L'amour aux temps du choléra

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 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.

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.

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.

This was a vulgar and empty film. There was no content, only "emotions," for most of it, and very flat characters. It was exploitative in the extreme, so much so that emotional intensity the film was striving for ended up seeming a bit like a joke, and had no actual pull.

If you take away all of the psychology from characters and reduce them to "basic emotions" such as love, pain, sadness, fear, etc., but those emotions are not motivated by the story, then what you have is an empty spectacle, a bit like a live show at Disneyland. Not to mention the painful and unintentional mix of gritty realism and artifice, such as characters aging at different rates, having glued on mustaches that look like they're going to fall off, having an old head and a young body in a nude shot, or one character having a New York accent while the rest have Spanish accents (why wasn't the film in Spanish to begin with)?

Lots of gratuitous titties, done in an offensive way. And anachronisms such as the use of the word f**k in 1890, as in "your father f**ked everything in sight!" Ridiculous. In its favor the film has nice cinematography and some good costumes, and I think some of the actors made a valiant effort, but I still have to give it a 1 for being so condescending to its audience and for ruining the Marquez novel.