User reviews

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.

We all know the book is fantastic, but since the beginning I thought it was going to be difficult to capture its magic in a film, so I went to see it without too high expectations. There were some details that I found great, for example the music, the scenery, the colors etc. BUT I think the feeling of the story couldn't be reached nor transmitted at all, and the acting was below average. To me, the characters at the film were not interesting at all -anything could have been changed from the book and I wouldn't have cared- they were simply "other people". Shakira's (Colombian singer) songs with amazing tropical shots at the background are the best this film has to offer.

Well, first of all I truly enjoyed the movie. Even though it is not the best movie ever I still recommend to everyone. It is still a beautiful story which I think you would enjoy if you haven't read the book, and for those of you who have, it is very interesting to see how the director tries to capture Marquez's book in a movie.

The movie however has really big problems, the most important one, which is the main reason why I didn't think much of this movie is that it is in English. Its a huge mistake because all the language used in the book (which is beautiful) is just LOST, therefore the movie automatically looses most of its potential. Even worse than making the movie in English is making the main dialogs in English and the background dialogs in Spanish, it just doesn't make any sense. Its ridiculous. Finally, Giovanna Mezzogiorno's acting is not very good.

I have seen many comments and reviews that agree with what I just said; but as I said before, even if it isn't a really good film I still recommend it. You should see the movie, but most importantly, READ the book!!!

To begin with, it's challenging to make a movie out of a brilliant book. Yet: the acting is very bad, appart from Bardem, which made it somehow to fit a character that is miles away ( even physically) of what he seems to be in real life. Some dialogues were changed from the book just for the sake of change, I guess, losing their beauty and meaning. Make up is bad - appart from, again, Bardem's, not to say that the casting in itself is pretty uninspired - appart from those in Florentino and Transito. All in all you can say it's Bardem's movie on a great Shakira music. But that's not the spirit of the book.

For devotees of Gabriel García Márquez this unprofessional adaptation of his sweepingly romantic novel 'El amor en los tiempos del cólera' will sadly disappoint. Ronald Harwood's screenplay is a patchwork quilt that attempts to tell the story of longing for love in the manner of a novella/travelogue and despite the presence of some very fine actors in the key roles, director Mike Newell forgets to grasp the atmosphere that makes the original novel ethereal.

Young Florentino Ariza (Unax Ugalde) is a poor dreamer working as a telegraph operator and sees and falls in love with young Fermina Daza (Giovanna Mezzogiorno), daughter of a wealthy mule trader Lorenzo Daza (John Leguizamo) who upon hearing of the infatuation whisks Fermina away as Florentino pledges undying love and fidelity to Fermina. Florentino's mother Tránsito (Fernanda Montenegro), his uncle Leo (Hector Elizondo), and his friend Lotario Thugut (Liev Schreiber) comfort him and try to encourage his mating with another woman, but as Florentino matures (now Javier Bardem) even the long list of sexual encounters cannot turn his mind away from Fermina. Fermina marries Dr. Juvenal Urbino (Benjamin Bratt), travels widely, has his child and ultimately discovers her husband's infidelity. Florentino inherits his Uncle's shipping wealth, becoming one of the wealthy class that would have made him an eligible suitor for Fermina when he originally met her. But time changes everything except Florentino's commitment to Fermina and after the death of Dr. Urbino, he has the chance to realize his long awaited dream of being with the now 70+ year old lover.

The story spans fifty years in an unnamed city in Columbia (here Cartagena) and across the beauty of both South America and Europe. All of the basic elements are in place: the important missing piece is the magic of Gabriel García Márquez's prose. The huge cast is wasted on a script that is less than pedestrian: Javier Bardem tries to make Florentino a credible sympathetic character but is stuck in the mud of his lines; the brilliant Fernanda Montenegro attempts to paste together the pared down role of Florentino's mother; an unremarkable Giovanna Mezzogiorno fails to make Fermina worthy of Florentino's devotion; John Leguizamo is grossly and embarrassingly miscast; fine actors such as Unax Ugalde, Liev Schrieber, Catalina Sandino Moreno, Ana Claudia Talancón, Hector Elizondo and others are little more than cardboard caricatures of the original creations.

One wonders how Newell and Harwood could have strayed so far from the mark of the potential that this beautiful novel promised as a cinematic transition. But what resulted from their collaboration is an overlong, boring, and sloppy version of the original story. Sad to see fine actors wasted in this film. Grady Harp

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.

First of all let's make clear that it would be impossible to portrait the book in this title... in my personal I feel the characters where completely different but it was not fault of the actors, probably of the script Anyway taking clear that Garcia Marquez's excellent job is simply impossible to fully adapt to a book it was an overall good production I was amaze by Bardem's performance, specially because it's a real challenge to portrait so many different stages of a same character. The acting of Bardem was (in my opinion) excellent. the photography was simply beautiful (though I admit there where a shot or two that reminded me more of Mexico than Colombia, but overall it was a Colombian landscape) the landscapes where exquisite and the musicality was decent, though Shakira's music I feel ruined it a little (I'm not a big fan of Shakira) in my opinion the BIG mistake of this movie was the fact that it was in English... I find it kind of anti-artistic to perform Colombian characters that speak in English... I believe that the movie has to adapt to the context it develops on, also it completely took off the little of Gabriel García Marquez's magic it had.

Overall I found it a great work... it's not an adaptation to Garcia Marquez's novel, but it was a great movie which I enjoyed.

I think it is possible to make a film that has this book's richnesses, story, metaphors and style. But it would have to depart as much from ordinary Masterpiece TeeVee as this cleaves to it.

The book, if you do not know it, relies on an already deep tradition of Spanish-speaking writers that brings metaphor to life by mixing illusion and reality. This is a third generation writer in this tradition, and he counts on you knowing the previous generations so that you can appreciate the subtle craft in placing both in a "reality."

The centerpiece of course is how to fabricate a perfect love, suspend it in earnest imagination and make it real through writing. That last bit is the third generation bit, the idea that the writing of illusion makes it real. Students of narrative folding as a device to engage will recognize this trick as one designed to put the reader in the story. Everyone in the story is a "reader" of what Florentino writes. His passion in writing is immediately accessible to every other woman he meets and allows him to enter 622 of them.

That number of course is the number of menstrual cycles he waits for his love while engaged in maintaining the passion. This links to one of the two main metaphors, also partly illusory: the boats on the river. The other metaphor is love as a disease and the triangle established by the doctor dedicated to eradicate it. The structure is rather clinical, made attractive by the same passion in its writer as the writer character has. It matters that it is written in Spanish, a language that allows a connected flow of phrases and a tradition that assumes romantic fever.

I think Ruiz could have done this.

Newell has no idea what to do with this, and is left with simply trying lush shots and reading passionate text.

Here's an indication of his general ignorance: for practical commercial reasons the language must be English. But instead of having his characters speak English naturally and with passion, he has them adopt an accent which we will recognize as Hispanic speaking English as a second language. This is characterized by hypervigilance to the consonants separating words where the primary language centers of the brain are telling the speaker that they should flow with sonances. An astute listener (and if you are not, you do not deserve to have passion in reading) will know people with this, whose words flow in their mind, but become discrete pebbles in the mouth, breaking the flow of liquid life this whole story exploits.

Here's an indication of his cinematic ignorance: It matters what is shown, how and in what way, for how long and in what order. He films this as if every element that plays a role in the plot deserves equal weight. Thus, if we have a telegraph key that does something, or a boat people are on, or a ladder that slips, why we see those. All exist with equal weight. All are shown with the same reality and perspective. All have the same frame. But this manner of narrative is all about color and weight, all about the rhythms of love in reality. Some things should be sharp, magnetic, bright. Others foggy or not even touched. Some seemingly full and sensual but allowed to be discovered not so in a way that never informs the next lust.

Its all about rivers and inconsistent flows. All the sex is denoted by displayed breasts. This again is a commercial necessity, but the material is vaginal in focus. Such intense mysteries must always be. All of the mechanics of the story begin and end there, even in mention of the food.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Love in the Time of Cholera is a very ambitious film. Sadly, its reach doesn't quite meet its stretch. But there are very good reasons why you should watch it anyway. Experiencing everything conjured up by the work of Nobel Prize-winning writer Garcia Marquez in the book it was based on, possibly isn't one of them.

Some things don't translate easily to film. The degree to which you enjoy them might depend on your power to dream, and your willingness to paper over the cracks.

Think back, for a moment, to when you first fell for someone. That heady feeling. Your heart is beating faster. Your mouth is dry as they approach. Your whole being concentrated in a single aim. A single passion. The world seems a wonderful place. There are no problems that cannot be surmounted. For some, falling in love is like suspending disbelief. Can that act of faith last a lifetime? Or do we put the book down if love goes wrong?

Put yourself in Colombia. The time is the late 19th Century. Our hero is young and enamoured. But what would you do? You are unquestionably in love. You are 100% certain your lover is in love with you. But then – hell's bells! - they reject you!

This is another film from the award-winning pen of Ronald Harwood (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Oliver Twist, The Pianist) but I wonder what people will make of his adaptation. The main difficulty is the premise and having a single actor play the lead, from youth to elderly Romeo. Florentino falls in love with Fermina. When she rejects him for a wealthier suitor, he waits more than 50 years for her husband to die. During this time, he assuages his pain in the arms of some 600 women. Unlike Casanova though, we do actually still feel sorry for him. He remained faithful at heart. But although Javier Bardem's marvellously expressive acting gains our sympathy, the special effects to enable him to age so much strain belief a bit more. You really do have to throw yourself into the romance of it!

The book has some subtleties that aren't obvious unless pointed out. We can deduce that lovesickness is meant as a physical disease, as is cholera. (The good doctor that Fermina marries is an expert on the latter.) But I wasn't aware of the pun in Spanish where 'cólera' can also mean human rage and ire. The social strife that forms a backdrop to the story also make sense of this, as cholera the disease seems fairly insignificant.

The film contains passionate and enduring love, and Oscar-worthy songs written especially for the film by Colombian-born Shakira. As is often the case with Gabriel García Márquez stories, the characters are very intense, and with epic tales to tell. And how many films do we see shot in the beautiful, lush but strife-riven Colombia? I loved every minute of Love in the Time of Cholera. Flawed as it is, I found the film bold and colourful. Its themes and the dilemmas faced by Fermina are played with sincerity. She gets her cake only after eating it in the form of an aristocratic marriage to a devoted husband. Then gets another devoted husband. Of course, you may say that having 600 women and still getting the girl of your dreams is just male wish-fulfilment . . .

I must admit first that I worked on this film..My one fear was that we could'not do it justice..The incredible genius of Gabriel Garcia Marquez. 'Magical realism'... One never knows even as we dress the sets and struggle with that expression.. Having waited a few months I viewed the film...Apart from a few personal bloops..I felt that Mike Newell did a great job..That all those journeys we made accompanied by body guards was worthwhile... I was proud of what we achieved ...I think it is a film to see NOT having read the book..but worthwhile nevertheless.. This would be my final film at almost 80....I felt it was a fitting exit..

The screenplay writer took much pains to try and conserve the essential meaning behind Garcia Marquez's writing, but failed to capture the sentiment behind each scene. Another disappointment was directors interpretation of Dr. Urbino Juvenal character, played by Benjamin Bratt. He seems like a soulless social clown who does not know anything about his surroundings or of the social society of which he is apart of. The director's portrayal of Ariza and Daza's relationship as one of a rekindled romance during the latter part of the film, is incorrect as i believe that Marquez' intention was to show that two characters towards the end of their lives who had finally found a connection because they had suffered similar circumstances that had left both characters empty. Although it is true that most novels fail to capture the meanings behind such sentiment, this was at most a mediocre attempt. Out of a possible 10 i have to give it a 4, only because a writer as masterful as Marquez should not be misinterpreted in this way.

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.

A love story in colombia, starring benjamin bratt and javier bardem. When a young colombian man falls for the beautiful girl fermina, he is rebuffed by her father. Life goes on, and they live their separate lives. Will they ever meet again? Costars john leguizamo, liev schreiber. It's quite good! Beautiful scenery and life in columbia. A love story. An entire life spent chasing someone he could not forget. All during colombia's thousand day war, taking place in 1900. Directed by mike newell. He had won two baftas for four weddings. Also directed a harry potter. Based on the novel by gabriel márquez, who was born in colombia. And who had won a nobel prize for literature. An entertaining, epic story. It's long, but it's good!