giligara30492 Let me start by saying that "Love In The Time of Cholera" is one of the finest pieces of literature I've ever had the honour of reading. The complexity of the characters in the context of the epic love story, and, of course, García Márquez' uniquely masterful, creative, nuanced, and haunting storytelling are as astoundingly difficult to get out of your head as they are to even begin thinking about portraying on film. So, when I set out to watch this, I expected the details and the rich colour of the book to be present only to a certain extent, but I didn't expect this. The characters were gone, too.Florentino, the boy who is all but destroyed by an acutely-debilitating, chronically-present, obsessive, dangerous, manic and unconditional love for Fermina, was very, very different in the film. He is extremely shallow instead of profoundly observant, borderline psychotic instead of passionate, and disgustingly sleazy instead of empty and sadly seductive. I originally saw his promiscuity as a coping mechanism-turned-addiction, by which the author had free leeway to explore sexual desire and physical love in its entire spectrum, from the desperate, to the comical, to the terrifying, to the paraphilic (and, yes, that's a term I just coined because I wanted to vomit when reading about Florentino and his 14-year-old ward-- which, I suspect, was the intended effect). It's very important to note, too, that in the novel Gabo takes on this subject very carefully and skilfully, with a sharp contrast in tone, symbolism and pacing that sets it worlds apart from the romantic kind of love that Florentino never feels for anyone but Fermina. In the film, however, all of the details were missing, and the previous analysis turns to dust -- why he's promiscuous, with whom and why. I daresay we never even understand the reason why he loves Fermina the way he does in the first place (which takes reading the entire book). In my opinion, this is due to poor characterisation of both on screen.Fermina is a hard character to grasp, a tough nut to crack in the book, and I suspect that's her appeal. Florentino never fully understands her -- why she's so cold AND passionate, why she's so quiet AND so emotionally open at the same time. In the film, though, she's easy: a shallow woman who plays hard to get. Without her reactions for example, to her aunt's dismissal by her father, to the long trip to her cousin's, to Europe and everything it holds, and, finally, to being married to a man she loves but not in the way that makes her happy, the audience struggles to understand why she even deserves the title of Crowned Goddess. She's boring, at best.Juvenal Urbino, the doctor who marries Fermina, much to Florentino's torture, doesn't fare much better in this adaptation. There's barely anything to him but his money and status. In the book, he's a very intelligent man who truly cares about his town and its health and culture, a highly organised snob and a decent husband. We just get the "decent husband" part with this film. He basically makes a deal with Lorenzo Daza and marries his daughter. It's not made clear that he loves her, whereas in the book, his affair being the only exception, the reader never doubts the kind of easy, comfortable, warm kind of love they have for each other till his dying day. Marital love, then, is not to be seen.Finally, Lorenzo wasn't much of a brutish criminal in this, just an arsehole father, and characters like Euclides were completely missing.Much is to be said FOR this film, though. It follows the story lines well, albeit with important missing bits. The music is good. The setting (whilst not correct in the sense that the story is set in a typical Colombian coastal tiny town and NOT a big city like Cartagena), is gorgeous. The acting was far from exceptional, but passable. I really liked the ending, but was annoyed by the fact that it was Fermina and not the Captain asking how long they were going to be on the boat.This adaptation is faithful, and I'm giving it 4 stars instead of 3, because it's really unfair to expect filmmakers to translate phrases like "cataclysm of love" and indeed stories as complex as this into the screen. Gabo was THE master of Magical Realism and we'll be hard-pressed to find a film that does his works justice. He, of course, is very much missed.

setessmer-229-698849 This was such a poorly done film. Having read (and loved) the book, watching this was torture for me. I felt like it had the potential to be a great film, but the majority of the acting was just mediocre. The rhythm of the film just did not work. The script was poorly done. None of the soul of the book was in this film. A couple of the actors' talent was evident. I got the Impression that Javier Bardem was possibly the only cast member who unterstood his character and the story (perhaps he read the book?). Aside from a couple of exceptions, the rest were not at their best in this film. I'll stop now before I write a thousand word rant.Just, disappointing.

SnoopyStyle 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.

cohuttablue-imdb 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.