CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Movies › Love in the Time of Cholera (Mike Newell, 2007)

Love in the Time of Cholera (Mike Newell, 2007)

Started by Amanda Nguyen5 · · 👁 4 views · 7 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Amanda Nguyen5steelbison14northernangler17Brenda Alvarez10placidnomad83Angela Morgan4
Amanda Nguyen5 Amanda Nguyen5 Active MemberOP
134 messages
joined Dec 2007
#1 ·
I was actually going to write up my review and just drop it in the "Latest Releases" thread, but then I realized everyone is already talking about this movie. Plus, I caught a screening at the local AMC Theatres today and the place was packed—like, 90% full! It’s crazy because they only show it once a day at 9:15 PM, and it's been out for a month already. So, I figured, why not just start a whole new thread for this one?

I actually read the book that *Love in the Time of Cholera* was based on a while back, so I went in with a bit of context. Honestly, the movie got absolutely trashed by critics. I mean, talk about a rough reception—it sat at a measly 28% on Rotten, and even Roger Ebert and Bernardinelli gave it a pathetic 1.5 out of 4. I honestly can't wrap my head around why people hated it so much. Maybe they just set the bar way too high because the source material is such a classic? Or maybe it was just too much of a chaotic melting pot—you had Colombian settings, a Spanish lead, an Italian actress, a British director, all wrapped up in an American production. It felt like a total Tower of Babel situation, if you know what I mean. Still, I can't say I walked out of the AMC Theatres feeling disappointed. It wasn't for me, but it wasn't a letdown either.

My biggest gripe with this movie? They totally failed at making Giovanna mezzogiorno look older. It’s honestly ridiculous—she looks exactly the same from start to finish, which is just lazy. Meanwhile, Bardem actually pulls it off, even if his mustache looks a little wonky at times. He really aged convincingly. I don't have anything too harsh to say about Newell, but man, he leans way too hard on those extreme close-ups. It just doesn't work here. Plus, he’s trying to do way too much at once. He wants the laughs, the tears, the sex, the romance, the individual vs. the crowd, long dialogues, quick character studies, war, cholera... you name it. He’s trying to grab everything! Even Radić called it a "grab bag." Since this is my first time seeing a Newell film, I'm really hoping his direction in those earlier acclaimed hits like Donnie Brasco was a bit more focused. After all, he's supposed to be a big deal in this industry.
Pinto, that Brazilian composer who also did the soundtrack for City of God, really nailed it with this one. Honestly, even those Shakira tracks he worked on weren't nearly as bad as everyone initially thought they'd be.
I can’t quite recall every detail of the book, but honestly? It felt like they just filmed the novel scene by scene, frame for frame. Sometimes that works, but here, it kind of missed the mark. I’ve always considered *Love in the Time of Cholera* one of the greatest stories ever told, so even just the pacing of the movie felt a bit pretentious—though I have to give them credit for being brave enough to try. Bardem and Giovanna mezzogiorno just didn't have that spark; their chemistry didn't come anywhere close to what was on the page. Still, I can't say I hated it. There was just this "something" missing in the air—that specific feeling you were desperately searching for in *The Reckoning* but never actually found.
The movie tried way too hard with the flashy visuals, and honestly? It leaned on the jokes far too much. Sure, there’s plenty of humor in the book, but it’s handled with actual subtlety there. When you force that kind of comedy into what should be a grounded, gritty drama, it just feels off. For me, this one lands squarely in the mediocre category.
I’m on the same page as Radić this time. He gave it a 3/5, which honestly feels pretty generous coming from him. I guess he got swept up in the quality of the novel just like I did. It’s a total blast to read. At this point, we can practically call it a modern classic. I'm stoked that Radić is on my side regarding two other things, too—specifically how incredible Unax Ugalde is playing the young Florentina, and how Giovanna mezzogiorno is just stunning.

You have to admit, the author seems genuinely thrilled with this first Hollywood take on the story. And look, even though it isn't listed under "trivia" over on IMDb, I could swear I saw him personally taking the host from the priest in one of those quick, fleeting shots. I mean, there’s absolutely nothing in the official records about that, and honestly, if it actually happened, someone else probably would've caught it by now. But hey, maybe I'm just seeing things.

To wrap things up, I always find Radić’s takes pretty interesting— I just saw this piece about how much people are actually paying for movie tickets lately, and man, it’s getting ridiculous. I was reading through this article about the state of the industry, and honestly? It feels like we're being squeezed. The math doesn't even add up anymore. You walk into an AMC Theatres, pay a small fortune just to sit down, and then realize you still need enough cash on hand for a bucket of popcorn that costs more than a decent lunch in Chicago. It’s wild. We used to just grab a ticket and call it a day. Now, it’s a whole financial commitment. There’s this vibe that everything is becoming a luxury experience, but without the actual luxury. Sure, some theaters try to dress it up with fancy seating, but at the end of the day, it's still just sitting in the dark watching a screen. People are starting to stay home because, let's be real, why spend sixty bucks when you can stay in your pajamas? It’s a tough spot for the big studios too. They keep pumping out these massive blockbusters, hoping the crowds will show up, but the barrier to entry is getting higher every year. If they don't find a way to make going to the movies feel "worth it" again—and I don't mean just better reclining chairs—they might find themselves in a lot of trouble. Just my two cents. Things are changing fast.Look, I’ve got a few killer lines for you:
Bernardinelli said it best: "All that eye candy in the world isn't going to stop Love in the Time of Cholera from sinking like a stone."
Roger Ebert once said that Gabo’s magic might only truly exist within the prose itself. He talked about how the writing dances between the erotic and the absurd, blending tragedy with pure magic. Basically, if you strip away the beautiful language and just look at the plot, you’re left with nothing but dust and old bones. There’s no heartbeat left without those words.
steelbison14 steelbison14 Newcomer
4 messages
joined Dec 2011
#2 ·
I caught a screening this past Saturday (honestly, I was surprised by AMC—they actually had a decent time slot available for such a popular movie, and they didn't pull it from theaters too quickly)
It just didn't do it for me😁
Not even a little bit. And mind you, I’m a romantic at heart, so my expectations were quite high.
The whole thing felt rather pathetic to me; the acting was mediocre, and the love story lacked any real conviction... though I will admit I did laugh, as there were some genuinely funny moments! Plus, the soundtrack is superb!
But would I sit through it a second time? Definitely not.🤷
northernangler17 northernangler17 Member
49 messages
joined Oct 2006
#3 ·
Personally, that was one of the WEIRDEST (!) movies I've ever seen. By the end, I felt like I’d watched something that was both pretty good and INCREDIBLY BAD at the exact same freaking time. I caught a private screening about a month ago...
I haven't read the book, unfortunately (my bad, my bad, my biggest bad), but from the very start of the movie, I kept thinking, "Man, this must have been handled beautifully in the book"—that was basically the main thought looping in my head. Just regarding the plot, the ideas, and how they were executed at the end.
But the movie itself? It just didn't get there, in my opinion. Emotionally speaking, it was SO SO confusing (and I'm sure the book is much "cleaner" in that regard) that while the story was unfolding, I literally DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK. Like, I felt a little bad for the lead guy, which also kind of annoyed me, but I didn't feel anything for her at all—and her "love" for him? Even less so (though I did dig what she said about illusion, so I guess I agree with her on that bit)....of course, it bugged me that they used two different actors for him and only one actress for her (wtf?!), and the fact that the movie was in English. I mean, seriously, if you're gonna do it in English, if you absolutely have to, at least use a normal British or American accent, or whatever, but not English with a Spanish accent--->that totally made the whole movie feel fake to me ( "what is love?" yeah, right, as if I'd believe you actually care when you ask it LIKE THAT 🤣 ), and honestly, they really should have filmed it in Spanish. Plus, Spanish sounds so much better....
Oh, and those sex scenes....🤣 I swear, I was watching them laughing, and I wasn't even sure if I was supposed to be laughing or crying. My brain was just constantly throwing out thoughts like: "Are they being serious?", "They've gotta be joking," "No fucking way," "Uhm....is this INTENTIONALLY like this!?!". It was honestly somewhere between a parody and a grotesque mess, if you ask me. And something tells me that wasn't the goal...but hey, the impression is there, and it's not just me.

Toward the end, I guess my impression improved a bit and I actually enjoyed it....the music is lovely. But after the whole ballad ended, walking out of the theater, I felt like I'd watched something that, in the right hands, could have been potentially high-quality, beautifully nuanced, emotional, and—totally devastating. Instead of all those feelings, I just felt like IT COULD HAVE BEEN THAT!
Amanda Nguyen5 Amanda Nguyen5 Active MemberOP
134 messages
joined Dec 2007
#4 ·
northernangler17 said:And honestly, it really bugged me how they cast two actors for him but only one actress for her (wtf?!)

It’s not about the ratio, it’s about how they actually pulled it off.

northernangler17 said:But seriously, if you ask me, it sits somewhere between parody and grotesque. And I have a feeling that wasn't exactly what they were going for.

I'm not totally sure what the target was with this movie, but even if the book wasn't trying to be that way, it definitely touches on those parody and grotesque elements in plenty of spots.

northernangler17 said:I felt like I was watching something that, in the right hands, could have been high quality, beautifully nuanced, emotional—totally gut-wrenching. But instead of all those feelings, I just sat there thinking, "Man, it COULD have been like that!"

First off, no need to yell.
2. Why would it be gut-wrenching? It's a story that celebrates love, even if I sound super cheesy saying that.
3. It could have been a hundred times worse. I gotta give it to Newell again for having the guts to try; it's just a matter of when someone else picks this up. Maybe in the year 2250 (if we haven't all kicked the bucket by then, which, let's face it, we probably will). People might call this "the first Hollywood adaptation of Love in the Time of Cholera," while the next sixteen versions are undeniably better.

I don't know.

Or maybe, now that I think about it, I'm just so in love with the story that I've tried to convince myself the movie was okay even though it really wasn't. I don't know, I'm telling you... I really don't know...
But the book hit me so hard, so maybe I'm just subconsciously doing that...
northernangler17 northernangler17 Member
49 messages
joined Oct 2006
#5 ·
Arthur Garcia59 said:Maybe I just convinced myself the movie was decent because I love the story so much, even though it actually wasn't great. I don't know, I'm just repeating myself... I really don't know...
But the book hit me hard, so maybe I'm just subconsciously doing that...

It doesn't have to be that way at all. Actually, everyone’s take is different—that's obvious. When we watch a movie, we bring our own stuff to it, which basically makes us part of the creative process too. Like how you didn't feel the chemistry or the love between Robbie and Cee in Atonement, so the story didn't carry any emotional weight for you. For me, it was the exact opposite because I'm totally "in love" with their romance, which felt visible to me in every single moment of the film. 😍

To me, it makes total sense that you liked the movie since you're a huge fan of the book. I guess (and I'm just saying, I don't know) that I might have liked it even less if I had read the book first, because it would always be hanging over my head and I wouldn't have been able to just experience the movie for what it is. All those things BIGLY affect how you see things.

p.s. I wasn't "yelling" with the caps, I was just trying to emphasize my point.
Brenda Alvarez10 Brenda Alvarez10 Newcomer
1 message
joined Jul 2008
#6 ·
First off, you have to give credit where it's due to anyone brave enough to adapt Marquez on screen.

But then, you have to tear them apart if they mess it up—especially when they have all the necessary ingredients at their disposal, from the locations to the sheer opulence described in the book (though, let's be honest, the lead actor hit his mark, while the actress... not so much).

Personally, I don't regret carving out the time to watch it. There were moments that actually pulled me in, but there were also stretches where I was laughing out loud—not because it was funny, but because it was such a disaster...

In my opinion, the best parts of the movie aren't even tied to the main plot. Instead, they capture that pure genius and inspiration found in Marquez's writing, which the screenwriter or director actually managed to translate to film (like those scenes involving the letters being written for the lovers without them knowing). For that alone, they deserve some praise.
placidnomad83 placidnomad83 Newcomer
1 message
joined Oct 2010
#7 ·
The movie would’ve been significantly better if Jeunet had directed it, or if it were at least in Spanish—this English dub is just painful.
Angela Morgan4 Angela Morgan4 Member
13 messages
joined Aug 2011
#8 ·
To me felt patronizing and incredibly dull. I honestly didn't have the energy or the inclination to even give him a chance. I was checked out after thirty minutes. 🙄

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads