Anemic reviews for 'Love in the Time of Cholera'
The long-awaited film version of the 1985 novel by Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez was met with near universal disappointment from the critics. This epic romance about unrequited love that spans half a century
managed a mere 44 at Meta Critic and a sickly 26 at Rotten Tomatoes.
As Carina Chocano of the Los Angeles Times explains, "The author is said to have declined, much like a character in one of his books, something on the order of 50 offers to turn the novel into a film. Part of his reluctance to fork over the story to Hollywood apparently stemmed from his misgivings about subjecting one the greatest Spanish-language novels of the 20th century to an English-language adaptation. And after seeing what director Mike Newell and screenwriter Ronald Harwood have done to it, it's pretty clear that his fears were well-founded . . . . . After all these years of playing hard-to-get, the novel has made it to the screen in the form of a plodding, tone-deaf, overripe, overheated Oscar-baiting telenovela smacks of just the kind of deliciously ironic prank an 80-year-old Colombian Nobel laureate could really get behind."
To Peter Howell of the Toronto Star, "This novel of unrequited love in pre-World War II Columbia is considered one of the 20th century's greatest works of literature. It is widely adored and Oprah-endorsed as a sterling example of devotion, being the tale of how Florentino (Javier Bardem) waits 50 years, nine months and four days for a chance to act upon his undying affection for childhood sweetheart Fermina Daza (Giovanna Mezzogiorno). As a movie, however, 'Love' stumbles over a different set of numbers. In shrinking from a 348-page novel to a 138-minute film, a great deal of charm, wit and insight is lost to clumsy literal translation. The direction by Mike Newell and the screenplay by Ronald Harwood unhappily condense Márquez's hypnotic prose into something a good deal less enthralling."
For Jack Mathews of the New York Daily News, "the film is mostly about romantic obsession and never-ending frustration - the latter of which may jibe with the audience's reaction." And Carrie Rickey of the Philadelphia Inquirer thought the film, "a visual feast that serves a tasty appetizer and a delectable, if bittersweet, dessert. But the many, many courses in between feel rushed and perfunctory. It's as though Newell and collaborators didn't want to omit a single ingredient from the beloved book but lacked time and money to fully prepare them."



A lot of European actors and the use of the English language have stolen the South American flavor of the story. It is important to add that this is a message written by someone from Europe. Something similar happened to "Cold Mountain" that seems more European than American, but in a lower level than "Love in the Time of Cholera." The impeccable cinematography, the music and the performances keep, nontheless, some kind of enchantment.
Posted by: Pablo Serrano Herrero | November 19, 2007 at 06:46 PM
This movie could have worked better if it were done in Spanish and not English. When you have Latino actors spewing heavy-accented English it is soooo cringe-inducing--you have to yell STOP!! What a shame for this to happen to such great literature...sigh!
Posted by: Frankie R. | November 19, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Hello, This movie sucked monkey balls!!! if i saw one more tit i was going to pop myself in the head! Why does he screw like... a small rabbit with his hind legs broken? wtf?
Sincerely, the boob watchers ewwww,,,,
Posted by: Maica and MOM | November 18, 2007 at 04:29 PM
The name of the country is ColOmbia not Columbia
Posted by: ColOmbian | November 17, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Hi,
I'm a 23-year old female student.
I watched Love in The Time of Cholera last night with my friend.
And we were totally disappointed..I still cannot understand how come we wasted 2 HOURS watching it..
Horrible.
Posted by: Svetlana | November 17, 2007 at 08:31 PM
I am a senior female who sees alot of films. Love In the Time of Cholera was for me and many others in the theatre so bad it was funny. We could not help but laugh out loud at Bardem's character. I consider it the WORST film I have ever seen.
Posted by: Ann J. Harris | November 17, 2007 at 12:18 PM