IMDb user comments for
Love in the Time of Cholera (2007)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Index

77 comments in total

---

64 out of 93 people found the following comment useful :-
Marquez Fans Will Not Be Disappointed, 17 octubre 2007

Author: VicenteVicuna de United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The film, composed by all the talents making it, does a terrific job of capturing the essence of the book. Fantastic work! Congratulations to all! As much as I believe that cinema has the potential to be the most powerful and greatest art, it can only come very close to greatness when the job is an adaptation of the most magnificent novel ever written. The same is true when trying to adapt Shakespeare or convey the power of any genius' work like in films about van Gogh, Pollock, Zola, etc.

From my point of view, I felt that the challenge in adapting the book was, for the most part, one of ellipsis, i.e. what do you keep and what do you remove? The scenes and lines of dialogue in the film taken directly from the book create a tapestry of brilliant surgery, if not "the perfect essence" of the book, certainly a brilliant essence or cinematic interpretation.

But unfortunately for me, one who has been tortured for twenty years by the sting of the book's many poetic details and minutia, it is hard not to gasp at what is missing. Before viewing the film, I prepared myself for a 138 minute distillation of an incredibly rich and detailed prose manuscript of 348 pages. I thought then, and I realize now, that it would take a ten or twelve hour filmed version of the book to sate my twenty-year damaged psyche, but I am not so deranged as to hold it against a two hour film adaptation of the masterwork. The film stands by itself. It is a magnificent work. Maybe it couldn't be better. It just doesn't capture all of Marquez. It can't. An American audience, even an educated, worldly one, is still formed and informed by our Puritan society. People don't make movies in Hollywood about coveting another man's wife, dumping your fourteen year old lover (resulting in her suicide) to pursue the woman you really love, and so on, and so on... The film had to make comprises to get an 'R' rating and not cause our repressed and fearful media, and good white Christian core to flip out. Compromise drives Hollywood. Compromise drives the business of movies. Compromise does not play a role in world of Marquez's characters.

I believe and hope that, very soon, the film and book will become organically linked as closely as any film and book can be. It may even create a bond as strong as the Puzo/ Godfather/Coppola connection. I certainly hope so. It could create an artistic and cultural advance which is so vital for humankind, and becoming more difficult to achieve in an impossible-to-believe world of re-emerging fundamentalists who are hell-bent on pummeling us all back into the stone age.

I applaud all of principals who made this wonderful movie.

Bravo!

Viewers of "Love in the Time of Cholera" will gain more insight into what love really means.

---

65 out of 95 people found the following comment useful :-
Amazing book. Wonderful story. Great film., 17 noviembre 2007

Author: Lindsey G de United States

Love in the Time of Cholera is one of my top five favorite books of all time. I was so excited when I heard it was being made into a movie. I'm one of those who approve of books being made into films, as long as they reasonably stick to the novel, because they bring a new perspective and life to the story.

However, I had read nothing but horrible things about this film before I went to see it. Now that I have, all I can say to all those who had only negative things to say is: HAVE YOU READ THE BOOK? "Love in the Time of Cholera" retains the same authenticity and tone on the screen as it did on the page. Yes, the characters are strange people, but that is what makes them memorable; we see parts of ourselves in them and parts of their culture that molded them into who they were. Bardem's Florentino is being called a "creepy" "stalker", but his actions in the novel are no different then those on the screen and reflect the passion and desperation of the world he lives in. Fermina is being called "cold" and "unlikable", but in the novel that's what she is; a haughty, proud woman who keeps her heart buried.

I know the number of bad reviews out there will undoubtedly outnumber the good ones. I don't care. I urge you to go see this film. The novel it follows is a classic and is one of the greatest love stories of all time. Its characters are not perfect, they are human. The scenery, costumes, and overall atmosphere of the film are authentic and moving. But at the heart of the images, there is a love story that is timeless, character traits that hit close to home, and a happy ending that it seems few of us find.

This is why we watch movies. It's not the entertainment, the celebrities, or the technological feats. It is the stories that make us think, that cause us to question the world we live in. We all didn't watch "To Kill a Mockingbird" for the comedy or memorable performances (though they were). We watched it for the time it portrayed, the people it involved, and the message that made us ponder what our world was, is, and is going to be.

"Love in the Time of Cholera" is a movie about us. The faults, successes, failures, and dreams we all have. It is worth anyone's time to see it at least once.

---

31 out of 45 people found the following comment useful :-
Not just bad, but painful, 17 noviembre 2007

Author: Jey047 de Ottawa, Ontario

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

If I had to choose between cholera and sitting through this movie again, I'd choose cholera, it's far less painful. While the cinematography is great and the soundtrack beautiful, the rest of the movie is the stellar opposite.

The story fails to be romantic in any way. The lead actress has no chemistry with any of the actors she's supposed to be attracted to, and they don't have much chemistry with her either. There are cameos galore, but with no real purpose, except maybe that the actors wanted their names on the the cast list for what they hoped would be as lauded a movie as was the book on which it was based.

While the lead actress plays the same role throughout the movie, even though she doesn't pass as a teenager, much less as a 72 year old woman, even with extensive make-up, the lead male role is inexplicably split between two actors - the later being Bardem who, because of the excessive make-up and blush applied to him is supposed to pass as a 20 year old, more so than the 29 year old actor who had played the character in his teens. This reveals another major problem of this film, all the actors always have on too much make-up, even when it is not needed, and this is particularly distracting when you see a close-up on the actors on the big screen of a theatre, and all you see is foundation and blush. The actors seem to age at different rates, and with no dates or indication of how much time has passed between scenes, it all becomes very difficult to follow, particularly when other characters, such as Bardem's character's mother, don't age at all, they're just fortunate enough to become senile.

Most of the acting is on par with a bad telenovela, and even in the few cases where the actors give good performances, such as Hector Elizondo, there's no depth to the character. At one point your lead to believe that his character has died and that Bardem's character has taken over the business, only to have him pop up again half an hour later to announce that he's retiring. Most of the actors muddle through strained accents, none of which match up, and the most hilariously out of place is John Leguizamo, who plays his character as if he's the lovechild of his characters from Moulin Rouge and Spawn, but with a heavy New York accent this time.

There's no sense of love between any of the characters, not even familial love between the uncle and nephew, as the uncle is quick to accuse his nephew of coming to see him only because he wants something. As far as romantic love, the lead actress doesn't seem to love Bardem's character at all, let alone her husband. And Bardem's character just comes off as a strange, disturbing stalker, who so "loves" and is committed to the woman he pursues, that he sleeps with any woman that walks by, including his 16 year old niece (or some other relative). None of the lead characters are in the least bit even likable, so it's difficult to feel any empathy for anything they're supposed to be feeling or going through.

I admit, there are a few laughs in this film, unfortunately, most of them don't seem to be intentional. In the end, they hardly make up for having to sit through more than two hours of characters you don't really care about. I found myself envying the characters that died in the film - at least they didn't have to stay for the end.

---

21 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
Good Intentions, Bad Make-up, 16 noviembre 2007

Author: Agita de United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I never read the book, I never read a review, I had no idea what I was getting into when I went to a film festival screening of this film. It's not hard to imagine that the book must have been a romantic experience chronicling a man's love for a woman spanning decades, it's also not hard understanding why you would want to take this story and turn it into a movie.

What is hard to do is sit through it.

There is obviously a lot of hard work and craftsman ship on display. Whatever the budget was, most of it made it to the screen – which cannot be said for most productions. However, it's never clear what the tone is, is this a comedy or a drama? Films can have it both ways and win, but here it seems to be they shot it two ways and weren't sure which way to go…so they did both. Bardem's character, Florentino, seems to go between being Chaplin and Norman Bates with his bowler's cap & comedic reactions on the one hand and his obsession with his crazy mother who arranges trysts for him on the other. His character at times seems to be brilliant and charming, and at others borderline mentally retarded.

Complicating matters here, Florentino is played by two actors, Unax Ugalde as a teen and Bardem later in life. The choice to swap out the Ugalde for Bardem comes at a strange point in the story, it's when Fermina, the love interest, has not seen him in sometime. This might sound like the perfect point to swap out, but with Fermina played by the beautiful Giovanna Mezzogiorno though most of the film, it's confusing when Bardem steps in now as Florentino. It is here that the Fermina dumps Florentino with really no explanation, but most will feel for her decision as in a span of time that has not touched her...he as aged horrifically! And on top of that, this old man before her seems to be firing on a few lost cylinders. Is this a boy in love, or a psychotic about to rampage? You be the judge. Stalker.

For his time on screen as Florentino, Ugalde is saddled with a prosthetic nose hoisted upon him to resemble Bardem. This is a HUGE mistake, as is, frankly ALL the make-up in this film which could single handedly be the death blow to the film because it is uniformly so bad that for most of the presentation you simply cannot take your eyes off of it. That fake nose, that fake beard, and Mezzogiorno in her 70's she doesn't look a day over 30.

As mentioned, I did not read the book, but it seems the adaptation here may be too faithful, jamming in every aspect of the book. Part of what makes an adaptation difficult to pull off is the knowledge of what to leave out, and in some cases what to add! Here you're treated to so much information, so many locations (and lots of frighteningly bad make-up) the "romance" is left to the wolves.

When Florentino and Fermina finally do get together in the end of the film, it's a relief, not to see them together, but to think the film will be over soon...but it's NOT. It goes on as now he must win her over! This film is filled with good intentions...and we know where that will sometimes get you.

Bardem is lucky NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN opens this week, so anyone who caught this Colombian train wreck can get the bad taste out of their mouth.

---

19 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :-
Superbad in the Time of Cholera, 18 noviembre 2007

Author: Social_Correspondent de New York City

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The greatest challenge for filmmakers of period pieces is to infuse the work with some degree of relevance to modern culture. Perhaps in order to feed the current appetite for anti-hero male fantasies of social revenge and success, Mike Newell has managed to flesh out the sexual journey of it's retro-nerd protagonist, replete with the popular contagion of entitlement and now-expected rewards of conquest.

Gabriel García Márquez' 1985 novel "Love in the Time of Cholera" remains a testament to Romance as Illusion, and Love as a higher calling to those with the maturity and understanding of humanity to appreciate it. However, in Newell's ambitious adaptation, save for the characters aging fifty-odd years, there is neither much maturity nor understanding of humanity.

When the neophyte romantic Florentino Ariza (Unax Ugalde) spies the young Fermina (Giovanna Mezzogiorno) promenading through the plaza one day, he is forever smitten. Captivated by her beauty, (a mystery due to the irredeemable casting blunder), he pledges to remain a virgin until they can be together. After a heated exchange of letters, a sweet minstrel stroll in her courtyard, and a long-distance barrage of telegraphed yearnings, Fermina harshly rejects him citing the temporary insanity of youth. At this point all passion exits the film for good.

Fermina 's father (John Leguizamo, who inexplicably transports Queens gang-tough shtick to 19th century Columbia) manages to broker his daughter to Juvenal Urbino, a successful doctor (Benjamin Bratt) after she recovers nicely from a false bout of cholera. The doctor too, you see, is so taken with his patient's beauty he must have her for his own. Maybe there is more in the water down there than cholera-- something that addles the senses of men. The lovely Catalina Sandino Moreno as one of Fermina's countryside ladies-in-waiting outshines Fermina every scene they share. You wonder why the men aren't lining up to place a bid on her.

Fast forward to an older Florentino (now played by Javier Bardem) using sex with women, lots of women, to alleviate the pain of his separation from Fermina. His pain endures for more than fifty years. Did I mention he alleviates his pain with lots and lots of women? Pain never looked so good.

Part drama, part comedy, there is a curious tone to this movie: it's difficult to tell where the laughs were intended. At first what seems like a camp-romp, purposely anachronistic and self-reflexive, the movie confounds when it appears that the actors are playing it for real. Due to the nerdy fecklessness of the young Florentino, we're willing to overlook some of the earlier stilted moments. Yet there is some dialogue so unfortunate (supposedly lifted verbatim from the rumination-heavy novel), that it's doubtful it could be uttered out loud in any century with a straight face.

Bardem, one of a handful of actors who can elicit our investment in his character no matter how despicable and self-serving his actions, carries the film. (Ugalde, who plays the younger Florentino as a puppy dog eyed Romeo, who looks like he could be Bardem's younger brother, deftly sets up the delusional character's obsessive nature that is handed off like a baton for Bardem to carry the rest of his days.) Giovanna Mezzogiorno on the other hand, must age from late teens to her seventies, and she does so less convincingly. The filmmakers evidently didn't trust that audiences could overlook the horror of an older actress to take us from maturity on.

Bratt must make the transformation across the years as well, but the three of them seem to decompose at different rates, making for a few jarring scenes. Some critics have lauded the make-up crew's accomplishments. Frankly, the pancake looks as though it's in danger of sliding from faces in the jungle heat. Bardem, alone here in the ability to age in voice, posture, tempo and demeanor, in addition to the cosmetics, helps provide a signpost as to where we are in the life cycle-- just in case Florentino's ever-growing list of sexual conquests doesn't mark the time clearly enough.

What's lacking most in the script by Ronald Harwood (so adept with his exquisite "Diving Bell and the Butterfly") is a thriving spirit, a transcendence, an irony. The movie is simply a superficial accrual of loathing: Florentino's of society, of Love, of the fate that denies him earthly happiness and which spurs his mission to bed more than 600 women in order to drive out the demon of Fermina that possesses him; Fermina's of herself as her body has the audacity to age, of her fading beauty, and of her husband's wandering eye. (Such is the fate of women whose sense of self-worth relies solely on their appearance.) Even at seventy, she still can't bear to make love with the lights on. You'd hope that she would grow comfortable in her own skin at some point in her life. Lucky for her, decrepit old Florentino doesn't see her as she really is-- he's still imagining her as a youthful sprite from a bygone time.

The novel is a rich examination of love in its many incarnations with deeper themes underscoring how Romantic Love can disease the soul just as the dreaded cholera ravaged humankind. This adaptation is plagued with the endemic and dated shallowness of a tele-novela steeped in the tradition of patriarchal virulence disguised as drama and conflict. Interesting how Newell takes the book's passionate struggle of a male masochist trying to reconcile his idealism, and mutates it into an Apatow-styled adventure of a virginal lovesick loser turned lothario, who still gets the girl in the end.

Uninspired camera work and sloppy transitions sadly waste the exotic locations. For all the sumptuous scenery and meticulous period set design, the movie has the feel of a "Lifetime Television for Women" M.O.W. Maybe there's a new cable network I don't know about: "Mid-Lifetime Television for Men" that this project can kick off.

---

34 out of 58 people found the following comment useful :-
Loved the Book, 14 noviembre 2007

Author: travelintom de United States

Quick, before the general release on Friday change the silent movie line back to "My God, this is longer than sorrow". What did she mumble instead, was it "interminable"? Why was that wonderful line changed?

I so loved the book, I cannot get an unbiased grip on the movie. My mind elaborated it favorably but with simultaneous disappointment over deviations like the "sorrow" line. "Forever" worked better in the book as the boat was ordered to return upstream. I do wish it had closed with the "ripple" video that is on the internet.

The film touched too many threads while missing the book's soul, like trying to read Fermina's heart on her tongue. Maybe it isn't possible for a movie to do justice to any masterpiece but Florentino's long-standing relationships with the widows are as important as the "body count".

Young Fermina was too old, as was America. I would have cast a 15-year-old as the young Fermina and have had her reappear as America with died hair or similar artifice. I cannot forgive the script for ignoring the perversion and her suicide. I would have rather America had been entirely written out.

Bardem was the perfect Florentino. Fernanda Montenegro and Hector Elizondo gave terrific performances. Marcela Mar is such a heart-throb I nearly forgive her for being twice her age. Cartagena was underplayed. The Shakira soundtrack was ideal.

I'll reluctantly recommend the movie but won't shake peoples' shoulders as I do when I tell them that they must read the book.

---

21 out of 34 people found the following comment useful :-
Beautiful...sorta, 10 noviembre 2007

Author: nonsequitur247 de United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I must admit, I was a bit disappointed. However, I knew the story that was the basis for this film, and being well aware of Gabriel Garcia Marquez's acclaim, I expected nothing short of a masterpiece. The cinematography was decent; the acting, good. My main problem was the direction and the writing.

I felt that this story was beautiful in theory: man falls in love, woman spurns him, he continues to love her for 50+ years while finding physical consolation in 600+ women the mean time; and when he finally wins her over when she's widowed and in their mid-seventies, so overtaken by age that they're heartbreaking to see, they consummate their love on a boat. Does that sound like an insensitive capsule summary? Well, that's what I felt this film did to the story.

I could tell it was going for a sweeping love epic of a serious nature, trying remind its audience what love really is and how long it can last when true. Yet, mostly, I felt that the poor man was somewhat pathetic, that his love was forced and false, to a degree, and the woman he loved was silly and backbone-less. My rational side kept reminding me that it's a story, that there are other things that must be taken into account - differences in class, differences in family situations, the setting (early 20th century Colombia) - but emotionally, all I could see were two very silly, selfish people. I feel like this is a result of the way it was directed, and perhaps edited as well. The tone was off.

Aside from that, the film was beautiful--breathtaking shots of Colombia. If you can get past the lacking character portrayals and simply let the story move you, you'll definitely like it.

---

25 out of 43 people found the following comment useful :-
A Successful Translation of the Book, 17 noviembre 2007

Author: idavem de Los Angeles, CA, United States

I was primed to enjoy the film because some events in the book dovetail with my life. I wanted to see how it would be translated to film. I wasn't disappointed.

An enormous amount of the book was inside the film. Many of the comedic and tragic scenes in Garcia's book were included, well-captured by the dialog. The cinematography was a superb visual equivalent to the author's luminously written depictions of a fairytale world.

If I'd not read the book first, and if I didn't find some elements of my own life inside the book, I'm not sure what I would have made of the film. I can only base my review on the fact that I've read the book, and that the makers of the film obviously did their best to be as truthful to the book as possible. The core belief of the film as well as the book - that love, in various forms, can last a lifetime - is true.

---

41 out of 75 people found the following comment useful :-
Didn't like it, 28 diciembre 2007

Author: johnny-08 de Rijeka,Croatia

"Love in the time of cholera" is a true classic of Nobel prize winner Gabriel García Márquez. Movie "Love in the time of cholera" of director Mike Newell is not and will never be a film classic. Newell wanted to stay true to the book but he does not realize that he had to make a movie interesting to those who never read the book and to those who already read the book. I never read this book and I found this film boring and long and truly bad acted from some actors. To those who read the book maybe they can say some positive things about this movie.

Casting director of this movie made few big mistakes. Benjamin Bratt is always the same, Giovanna Mezzogiorno acted terrible and Javier Bardem tried but couldn't carry this movie on his back. Second thing that bothered me is that the whole movie was made in English. I would prefer Spanish instead and not English with bad accent (at the same time we can hear servants speaking Spanish but not our main characters!!).

There are some beautiful scenes of countryside and the songs of Shakira aren't bad but this movie lacks of magic. Magic that probably book has, so this became movie that you can easily miss and not regret after.

---

21 out of 36 people found the following comment useful :-
how to render a classic novel comical, 1 diciembre 2007

Author: nancyberte de United States

Entertaining only in that the landscape was visually beautiful and, sadly, that it presented the opportunity for friends to laugh and rip the movie apart afterward. It's a lesson in how to take a classic novel with dark moments and psychology and render it an empty shell to the point of making it more akin to a comic strip of the novel than a heartfelt cinematic interpretation. Casting was unfortunate, although I don't know how much to blame on the actors as opposed to the concept and execution of the movie. Make-up was pathetic. But go see it anyway and then read the book - or visa versa - just for the entertainment value. Laughter is good for the soul.

---

---

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	External reviews	Parents Guide
Official site	Plot keywords	Detalles principales
Your user comments	Your vote history