Love in the Time of Cholera

source: Love in the Time of Cholera

source: Love in the Time of Cholera

source: Love in the Time of Cholera

I saw this film on it's opening day, I was curious as to what kind of a deep love story it was but after the ending I raced out of the movie theater very upset and disappointed. First of all this is not a romantic film period, this movie is a comedic stalker flick with no real story. There was no real bond to develop between the characters that made them have any feelings for each other. A young and delusional Florentino sees a pretty face and a nice body and thinks that he's in love when he's really in lust. She rejects him shortly after and whether than just moving on he decides to waste 50 years of his life while Femina has moved on with her life and married. The characters of Florentino and Femina barely knew each other and throughout most of the film he spends his time writing poetry and having sex with other women. This film is degrading and unrealistic in different ways, Florentino's character was empty and completely delusional about the concept of love. The truth is that in any good love story you see two people begin to grow a friendship and that friendship grows into intimacy and the intimacy grows into love, it is a mutual feeling between two people that turns into a strong bond, and the characters continue to grow and love each other throughout the film and their love is so strong that they begin to overcome many obstacles but none of the elements that I just mentioned were in the film. In the beginning they start exchanging love notes but Femina later realizes that it was just a phase. Florentino's character could've moved on and married a good woman, there's plenty of fish in the sea and there will never be a shortage of women. The two characters did not love each other, Femina did not love Florentino, she rejected him to pursue a life of stability and security and married a doctor and started a family and although they were at a rough start she began to love the doctor while Florentino wastes 50 years of his life in a delusional dream world of senseless poetry and sexual encounters all at the expense of a married woman who did not love him - and this is what you call a love story ? The fact of the matter is that there is no time table on love, it's not about waiting for 50 years, 5 years or even 100 years. Love has no time table, loves comes from the heart and it is a mutual bond between two people. In all honesty if you really want to see good love stories I highly recommend the Notebook (starring Ryan Gosling and Rachel Mc Adams) and the Holiday (With Jude Law and Cameron Diaz) but this is a terrible and degrading film and sends out the wrong message to the audience and if you're thinking about seeing this film I strongly urge and advise you to reconsider.

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.

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 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.

I completely agree with pbutterfly. The movie was vulgar and empty, at times it felt like a comedy. The characters were poorly casted, what is John Leguizamo doing in this movie. His accent was from NY, even my husband agrees with this. They ruined my favorite book for me. The real relationships between the main characters were not explored. Juvenal and Fermina's relationship was so much more than that... her sense of smell played such a bigger role, their fights and feelings were so much more significant. They focused on Florentino's sexcapades and not on his true feelings. Fermina's feeling for him were so much more stronger. It was poorly done. And what with Shakira doing the entire soundtrack, there is so much more beautiful music in the history of the north colombian coast, and though I admire shakira, her voice had no business being in this movie. Overall it was just bad, and if I were Gabriel Garcia Marquez, I would fight to pull this movie off the theaters because it makes his book appear empty and nonsensical...

"Love in the Time of Cholera" is a crashing disappointment. Having heard many good things about the novel, I was intrigued, particularly when I heard it starred Javier Bardem. The story is a bit ridiculous. A young man loves a girl to whom he proposes, but she marries a rich doctor whom she doesn't love at the insistence of her greedy father. The young man then copes with this by having sex with hundreds of women, all the while waiting for his true love's husband to die. The first thing I was thinking was, "Dude, get over it. I've been rejected by a girl, and honestly, there are lots of fish in the sea." But this guy just can't let go. If anything, this film is a good testament that nothing is stronger than love. Sex may drive us to an extent, but it's an empty substitute for real, lasting love. It's just a shame the main character didn't have the moral fortitude to say chaste and find a girl who loved him rather than have rampant sex with whomever he could. But, moral opinions notwithstanding, this film has a lot in it that didn't work. The pacing felt choppy and rushed. We see a lot of people doing things, but don't really know how they feel about it or get any insight as to their motivations. For example, the main girl hates the doctor. We have scene after scene of her detesting him. Then in the next scene, she's married to him. What the...? And I have to say, John Leguizamo gives one of the WORST performances in recent memory as the girl's father. I honestly thought it was supposed to be comical. It's embarrassing. The guy really should stick to something more like his own personality, something more contemporary. The tone was also very odd, combining gravely serious and passionate drama with goofy and near slapstick-esquire comedy. It felt off, never felt natural. It bothered me. Bardem's performance was good, but not great. The real problems here are with the awful script and Mike Newell's misguided direction. What happened, Newell? Where's the consistency? You gave us "Four Weddings and a Funeral", "Donnie Brasco", "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire", and now this? Here's a hint: take your time with the script. Just because some "name" writer like the dude who wrote "The Pianist" writes you something doesn't guarantee that it's good. This film is a prime example of that.

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.