Love in the Time of Cholera

User Score
5.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 31 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 31
  2. Negative: 11 out of 31

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. ThomasQ.
    Nov 16, 2007
    1
    Read the book, skip this treadfully bad film. Poorly conceived and even more poorly executd. Just bad, especially up against the WONDERFUL novel.
  2. JerryM.
    Nov 17, 2007
    0
    If I had to choose between sitting through this movie again or cholera, I'd choose cholera - it's less painful. The story is missing large amounts of plot, skipping forward without explanation and the acting is on par with a bad telenovela. I found myself envying the characters who died in the movie.
  3. KatieM.
    Dec 30, 2007
    2
    I haven't read the book, but I am familiar enough with Marquez's other works to know what kind of atmosphere the director was attempting to recreate. Needless to say, the attempt failed miserably. What resulted was a shmaltzy and tedious storyline that even Javier Bardem couldn't redeem. I will also never understand why directors insist on close-up shots when their actors I haven't read the book, but I am familiar enough with Marquez's other works to know what kind of atmosphere the director was attempting to recreate. Needless to say, the attempt failed miserably. What resulted was a shmaltzy and tedious storyline that even Javier Bardem couldn't redeem. I will also never understand why directors insist on close-up shots when their actors are plastered with comically bad geriatric makeup. Where was the editor?? I'm giving it two stars because at least it made me laugh. Collapse
  4. AshleyG.
    Mar 19, 2008
    1
    I just watched this awful movie on video. Anyone who manages to assemble this wonderful and mostly Latino cast but have them speaking English with horrendous accents about a story taking place in the heart of Spanish-speaking America is condescending. Condescending towards English speaking peoples who otherwise may not "understand" the story. Condescending towards Spanish speaking peoples I just watched this awful movie on video. Anyone who manages to assemble this wonderful and mostly Latino cast but have them speaking English with horrendous accents about a story taking place in the heart of Spanish-speaking America is condescending. Condescending towards English speaking peoples who otherwise may not "understand" the story. Condescending towards Spanish speaking peoples who otherwise may think less of the film. A missed opportunity. Read the book as it respects language, whatever it may be. Expand
  5. CaladoniaK.
    Nov 17, 2007
    0
    Terrible. Empty and apathetic film.
  6. Nov 12, 2012
    1
    You can't just take a novel, no matter how great, and translate it to script word for word. Chances are, you'll need to make adjustments. Because if you don't, you get an indolent, sporadic lump of doo-doo like this. Insufferable.
  7. Feb 4, 2015
    3
    First 1 hour is very very boring.I didn't watch rest of the movie.Some one was saying it better towards the end.......................................
Metascore
43

Mixed or average reviews - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 29
  2. Negative: 7 out of 29
  1. Shot on location in vibrant Cartagena, the film's strong suit is aesthetic. Cinematographer Alfonso Beato, designer Wolf Kroeger and costume designer Marit Allen evoke aged exotic locales, rugged rural settings and dimly lit period interiors. A closing, aerial image has a breathtaking, spiritual beauty.
  2. 80
    It’s a well-crafted, handsome period piece, and pleasant to watch, but the intensity of an obsessional style--something that matches Florentino’s crazy single-mindedness--is beyond Newell’s range. The director of “Donnie Brasco” and “Four Weddings and a Funeral” doesn’t paint with the camera; he doesn’t seize on certain visual motifs, as he should, and turn them into the equivalent of a lover’s devotion to fetishes.
  3. Reviewed by: John Anderson
    50
    Despite a magnificent performance by Javier Bardem, the film not only falls short of the novel's magic, but fails to generate much of its own.