free counter with statistics Love In The Time Of Cholera | Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

cholera

I Got All the Symptoms Count ‘Em 1,2,3

Love In The Time Of Cholera / Agent Bedhead

Film Reviews | November 19, 2007 | Comments (42)


Love In The Time Of Cholera is an adaptation of Gabriel García Marquez’s 1985 novel. The book was translated rather faithfully by Edith Grossman, who took particular care to arrange each word so that Marquez’s inflections, cultural context, and end-of-sentence zingers remained intact. One only needs to consult the more disastrous Spanish-to-English translation of One Hundred Years of Solitude, which suffered from more of a word-for-word interpretation, to realize Grossman’s superiority in the handling of Marquez’s literary works. However, screenwriter Ronald Harwood quickly negates much of Love In The Time Of Cholera’s depth and inner richness. In an ill-fated attempt to fit in too many events and sweeping views of the lush Colombian landscape, the film makes room only for the love story component of the film, plus or minus the occasional mention of sickness and war, which makes it a film that only the fawning members of Oprah’s motherfucking Book Club will probably adore.

Not much can be spoiled plotwise within a movie that gives away most of its ending in the opening scene of a movie. Fortunately, for the feeble-minded audience members, Love In The Time Of Cholera replays this scene near the film’s actual ending as well. In this scene, circa 1930, an aged Dr. Juvenal Urbino (Benjamin Bratt), while attempting to quiet a pet bird, absurdly falls from a ladder to his death. His wife, Fermina (Giovanna Mezzogiorno), rushes to her husband’s side just in time to hear his last words: “Only God knows how much I loved you.” After the funeral, Fermina enters her home as a widow for the first time in over 50 years. She finds an elderly man standing in her living room with his hat over his heart. This man, Florentino Ariza (Javier Bardem of Goya’s Ghosts and No Country for Old Men), informs Fermina that he’s waited for this moment for 51 years, 9 months, and 4 days. This ill-timed declaration prompts Fermina to, quite rightly, toss Florentino out of her home in a furious rage. Then, the film’s director, Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire), transports us back to the beginning of half a century of upheaval in Colombia that resulted in death on a massive level. “Cholera” carries a double meaning in the story, with “el colera” defined as the epidemic of a disease so deadly that it kills its victims within hours, and “la colera” defined as the choler or anger of warfare. These twin plagues serve as the backdrop for the story that revolves around a love triangle.

In the midst of all this death and destruction, the oblivious teenaged Florentino (Unax Ugalde) falls for rich girl Fermina Daza, and she does likewise. The two teenagers exchange love letters for years, and Fermina agrees to marry the young and hopeless romantic. However, when Femina’s father, Lorenzo Daza (John Leguizamo), hears of this development, he forbids his daughter to marry a mere telegraph boy. Lorenzo’s efforts to separate the two young lovers succeeds, and in their young adulthood, Fermina tells Florentino (now played by Javier Bardem) that their love was an illusion. Rejected by his love, Florentino runs to his mommy and cries like the little bitch that he is. Although Florentino’s desire for Fermina makes him physically ill, he continues to love her and is convinced that, in time, she will love him again.

Some indeterminable period of time later, Fermina falls ill with a suspected case of cholera, but according to the dashing Dr. Urbino, she just has a stomach bug. The aristocratic Urbino is smitten with the young woman, and they inexplicably marry. Although this development causes great pain to Florentino, he sees this only as another setback to the realization of his dream. The practical solution, Florentino thinks, is that he will simply wait for her husband to die. In the meantime, the poetic Florentino attempts to concentrate on his career, where even his commercial letters are written in romantic, rhymed format. Oh, and he also has lots of sex with many women. Although his first sexual encounter is by no effort of his own, he finds that getting laid helps him escape the pain of unrequited love. So, he sets about on a course that finds him having clandestine affairs with 622 women, most of whom are either widowed or married. However, even as a manwhore, Florentino imagines that he maintains a deeper fidelity to Fermina, and he continues his obsession with her, believing that they will eventually be together. While this is all supposed to be very romantic, I can only conclude that Florentino is what sane folk would characterize as a stalker.

Most readers of the novel will notice the marked differences in tone between the film and book. Gone are the subtle undercurrents of biting wit, and in their place is a campy humor that only the cigar and scenery-chomping Leguizamo appears to recognize. The rest of the actors portray their characters in a wholly serious manner, which in all fairness is probably what the screenplay tells them to do. In the case of Dr. Urbino, his character is entirely misdrawn. Instead of the restrained and dignified bore of a doctor found in the book, Benjamin Bratt appears as a smooth, charming man whose confidence lies not only in his medical profession but also in the bedroom. On his wedding night, Urbino tells an apprehensive Fermina that he will give her, “a lesson in love.” The line comes straight from the book, but it just sounds so fucking sleazy in the campy context of the film, though the added dose of humor does manage to keep the audience awake. This humor is contrasted with a cringeworthy tagline that asks, “How long would you wait for love?” The disharmonious blend of serious, campy, and melodramatic angst creates an unsettling mood resembling that of Univision’s long-running variety show, “Sábado Gigante.”

Love In The Time Of Cholera delivers, if nothing else, a spectacular display of how a $50 million dollar film can ignore screenwriting difficulties and spend far too many resources in the makeup department. Sadly, the filmmakers didn’t trust Bardem’s tremendous acting range enough to allow him to play the very young version of his character. As the young Florentino, Unax Ugalde wears a prosthetic nose in order to properly resemble Javier Bardem. As Florentino ages from young to older adult, he transforms from oddly handsome to eccentrically unattractive. Naturally, the filmmakers leave the physicality of Fermina largely intact. Through the power of cosmetics and hair coloring, Giovanna Mezzogiorno ages only a few decades instead of 50 years. As an added bonus, we even get to compare her youthful topless chest to what is presented to us as, presumably, her 72-year old boobs. On that note, despite over two hours of frequently graphic sexual romps, this film is anything but sensual or romantic. Unless you’re as desperate for love as Florentino Ariza, you’d be quite wise to skip this one.

Agent Bedhead (a.k.a. “Kimberly”) lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She can found attempting to erase these mental images over at agentbedhead.com.









I! Am! Marshall! | Southland Tales


Comments

damn, i wanted to see this.

Posted by: mamazao at November 19, 2007 12:43 PM

Cockblocking Bennie Blanco!!!

Posted by: Pookie at November 19, 2007 1:01 PM

Sorry, I have to do it: It's Colombia, not Columbia.

Posted by: lola at November 19, 2007 1:08 PM

I was about to post this when I read Lola's comment, but what the hell, Latinos need to stick together:

¡COLOMBIA, coño! "Columbia" is a district between Virginia and Maryland.

Posted by: Armando at November 19, 2007 1:21 PM

So they set this up against the backdrop of one of Columbus' expeditions?

Interesting...

*drink up*

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 19, 2007 1:24 PM

Well, that's disappointing. I keep wanting for Bratt do do better things, and it keeps not happening.

Sadly, I suspected from day one that this movie wouldn't work.

Bummer.

Posted by: TK at November 19, 2007 1:26 PM

Also, I'm not surprised to hear this turned out to be such a mess. Hollywood should stay away from García Márquez. I knew this when I saw the first trailers and noticed that the leads looked nothing like people in their 70's really look.

Posted by: Armando at November 19, 2007 1:31 PM

". . . and sweeping views of the lush Columbian landscape . . ."

The White House lawn?

Posted by: BWeaves at November 19, 2007 1:31 PM

I've always loved the magical realists. (Illende is one of my favs) But for whatever reason I've never gotten around to reading this book.

I think now I shall.

I'll see the movie because I love me some Ray Curtis (And Lenny Brisco, RIP), but I'll probably wait till it's on video. And I'll hate myself.

Posted by: Scarlett at November 19, 2007 1:38 PM

Hey Slim, you realize those are Colombians you are pimping with today? Not a few white bread Pajiba geeks, but Colombians? Okay, well, just let us know which charity will benefit from the memorial trust: we'll all chip in.

Posted by: PaddyDog at November 19, 2007 1:49 PM

Not to be a dink, but if "Love In The Time Of Cholera is an adaptation of Gabriel García Marquez's eponymous 1985 novel," wouldn't that mean the novel is called "Gabriel García Marquez"?

Noted and corrected. -- Ed.

Posted by: the sieve at November 19, 2007 1:49 PM

Hahahahahaha

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 19, 2007 1:55 PM

I am so sad that this movie is not good, i was soo hoping to see it!!

Garcia Marquez is one of my favorite writers but like Isabel Allende's books, taking those books to films is no easy task and they always leave important things out and focus only on the romantic aspect of the story wich is a shame. So they end up ruining ths story.

Read the book. It's Amazing!!

Posted by: NDR at November 19, 2007 1:57 PM

Colombians, Shmalombians.

Posted by: Pookie at November 19, 2007 2:03 PM

I'm seriously very disappointed about this. This and Lars and the Real Girl were my two must-sees this year. I've seen Lars and fell inlove with it and I hoped that I'd be swept-away by this one as well. Le Sigh!

Posted by: carrie at November 19, 2007 2:19 PM

which makes it a film that only the fawning members of Oprah's motherfucking Book Club will probably adore.

Ok, whatever, hate on Oprah, but she doesn't exactly pick the fun, happy, sappy books for her book club. The Road? The Bluest Eye? Does anyone actually read the list?

Posted by: twig at November 19, 2007 2:21 PM

As an added bonus, we even get to compare her youthful topless chest to what is presented to us as, presumably, her 72-year old boobs.

And the verdict is...?

Posted by: Vermillion at November 19, 2007 2:41 PM

The verdict is: BOOBIES!! What more do you need to know Vermillion?

Posted by: Tiki at November 19, 2007 3:03 PM

I hate magical realism. Am I semi-literate?

Posted by: Samantha T at November 19, 2007 3:28 PM

Sadly, I figured this movie would be hot buttered ass, even with Javier Bardem in it. Garcia Marquez just isn't a writer whose work can be translated to film.

Posted by: june at November 19, 2007 3:31 PM

Why make a movie of this wonderful book? Don't these Hollywood types get it? The beauty of this book is in the telling: the longing, the desperate hope that lasts a lifetime. Part of the impact of the book is that there are so many "things" that fills up one's life when the one thing one truly wants is just beyond the reach. There's no way a two hour movie can capture that.

I just can't believe there aren't at least 10 good original screenplays out there every year that wouldn't be better to waste the money on.

Oh, and for the record, the New England Pats can suck my balls!

Posted by: me at November 19, 2007 3:53 PM

There's no way a two hour movie can capture that.

Milennium Actress.

Posted by: twig at November 19, 2007 4:25 PM

There's no way a two hour movie can capture that.

Milennium Actress.

Posted by: twig at November 19, 2007 4:25 PM

I just hope they learn their lesson and stay away from "One hundred years of solitude" or any other of his books for that matter. Now I'm scared for Saramago's "Ensayo sobre la ceguera"; well at least it has Gael on it.

Posted by: Gaby at November 19, 2007 4:29 PM

Re: Millennium Actress
Aw, that was a good movie. I watched it in the living room when my dad walked by. He stayed for the entire movie, cried at the end and said, "I never thought that anything animated could be a real movie".

Posted by: Stacy at November 19, 2007 4:34 PM

Didn't Ed Norton already make this movie last year? In full disclosure, I ask the question not having read either movie review, so they could be totally different. Either way, skipping it.

Posted by: SR at November 19, 2007 4:59 PM

Bummer. My husband and I were totally wanting to see this. I may as well break out mi libro and read it again, I suppose...

Posted by: Ariel at November 19, 2007 7:43 PM

I was so very excited when I first heard this was being made, because it's one of my favorite books of all time and I've always wondered why someone didn't make a movie of it.

Now I know why, and I'm incredibly disappointed. All the reviews I've read claim this as a dud, and I'm inclined to believe them. Why does Hollywood keep doing this? Can't they do ONE adaptation right?

I am so, so disappointed. I guess I'll just have to go read the book and forget the movie ever happened.

Posted by: figgylicious at November 19, 2007 8:43 PM

ohmyGOD, Gaby, they had BETTER stay the hell away from "One Hundred Years of Solitude". I think I'd have to march an army onto the set to make them stop.

Posted by: figgylicious at November 19, 2007 8:52 PM

Does Bardem kill anyone with a cattle-gun? No? I'm out. Wait...Oprah commands it?

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at November 19, 2007 10:31 PM

Christ, maybe I'm just weepy today, but I definitely wept a little as I read this. Normally Romantic through Victorian is my preferred area, but Marquez is one of the few more modern authors who can really captivate me. Just remembering the hours I spent this summer reading Love in the Time of Cholera makes me feel dreamy and sniffly - and something tells me this movie won't have remotely that effect. Damn you Hollywood. DAMN you.

Posted by: Claire at November 19, 2007 11:07 PM

I'm with you TK, I keep hoping Benjamin Bratt will do SOMEthing good and compensate for the painful memory that is "Catwoman"

Uh, SR: the Ed Norton movie was "the Painted Veil" based upon a Somerset Maughm story......

Posted by: Finn at November 20, 2007 2:17 AM

I'm with you TK, I keep hoping Benjamin Bratt will do SOMEthing good and compensate for the painful memory that is "Catwoman"

Uh, SR: the Ed Norton movie was "the Painted Veil" based upon a Somerset Maughm story......

Posted by: Finn at November 20, 2007 2:19 AM

oi, sorry for double post

Posted by: Finn at November 20, 2007 2:27 AM

I despise magical realism and therefore am enormously glad the film turned out to be shite - I dont't need to see it, I don't want to see it, I don't have to see it. Well done, Hollywood!

Posted by: Toothed Varmint at November 20, 2007 3:06 AM

I'm curious why folks expect more from Benjamin Bratt. Did I miss something?

Posted by: AnneQM at November 20, 2007 9:49 AM

This review sadly tells it like it is. I went to see this hoping for an adequate adaptation; instead, I got a weirdly comical and strange movie, and I was distracted so much by the makeup I couldn't take it seriously.

I am GLAD that Benjamin Bratt played up the suave doctor role, because he looked seriously fine in this movie. When his character died I was very upset, because although I love Bardem, he looked terrible in this film.

I just don't understand why it wasn't in Spanish. It would have been one hundred thousand times better. Even Liev Schreiber's character, he could have done it!

Posted by: Rachael at November 20, 2007 10:53 AM

Gaby- I'm also concerned about, or shall we say, interested in the result of, 'Ensaio sobre a cegueira'. The first casualty of the adaptation may well be the more graphic scenes described in the book. Then again, if anybody is unafraid of depicting realistically shocking scenes on film, it's Meirelles.

Posted by: reesy at November 20, 2007 3:54 PM

another critically-loved magical realist novel that was turned into a shitty, shitty movies:

the house of spirits, by isabel allende. (43% on rotten tomatoes) if you loved the book, for god's sake, don't watch the movie, despite the stacked cast. it's so, so bad, and such a waste of time.

also, does anyone else love allende's novels but feel very underwhelmed by garcia marquez's novels? love in the time of cholera and 100 yrs of solitude SO didn't live up to the hype for me.

Posted by: genevieveyorke at November 20, 2007 11:32 PM

I am disappointed but I will still see the movie. I just love me some Garcia Marquez. However I think that "Cronica de una Muerte Anunciada" more naturally lends itself to movie-making.

I wonder if anyone dares to make "Memorias de Mis Putas Tristes" into a movie? LOL!!!!

Posted by: celia at November 21, 2007 9:35 PM

I'm sorry, I have read several of "Bedhead" Kimberly's reviews, and I've got to say that she falls sadly short of the other reviewers on Pajiba. "Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People" is fantastic, and the kernel of what Pajiba is. "Mediocre tripe that does little more than recount the storyline, with the occasional completely unnecessary obscenities" would be a more appropriate heading for Kimberblah's apathetic, or more likely, pathetic, attempts at reviewing. Please. I could write wittier drivel than what she offers.

Posted by: Kaitlin at November 23, 2007 10:16 AM

Kaitlin,
I apologize, I have read several comments on this site, and I must say that you are a loser. "Open discussions with wit" seems to be the norm for comments. "Whining loser who wants attention" would be a more appropriate heading for Kaitloser's whining attempt at commenting. Seriously, my morning turd provided more insight and discussion than what you offer.

See how it feels? How pathetic is it to base an entire comment on "I can do it better than you"? If you do not like what's provided then hit the little "back" button and thank you for playing. Either that or step up to the bench, _____ (unnecessary obscenity omitted).

Posted by: the Lad at November 26, 2007 2:31 PM



searchthesite.jpg