Love in the Time of Cholera (2007)

Memorable, crazy movie

Best movie ever!

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Adapted from the Gabriel García Márquez novel, this is the story of Florentino as a young man in 1879 Columbia who falls in love at first sight to Fermina Daza. Her family would keep them apart, and he begins a life of sexual relationships with many women.I have not read the novel, but I assume it is a romantic epic. I just think it is probably too epic to put it all on film. At over 2 hours, this thing is a rambling melodrama. Although Javier Bardem is a great actor, I wonder if aging up Unax Ugalde would have been better. They don't really come off as the same guy. Maybe they could glue on a beard on Unax. Also the use of English really takes away the power of this as an Spanish language novel. The use of so many non-Spanish actors like Liev Schreiber and even John Leguizamo who isn't much of a Spanish speaker really dilutes the atmosphere. There is almost a cheesy feeling to this Mike Newell production.

There are reviewers and critics who wrote about the story being of a profound love; this is not entirely true, in fact, the author of the novel completely dismissed the premise. The Nobel-Prize winning author Gabriel García Márquez was depicting love as an illness akin to cholera in his main character Florentino, because of the obsession and delusion of that very character for his first love Fermina. There is spread of cholera depicted in the story, both the novel and the film so the author called this a trap for the critics. The film is faithful enough to the novel as could be expected given producer Scott Steindorff spent the better part of three years courting the author for the rights.Florentino, played by Oscar winning actor Javier Bardem, in his youth, fell in love with Farmina, played by Giovanna Mezzogiorno, who at first reciprocated it, but since her father did not approve, they were denied courtship as Florentino showed little prospect in her family's judgement. Instead, she was courted by Dr. Juvenal Urbino, played by Benjamin Bratt, to whom she pledged her affection and this shattered Florentino; Juvenal and Farmina married. Florentino swore however to remain virgin for her until she would be his again. To make a long story short, he did not uphold his solemn oath for too long, except in his distorted mind. He started keeping a journal of all the women he seduced trying to fill the void; over time he exceeded six hundred such conquests, facilitated by his gift for poetry and his much laid back demeanor (the novel expanded more about his opium smoking habit than the film did). Still, he fantasized Farmina would be his one day.Faith favored Florentino in later years, when Dr. Urbino passed away, but Farmina was jilted by love as her husband had been unfaithful, carrying on a prolonged affair. But Florentino started courting in earnest until he rekindled Farmina's love; they were both elderly by then. This last part is where most readers and viewers get the reasonable notion that the story is about undying love. If you view it as such, you'll best enjoy the movie for the happy ending it delivers. I'd be remiss if I did not mention that Florentino's sexual depravity, in most of his adult life, is not extolled in the movie, but it's rather made plain that he had issues. He went so far as to seduce a distant relative, América Vicuña, played by Marcela Mar, a minor he sponsored while she was in boarding school; in the novel the affair is more lascivious and when Florentino ends the relation to devote his attention to Farmina, she kills herself.The work is a period piece, with some latitude as historical events unfolded, and there are disparities between periods from the novel to the film. But it won't matter much as the feel for 18th and early 19th centuries are a mere backdrop, well staged though, and take nothing away from the well crafted character development of each of the main and secondary players. I could go on about sub-plots but suffice it to say the narrative, delivered by Bardem is excellent, the dialogue simply delightful, and everyone's performance is impeccable. It is not a shock to read accounts of Gabriel García Márquez exclaiming 'Bravo' after viewing the first final cut of the movie.The critics were wrong about the movie, they rated it poorly and the initial reception by audiences was less than cordial at first. There is no merit to these assessments; after all, it was a Nobel literature prize winning story for which there is minimal screenplay adaptation variation. It's not a mass commercial work, but a classic that in time will gather a following as the book did and still does. Of course, I encourage those who enjoy a good book to get this one, while those who prefer the cinema not to miss the movie. I enjoyed both and trust you will. Lastly, the soundtrack is lovely and three songs are performed with great passion by Shakira, two of which are her compositions, music and lyrics.

This is a strangely interesting film, rich-textured and unpredictable ~ more of an art film than a mainstream one. It is dramatic and well-acted. It is at times somewhat disorganized and mystifying. The direction and/or editing could be smoother. The female lead is somewhat young for this role. It would have been well to use an older character made-up to look younger in the earlier scenes ~ or to have used a different actress for the two eras. Certainly the reference to cholera in the title leads one to think that illness, death, and separation would be a major theme, but it is more of a peripheral theme in this story. In some ways it was lacking, with some scenes and themes seeming disconnected; but I would watch it again (and need to, in fact, to clear up some odd points). Worth watching.

This seemed like comedy it was so bad, no chemistry , bad makeup, bad acting, and was so confusing. the weird sex scenes just creeped me out. where she flys onto him and bangs him outta nowhere, having sex when bombs are going off. i thought i was suppose to laugh.i turned it off so i cant give a good review. but i doubt it got better. after 40-60 minutes of this movie i couldn't take it anymore, and was making me angry how bad and confusingly weird this was. i haven't read the book, and the movie has ruined me wanted to. but i hope its way different then this movie.Save yourself from torture , just read the book and pretend this movie never happened