Love in the Time of Cholera
(C or 2/4 stars)
'Love in the Time of Cholera' is a romantic drama directed by Mike Newell (Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire). Florentino (Javier Bardem, currently scaring the crap out of people in No Country for Old Men), rejected by the beautiful Fermina (Giovanna Mezzogiorno) in their early twenties, devoted most of his entire life to making love (with 622 women) in a desperate attempt to forget his 1st true love. He thought that by bedding these women, his broken heart would mend ... not so. Spanning 50 yrs. (late 1800s-early 1920's, the 'Time of Cholera'), this film takes us along on his escapades. Pretty film, oddly cast, & sloppily executed.
The film opens & we witness the 80 yr. old Dr. Juvenal Urbino (Benjamin Bratt) falling to his death from a mango tree. He's been married for some 50 yrs. to Fermina Daza. And on the day of the funeral, Florentino Ariza makes a visit. Enraged at his gall, Fermina dismisses his proclamations of a lifetime love for her, and the film is thrust into flashback mode. In short, we witness Florentino & Fermina's adolescent romance, their separation (thanks to her ruthless father, played by John Leguizamo), the reluctant courting of Fermina & Dr. Urbino, & Florentino's sexual discoveries. The conclusion is sweet, but I won't divulge it.
OK, so this is an awful movie that isn't getting a horrific rating because I intangibly enjoyed its awfulness (something similar to Richard Roeper's reaction). Let's discuss what's good: 1) Most of the make-up is good, but close-ups show its shoddiness (their faces look like putty). 2) The film is pleasant to watch. 3) There are some genuine spurts of humor injected into this sappy, sentimental hokum. 4) The cinematography is lush, though, almost too colorful, at times. 5) The production values & costuming are stellar. 6) And the story isn't depressing. But now, let the picking apart begin {rubs palms of my hands together} ...
The execution of the film can't be taken seriously when almost every actor is speaking in their 2nd or 3rd language. Why not just make it in Spanish? Perhaps the market value would go down, but a superior film 'could' have been realized! And aside from casting Unax Ugalde as a younger Javier Bardem (the physical similarity is incredible), the list of actors in this film is quite suspect. Who decides to film 'Love in the Time of Cholera', a much loved, Nobel Peace prize winning book & casts an unknown Italian actress as the Lead, John Leguizamo (who's atrocious), Liev Schreiber (as a Spaniard), & Benjamin Bratt (Who dug up his grave?)?
Bardem is fine here. He portrays 'lovesickness' very well. And he's even able to bring out his crazed, obsessed stalker again; but in a love story, this time. But all the acting, including his, is quite hammy here. The dialogue is bizarre. Where the book is probably full of eroticism & authentic emotion, it's fairly absent in the movie. 'Love in the Time of Cholera' is just a beautiful, weird, colossal miss. Some people may love it (I already know 2 of them). The film is oddly entertaining (and not for great reasons). But overall, it's upsetting that the movie should & could have been even more touching than it was aiming to be; more substantial.
The film opens & we witness the 80 yr. old Dr. Juvenal Urbino (Benjamin Bratt) falling to his death from a mango tree. He's been married for some 50 yrs. to Fermina Daza. And on the day of the funeral, Florentino Ariza makes a visit. Enraged at his gall, Fermina dismisses his proclamations of a lifetime love for her, and the film is thrust into flashback mode. In short, we witness Florentino & Fermina's adolescent romance, their separation (thanks to her ruthless father, played by John Leguizamo), the reluctant courting of Fermina & Dr. Urbino, & Florentino's sexual discoveries. The conclusion is sweet, but I won't divulge it.
OK, so this is an awful movie that isn't getting a horrific rating because I intangibly enjoyed its awfulness (something similar to Richard Roeper's reaction). Let's discuss what's good: 1) Most of the make-up is good, but close-ups show its shoddiness (their faces look like putty). 2) The film is pleasant to watch. 3) There are some genuine spurts of humor injected into this sappy, sentimental hokum. 4) The cinematography is lush, though, almost too colorful, at times. 5) The production values & costuming are stellar. 6) And the story isn't depressing. But now, let the picking apart begin {rubs palms of my hands together} ...
The execution of the film can't be taken seriously when almost every actor is speaking in their 2nd or 3rd language. Why not just make it in Spanish? Perhaps the market value would go down, but a superior film 'could' have been realized! And aside from casting Unax Ugalde as a younger Javier Bardem (the physical similarity is incredible), the list of actors in this film is quite suspect. Who decides to film 'Love in the Time of Cholera', a much loved, Nobel Peace prize winning book & casts an unknown Italian actress as the Lead, John Leguizamo (who's atrocious), Liev Schreiber (as a Spaniard), & Benjamin Bratt (Who dug up his grave?)?
Bardem is fine here. He portrays 'lovesickness' very well. And he's even able to bring out his crazed, obsessed stalker again; but in a love story, this time. But all the acting, including his, is quite hammy here. The dialogue is bizarre. Where the book is probably full of eroticism & authentic emotion, it's fairly absent in the movie. 'Love in the Time of Cholera' is just a beautiful, weird, colossal miss. Some people may love it (I already know 2 of them). The film is oddly entertaining (and not for great reasons). But overall, it's upsetting that the movie should & could have been even more touching than it was aiming to be; more substantial.