Love in the Time of Cholera details
|Starring:||Benjamin Bratt, Catalina Sandino Moreno, Laura Elena Harring, Marcela Mar, Hector Elizondo, Fernanda Montenegro, Javier Bardem, John Leguizamo, Liev Schreiber, Giovanna Mezzogiorno|
Love in the Time of Cholera
|Run time:||2 hours 18 minutes|
|Rental release:||14 Jul 2008|
Most helpful review
Makes Eastenders Look GoodBy CashOnTheNail (130 reviews) from Manchester , 27 Mar 2008
THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS Show review anywayHide
[Highly rated reviewer]Must be in the running for the worst-movie of 2008.
Telegraph-operator [morse-code] Unax Ugalde [Goyas Ghosts] falls madly-in-love with Giovanna Mezzogiorno [AD Project] at first sight then procedes to romance her with a succession of love-letters, much to her father Javier Bardem [No Country For Old Men] disapproval.
Setting-up his daughter with respected doctor Benjamin Bratt [Catwoman] she relents & marries, preserving the family-reputation. Ugalde takes solice in 'servicing' a succession of hookers, bored housewives, students... until the death of Benjamin, some 5-decades later, when he tries to revive the romance...
Set in late 19th & early 20th-century South America this movie is geared to driving many to alcohol & phoning The Samaritans.
Many foreign-movies are highly-enjoyable [e.g., Esprit D'Amour in Cantonese; that I do not understand so rely on subtitles]; LINTOC makes BBC TV soap Eastenders look like good entertainment.
- Was this review helpful to you?
- (50) Yes |
- No (15)
Useless and boringBy a customer from Cambridge , 21 Oct 2009Only good thing is Giovanna Mezzogiorno.
Terrible film, do not watch!By a customer from Cambridge, UK , 30 Sep 2009This film was terrible - I always sit through bad films in the hope they'll get better, but this was long and painful and a waste of time.
It's very slow and excrutiatingly long, with a terrible script. And why on earth some film-makers think they can convincingly portray Spanish speakers by having them speak English with a dodgy attempt at a Spanish accent is a complete mystery to me. (It's the same with French, German etc.) It just made the whole thing so fake, along with the terrible make-up which was supposed to reflect the characters' ageing but was very badly done. The actors were badly cast too, and the young couple, who were supposed to fall passionately in love at first sight, were downright unattractive to be honest!
I haven't read the book but I can understand that, if it's as good as reviewers have said, the film would be a huge disappointment. I have to say, it's put me off, and I won't be reading the book, despite the positive reviews.
- Was this review helpful to you?
- (1) Yes |
- No (0)
boringBy lindalou (13 reviews) from UK , 19 Aug 2009I did try(several times) to watch this through but it was just so boring!
love in the time of choleraBy a customer from EDINBURGH , 11 Aug 2009Stylish , langourous , well acted and the story holds together well enough .
Newells a fine director and he did a decent job here , but it does lose its way a bit 3/4s the way through .
Underrated though .
DireBy Nitaray (222 reviews) from Farnham , 09 Aug 2009Whoever persuaded director Mike Newell to read this famous novel and to adapt it for the screen is probably regretting it now. And whoever wrote the adaptation is probably regretting saying yes to the project. The story is a beautiful, romantic one, but the words of master novelist, Marques, should have remained within the pages of his book. The film's only redeeming feature is the authenticity of the location, as the film was shot in Marques' own birthplace, Columbia. Otherwise, it is hard to find a good word to say about this period piece; which is a shame, as obviously a lot of hard work went into it's making. How could it all go so wrong? Bardem, director Almodovar's pet protege, seems totally miscast, and his English seems to have got worse rather than better over the past year or so.(This is a perfect example of a film that should have been Spanish-speaking with subtiltles.) The role of lovelorn postal clerk Florentino does not suit the magnificently macho Bardem at all. He barely has an opportunity to flaunt his famous granite-like profile. In fact, it is Benjamin Bratt who steals the acting honours and also the 'handsomest man' contest . The storycontinually switches back and forth in time, which works well enough in the book. If there is something you have not quite understood, you can re-read a passage or two. In the movie, the changes are bewildering. One minute we have Bardem the callow youth,and in the blink of an eye, we have a stooped, bald-headed old Bardem, shuffling around most unattractively. And later on, this is the man who, we are led to believe, eventually wins back his true love, Femina.We also have middle-aged Bardem to contend with, seducing every woman in sight, in spite of his undying devotion to the love of his life. I'm surprised he didn't die of of some awful STD long before reaching such a ripe old age. Wigs, waxed moutaches and various other articial aids to the art of ageing are whipped on and off every other minute. Femina, strangely, does none of this artificial ageing stuff.. She simply wears no make-up and a tired expression. And by the time I'd seen this movie thru, my own expression was equally tired.