessed her committing a murder in the meantime. When he finally tracks her down, in Canada, the woman fears him and thinks he's a dangerous psychopath. Can you blame her? The first twenty minutes go on for way too long and most of the footage in this part isn't even that relevant. All the conversations between Jamie his odd co-worker as well as the discussions with his ex-wife are completely pointless. He even hooks up with this incredibly beautiful girl at the supermarket but, apparently, that's all just padding as well. Consequently the finale is too hectic and many questions remain unanswered when the film is over. There's very little gore, especially compared to some of the other entries in the series, and I didn't notice a lot of of suspense, neither. At least the female stars (Leah Graham and Lucie Laurier) look amazing and provide the film with welcome eye-candy. Nonetheless, once again thanks for the whole "Masters of Horror" concept, Mr. Garris.

"LAURA MARS" Gets A Sex Change...

[cchase · 6/10 · 4 December 2008]

Not a lot of people will remember the somewhat clunky thriller EYES OF LAURA MARS from 1978. Laura Mars was a fashion photographer who recreated scenes of death and mayhem to show off the latest fashions. Because of this, she suddenly develops a psychic link with a serial killer through whose eyes she can "see" as he stalks and murders his victims.

CHOCOLATE, a Mick Garris entry into the MASTERS OF HORROR lineup, gives the LAURA MARS story a makeover, with E.T.'s Henry Thomas playing the unwilling 'witness' this time around.

Thomas plays Jamie, a chemist who creates new flavors and smells for major food companies along with his quirky co-worker and sidekick, Wally (a completed squandered Matt Frewer.) One day, while working on a project involving chocolate, the flavor and smell transport him without warning into the consciousness of a young woman. Everything she sees and feels, he does, and that includes dining, lovemaking...and murder.

In spite of what he knows about this cold-blooded bitch, Jamie falls harder for her every time they connect, as the episodes all but tear apart his personal life. Soon, he has nothing left to do but track down this "mystery woman" - with the usual harrowing circumstances surrounding falling in love with someone you should have nothing to do with.

I wish I could say that the story plays as well as it sounds, but it doesn't, which is unfortunate considering that Garris, who is also one of the better adapters of Stephen King material, also created the MASTERS OF HORROR series. If anybody should be "bringing it" to show how a great episode should be done, it's Garris. But CHOCOLATE, though an interesting premise, falls short in more than a few ways.

MOH episodes are only an hour long each, and shot with a limited budget on roughly a ten-day schedule, so we can give Mick some of the benefit of the doubt. But the main problem lies, as always, with the way the characters are written. Though Matt Frewer gives one of his patented, reliably quirky performances, his Wally really has no purpose to the story, except to 'freak out' during one of Jamie's episodes. As much as I like Frewer, and obviously Garris does, too, his presence breaks one of the Writing Commandments: never have a character who doesn't serve some kind of purpose to drive the story forward, even if he or she is only a "McGuffin." The time spent with Wally could've easily gone to doing more to enrich the story's suspense.

Then to make matters worse, is it me, or is every woman that Jamie is involved with, including his ex-wife, a self-serving bitch? Jamie's "episodes" sometimes seem like seizures, and at a crucial point in the story when he has one, both a young lovely he's been seeing and his ex-wife act as if he PEED WITH THE TOILET SEAT DOWN. Movies are not reality, I understand that. But if this were the reactions of two real people, I would have to question why they're still part of my life.

Was that one of the points that Garris was trying to make? I don't know, but it took a lot of the starch out of the story for me. Not to mention that as gorgeous as the actresses involved are (and yes, there is an ample amount of T & A), their acting wasn't much to write home about. Good thing Thomas carries most of the weight on his slender but capable shoulders.

This wasn't by far the worst of the MOH episodes, (for me, personally, HAECKEL'S TALE wins that dubious honor), but I would recommend CHOCOLATE with strong reservations. (See my favorites, HOMECOMING, DEER WOMAN or PICK ME UP instead.)

I thought it was really boring.

[tomcon22 · 3 July 2006]

In fact, now that I think of it, I find anything directed by Garris to be very boring. This episode starts out with an interesting premise, and then goes nowhere with it. Maybe Garris didn't realize he only had one hour to tell this story!

This episode, in typical Garris fashion, seems to have been made by robots. There is nothing exciting about it. It grabs you at the beginning, then slowly lets go, amounting to nothing. I kept looking at the clock, wondering when something was going to happen to forward the story and heighten my interest. No such luck. I don't understand why Mick Garris is depicted as a horror veteran when he has failed to create anything memorable in any of his series or movies,(at least the 6 or so that I have seen).

So far, from I've seen, my favorite from this series has been "Dreams in the Witch-House," directed by Stuart Gordon who was behind "Re-Animator." Check it out!

Another poor showing from Masters of Horror

[The_Void · 3/10 · 23 March 2006]

Mick Garris isn't a master of horror, but I suppose, on paper, it's justifiable that he got his own episode since he is the series creator. On screen, however, it's a different story; as just like the rest of the series up until this point; episode five is another worthless tale of 'horror'. Garris seems to want his story to be like something from Twilight Zone, but actually, this is just a dull tale of a man's obsession with a woman that he's "psychically linked to". The plot follows a young man who, for some reason, finds himself inside a woman that he doesn't know. Rather than capitalise on the absurd plot, Garris merely lets the story wallow, and as a result; all we end up with is a tale that doesn't seem to know what it wants to do with itself. The acting doesn't help matters either, as Henry Thomas doesn't impress in the lead role; and Matt Frewer, an actor who I actually like, provides nothing in backup. The rest of the cast sleepwalks, and Garris shows that not only is he not able to elevate this story above the mundane, he isn't able to pull anything decent out of his actors either. This series was a good idea in theory, but none of the directors have provided anything above decent, and despite relatively good shows from Dario Argento and Stuart Gordon; not even they have managed to justify the series title. I really hope that there's something good in the seven episodes after this one...

Rather Lame Episode From The Show's Creator

[Witchfinder-General-666 · 3/10 · 25 July 2007]

I have become a big fan of the "Masters Of Horror" series, which any fan of the Horror genre should give a try. The series, which, among others contains episodes directed by Dario Argento, John Carpenter and Takashi Miike, was created by Mick Garris, who had the idea for this great show. "Chocolate", the fifth episode of the first season, and Garris' first contribution to the series as a director, however, sadly disappoints. The only reason to call Garris a 'Master Of Horror' is his idea for the MoH series anyway, since he has never written nor directed any essential Horror film. It is understandable that the man who had the idea for the entire series would also want to direct an episode, however. And "Chocolate" is not necessarily bad, but it is by far my least favorite episode of the MoH series so far, just too little Horror and too much boredom and beating around the bush, as far as I am considered.

Possible Minor SPOILERS!

Jamie (Henry Thomas), a recently divorced guy who works in a laboratory developing flavors for the food industry, suddenly starts having strange visions. At first he thinks it's the chemicals at work, but he soon suspects he's seeing through somebody else's eyes sometimes. He find's out that his visions show him the life of a beautiful young woman he has never met before, he becomes obsessed with her...

"Chocolate" has some interesting moments, but over all it is more of a Drama then it is horror - and it is not a good Drama. The episode is almost suspense-less, and apart from the beautiful female cast and a (little) bit of weirdness in a few parts, it is not really worthwhile. The acting is not bad, and Jamie's visions have some style and originality, but over all the episode disappoints. Still worth watching if you plan to see the entire series (such as I do), but out of all the episodes I've seen so far (about 15, some from the first season, some from the second) "Chocolate" is the least interesting.

Another Decent MOH Entry - This Time From Mick Garris...

[EVOL666 · 7/10 · 20 May 2006]

From the man that brought you...uh...well...nothing really notable honestly - comes CHOCOLATE, another pretty good MASTERS OF HORROR short film. A few parts were a bit drawn out and weak, but overall I'd say this one was pretty solid...

Elliott from E.T. starts having strange hallucinations where he experiences things from the "viewpoint" of a woman he's never met. These experiences include getting boned, masturbating with a shower nozzle, and killing her abusive boyfriend. Elliott tracks the woman down in Canada and confronts her on their "psychic-link". Of course she thinks he's a whack-job, but starts playin' along once she realizes that he knows about the murder and the cops are lookin' for her. This plays into the "dramatic" end that pretty much ties it all up...

Some good things to note - a good bit of hot chick tits for a short feature, and a decent storyline to boot. Nothing super-original or "great" - but interesting and entertaining enough. As for the down-side - this could have been cut by another 10-15 minutes and still been just as (if not more...) effective. And old-ass Matt Frewer (Max Headroom, anyone???) as an aging faux-mohawked guitarist for a lame metal band was a bad casting call as well. Regardless - I don't think I would have wanted to see this as a feature-length film - but for a 50-ish minute short film from a hack director, I was entertained enough...7/10

Another disappointing Masters of Horror episode.

[poolandrews · 5/10 · 12 April 2007]

Masters of Horror: Chocolate starts as recently the divorced Jamie (Henry Thomas) wakes up one morning with the taste of chocolate in his mouth for no apparent reason, then shortly after his own hearing goes & finally his sight which are replaced with those from a mysterious woman whom he falls in love with. However this psychic connection isn't all good as while 'inside her' he witnesses her commit a murder, Jamie is now determined to track her down & get to the bottom of everything...

This Canadian American co-production was episode 5 from season 1 of the hit-and-miss Masters of Horror TV series, the first of two episodes so far to be directed by the show's creator & regular producer Mick Garris this particular story didn't do much for me. The script by Garris based on his own short story could be described as When Harry Met Sally... (1989) crossed with Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) & as far as I'm concerned it's not a match made in heaven. I will concede that the basic story is quite good but I found it rather slow going, I was disappointed by the lack of horror & supernatural elements as it plays more like a straight thriller & overall Chocolate never really drew me in. The mystery side of things are OK but the viewer knows who committed the murder so in that regard it's not exactly a mystery & I felt the ending is rather abrupt & unsatisfactory. Still, at least it's not as bad as The Screwfly Solution from season 2.

Director Garris does a good job, it looks nice enough although it's not the most visually stylish 60 odd minutes ever committed to film/video. There is a distinct lack of exploitation in Chocolate despite an amusing scene where Catherine is sexually pleasing herself in the bath with the shower head & Jamie can feel her orgasm, there's the usual female nudity & sex but gore wise all we get is a knife slicing a stomach open & a shot of a spear going through someone's hand. Since Chocolate doesn't really play like a conventional horror film there's no scares or tangible atmosphere.

Technically Chocolate is very good, it has nice production values & as usual for Masters of Horror it looks better than most made-for-TV stuff. The acting is alright although Matt Frewer dressed as a punk rocker complete with Mohawk hairdo looks a tad silly.

Chocolate isn't the worst Masters of Horror I've seen but yet again it just disappoints as being average at best & boring nonsense at worst, in truth it's maybe somewhere between the two in my opinion. Worth a watch if your a fan of the series but others may want to give it a miss.

Good, but a very slow build

[timhayes-1 · 6/10 · 1 June 2006]

Chocolate, from series creator Mick Garris, is a good story. It plays out very well and doesn't fall prey to too many clichés or lapses of logic. The story is told in flashback by our hero Jamie (Henry Thomas) who is recounting how he came to be spattered in blood to an unseen man. The thing that will probably turn off most younger fans of the genre is that Chocolate is very old fashioned in a way. It's all about the slow build. Garris wants you to fully sympathize with Jamie and he's prepared to take his time to build this very one note story until it is perfect. When the bloody finale finally comes it is a bit of a letdown, but the build has been so well done that one is willing to forgive it for its lackluster denouement. All in all Chocolate is an average episode from a capable director who has done far better things. Still, its nice to see something other than a freakshow or gorefest can be included in the series and still be considered horror.

Masters Of Horror: Chocolate (Mick Garris, 2005) **

[Bunuel1976 · 4/10 · 17 February 2009]

This is easily one of the most confusing – and dreary – entries in the MOH series: a divorced young American (Henry Thomas, the boy from E.T. [1982]!) unaccountably finds himself feeling everything that a woman – a complete stranger to him and a Canadian resident to boot – is going through (including her sexual activity!). What could have easily been developed into a perceptive black comedy comes across as very silly indeed and, as I said, ends up making no sense whatsoever! Eventually, the hero gets to meet the lady of his 'dreams' – by which time she has committed a murder and, of course, he falls in love with her; however, their relationship can never work properly…since she is unable to lead any sort of private life, and it all concludes on a sour note with Thomas shooting the girl dead. The title, by the way, is a reference to the fact that his sensation of eating chocolate (when he had had none) was the first indication for Thomas that something was amiss; equally tangential, then, is the subplot involving his co-worker – a middle-aged wannabe rocker who embarrassingly sports a red Mohawk during his stage act!

Giving credit due

[x_Michale_x · 8/10 · 17 May 2006]

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!

Have You Ever Been In Love?

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 4 May 2007]

In Chicago, the lonely Jamie (Henry Thomas) works in the food laboratory of a company developing flavors with his best friend Wally (Matt Frewer). Jamie divorced from his wife a couple of months ago and misses his son. Jamie is on diet but after eating a chocolate, he becomes psychically connected to a beautiful woman, seeing through her eyes and feeling her sensations. Jamie falls in love for the stranger woman, until he witnesses her stabbing and killing her lover. His connection ends and Jamie becomes obsessed for the woman; using his memories, he discloses through the driving license of her car and some landscapes that the mysterious woman lives in Vancouver. Jamie travels to meet and help her and once in Canada, he finds that the dead man was a plastic artist and his beloved stranger is the model Catherine (Lucie Laurier). Jamie tries to approach to Catherine with tragic consequences.

"Chocolate" is an intriguing story of "Masters of Horrors". The dialog of Jamie full of blood with the camera, questioning "- Have you ever been in love?" captivates the attention of the viewer while he discloses the weird events. The film is well developed in a low pace, increasing the mystery and curiosity with the weird situation Jamie is living. Unfortunately, the resolution of the plot is conventional leading to a disappointing conclusion. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Chocolate – O Sabor da Obsessão" ("Chocolate – The Taste of the Obsession")

Masters of Horror: Chocolate

[Was-it-All-a-Dream · 4/10 · 6 May 2009]

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.

Disappointing to say the least..

[sunflwrgrrl · 18 March 2006]

I was really let down by this episode- I've been looking forward to seeing the "Masters of Horror" do their thing.. if this is what the "Masters" are offering up, I may have to give up on the genre altogether! So many plot points just went nowhere (like what was the point of him being a food taster? what was the point of his allergies? why did they waste the wonderful Matt Frewer?) I was totally sucked into the episode at first, mainly because Henry Thomas did such a great job.. I kept expecting it all to tie together, but all it did was .. well.. end! Very pathetic offering. Maybe its time they came out with an "Future Masters of Horror" and let some new people have a throw at scaring us (Like Eli Roth?) Rate it D (and it would have been an F if it didn't have some good acting saving it)

Oh, Please!!

[Kia_Tee · 2/10 · 30 December 2006]

How did this make it out of the idea room?? Really?? The money spent on production of this film would have had better use if it had been put in cash form and dumped over the poorest neighborhood in the poorest country in the world. The only reason I gave this film a "2" was because the idea of psychic link was kind of cool ( and a bit comical) at one point, (if you've seen it, then you know what part I'm talking about)but other than that, the film was a muddled mess.

A man, suddenly linked in a psychic way to a beautiful woman. The story could have taken a good turn perhaps if the ending wasn't obviously written in 2 minutes..in crayon....right before the end of the work day...and maybe the writer also had to go to the bathroom. ....Both thumbs down so low I could break them on the floor.

the taste of obsession

[Fernando-Rodrigues · 4/10 · 21 November 2020]

Poorly developed concept. (its situations could've been scarier because what they delivered doesn't even feel like a horror movie). The edition is bad and it has a lot of conveniences and dumb actions (the whole situation could've been avoided if the dude didn't get obsessed with a murderer and ended up flying over to Canada to stalk her.)

Maybe watchable to most, I hated this turd.

[bjjnedan · 1/10 · 31 July 2012]

Well..., this MoH episode is about a man who sees through an incredibly hot chicks eyes, sees what she sees and even feels what she feels emotionally, physically, whatever, and witnesses her commit a murder through her eyes. Then..., I don't know, he's trying to f*** her by blackmail, marry her..., I don't know, but he seeks her out and tells her his psychotic tale about how he is her.

This may not be a completely terrible idea, I just didn't like this whole thing. I'll tell you where it lost me. The part where the lead actor hooks up with that hot chick from the market, takes her home and has sex with her and the next morning, this f***er has visions of being this chick getting f***ed by her boyfriend. That is..., appalling. I'm sure there was some kind of message that was suppose to be delivered by this, but after that, while I kept watching (the chick that this guy got f***ed as her is really, really, incredibly hot...), I just became incredibly annoyed by the whole thing. The characters (except for the chick the lead was obsessed with because he liked her boyfriends c***) are just very irritating to me. I can't recommend this, but that's more out of personal distaste for it. Hell..., most other people probably love the s*** out of this crap.

Almost Bad

[jed-estes · 7/10 · 5 September 2006]

This is not the best of The Masters of Horror episodes but then again it is not the worst either. I love seeing Henry Thomas acting and I feel this is up their with all his other fine performances, OK maybe not quite up their with E.T but still good acting. Any one who could deliver the fake orgasm he does on screen and not break into laughter has to be an acting mastermind. Who I feel sorry for on this episode is Mick Garris. He creates the Masters of Horror show but can't deliver the goods himself. It's sad because we know this guy can do good, look at Sleepwalker, The Stand, Psycho IV: The Beginning, Rideing The Bullit, and Critters 2: The Main Course. Why could he not make one of the better episodes. My theory is that the disaster that was the production of Desperation combined with the added stress of producing 12 other episodes of the series led him to fail at this show. This one would have been much better if he had put more effort and blood into it. But since I respect what he has done before and think he was just tired I'll give his episode a seven when maybe it deserves more like a six or five. Watch this for Henry Thomas and maybe try to forget it's supposed to be a horror show. If watched as a mystery it plays much better.

Less Horror

[kosmasp · 5/10 · 15 June 2010]

More like a thriller, but still at least average. That's how I felt about it. i liked the acting and how the story develops. But overall it does not achieve greatness. The actors are convincing enough and you will most likely know where this is going very fast (although with an episodic running time, it is not that long to begin with), not that that's a bad thing.

Being a bit supernatural, it does try to stay leveled and grounded throughout. Unlike Miikes episode this (and almost every other episode) most not have had any problems, with being shown completely uncut on it's initial run on the TV.

strong series entry by the underrated Garris

[Jonny_Numb · 7/10 · 28 May 2006]

I just submitted a comment for the "Masters of Horror" episode 'Incident on and Off a Mountain Road,' in which I claimed that the series' central problem was restricting filmmakers to 60-minute TV restraints. However, to rebut some of the negative comments on "Chocolate" (by the way, how on EARTH can you call Eli Roth a 'master' of ANYTHING?), I will also say that the series deserves a bit of leeway--in comparison to the directors' feature films, of course these TV episodes are going to come up short by default, and shouldn't be assessed with the criteria one attaches to a film. Thus far, I have found each entry (released to DVD) passable, stylish entertainment that carries the signature of each director. "Chocolate," from series creator Mick Garris, is no exception; at this point, it's the best entry I've seen, perhaps because Garris is more familiar with the parameters of television. His story follows a divorced, artificial-flavoring creator named Jamie (Henry Thomas), who begins to have visions of a mysterious femme fatale; the episode follows his quest to locate the woman, who has committed murder and might not be altogether right in the head. While the thriller aspect is strong (even inspiring some comparisons to 2005's 'remote viewing' tale, "Suspect Zero"), Garris brings romantic as well as darkly humorous elements to the mix. Even if the denouement leaves a bit to be desired, "Chocolate" is a strong entry nonetheless.

6.5 out of 10

Worst Episode in the Series

[ShadowsBeneathTheLight · 3/10 · 23 August 2022]

I saw so many reviews saying just skip this episode, and I thought there's no way it can be THAT bad. Well I was wrong and they were right. I am so, soooo sorry I doubted any of you all. Do yourself a favor and skip this one. It is a genuine waste of an hour of your life you'll never get back.

This episode just isn't scary. Instead, it's very slow with little payoff at the end. The acting is good, but it doesn't really help given how bare bones the plot and dialogue are.

I'll give credit due for its concept though: the Main Character (a man) is able to see the world through a woman's eyes and experience everything she is feeling. That has the set up for some genuinely good horror or even action if this woman was say a serial killer/slahser villian or was a victim kept hostage somewhere fending for her life. But alas all we get is the MC literally orgasming as he experiences this woman getting banged by her boyfriend (which we watch from her perspective in the most cringe-inducing sex I've ever seen) and thus falls in love with her...

I actually had to google why this was even called Chocolate until I read that the MC's "powers" started after eating chocolate that this woman supposedly touched. Clearly I missed that crucial detail in the episode, a testament to both how poorly done this episode as well as how disinterested I was in it.

So take my advice, listen to the reviews and skip this episode.

Interesting story

[jman0 · 8/10 · 19 August 2007]

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.

strong start but than melts like chocolate

[trashgang · 6/10 · 24 June 2013]

Directed by the founder of the series itself it was up to Mick Garris to do his thing. And this started off so pretty well that I was looking forward what was happening to Jamie (Henry Thomas). But the further the clock was ticking and the closer the end credits came the more I was suspecting this was going nowhere. And in fact once that Jamie has found Catherine (Lucie Laurier) it all falls down in talking. Maybe the last minute can bring something forward to look at but by then it was too late.

Jamie being divorced from his wife and being a loner and doing a diet are getting some troubles after eating chocolate. He becomes psychological connected to a strange woman Catherine. But the strange woman has a secret that he is seeing in his dreams. Being obsessed by now by the woman he is starting to track her down.

Until he finds Catherine we do have a few nudity scene's and the typical situation of divorce when one of the ex-partners is trapped by the other while having sex. But it's in those sex scenes that Jamie is seeing things. He even witnesses a murder. That's maybe the only part that has a few red drips falling. But once he's in touch with Catherine it just doesn't move any further leaving you with a bitter feeling, the bitter after taste of Chocolate.

Gore 0/5 Nudity 1,5/5 Effects 2/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

Wasted idea

[Bored_Dragon · 5/10 · 13 April 2018]

This episode is based on great idea, but the story is lousy developed and filmed even worse. Acting is mediocre, movie doesn't have H out of horror, there's no suspense, no surprises and no twists. Shallow and boring. Still, idea itself doesn't let me go below

5,5/10

Much more interesting than you'd think

[jdollak · 9 April 2006]

Chocolate is probably the most underestimated of the Masters of Horror series, at least so far. Mick Garris, who usually seems to direct Stephen King adaptations, has made a story that is not as typical in treatment of what constitutes horror. Of his directorial credits, I've seen Psycho IV, Sleepwalkers, The Stand, The Shining (miniseries) and I look forward to seeing his adaptation of Desperation.

A chemist who works on scents (for perfume, candles, etc) suddenly finds that some of his senses are crossing with a lady, who he's never met. At one point, it's what she can smell. Other times, what she can taste, what she can see. And gradually, when it happens, he loses control of his own body, and is stuck experiencing what she does. He experiences her killing of a lover, and does what he can to meet her. He is convinced he loves her. Despite similarities to something as unique as Being John Malkovich, this movie had one of the most unique interpretations of horror. I believe that I say it elsewhere in my reviews; one of the scariest things that can happen is being unable to control what you do, and to a lesser extent, being unable to assert some dominance over your environment. While the approach to the story doesn't scream that it is a horror story, it becomes one by the end. I'm sure that the pacing, and the relative non-horrible aspects of the story turned off the viewers that tune in looking for gore and scares. But regardless, even though the story did not haunt me, I have a lot of respect for Mick Garris for being interested in making a story as subtle as this.