Love in the Time of Cholera 2007

Christy Lemire, Associated Press: It's the actors themselves who all too often feel out of place. Read more

Moira MacDonald, Seattle Times: Mike Newell's handsome adaptation of Gabriel Garcia Marquez' novel looks lovely, but feels lifeless; the chemistry between the main characters just isn't there. Read more

Andrea Gronvall, Chicago Reader: This romantic drama by director Mike Newell preserves the odd playfulness of Gabriel Garcia Marquez's international best seller but sacrifices its eroticism and intricate nonlinear plotting. Read more

Stephanie Zacharek, Salon.com: Forget the heat of passion: The movie never breaks a sweat. Read more

Keith Phipps, AV Club: Even though it runs over two hours, Newell's film barely has room to touch on the key moments of his dense, discursive source material, and the hit-the-highlights-and-go-home approach does no one any favors. Read more

Bill Goodykoontz, Arizona Republic: When it belongs to a character played by Bardem, it's a treat, indeed. Read more

Wesley Morris, Boston Globe: Often watchable (and listenable) without ever being good. Read more

Carina Chocano, Los Angeles Times: Doubtless it's an enormously daunting task to adapt a book at once so sweeping and internal, so swooningly romantic and philosophical, but it takes a lighter touch and a more expansive view than Newell and Harwood seem to bring. Read more

Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune: Newell has done some fine work in all sorts of genres, from Four Weddings and a Funeral to Harry Potter, but in Cholera he seems to be chronicling a half-century of events, passions and desires as a tourist, not a native. Read more

Amy Biancolli, Houston Chronicle: That's really missing is a sense of rapture -- a touch of magic on this course through the decades. Read more

Tom Long, Detroit News: Epic in its ambitions and romantic to its core, Love in the Time of Cholera may not please everyone, but it has to be admired. Read more

Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly: Literature is poorly served. Read more

John Monaghan, Detroit Free Press: Hopelessly misguided. Read more

Amy Nicholson, I.E. Weekly: It's all yodeling Shakira ballads and emotional shots of the would-be lovers staring at each other until their cheeks pale from exhaustion Read more

Jan Stuart, Newsday: Love in the Time of Cholera suffers from a serious case of Big Movie-itis. Read more

David Denby, New Yorker: It's a well-crafted, handsome period piece, and pleasant to watch, but the intensity of an obsessional style is beyond [director] Newell's range. Read more

Stephen Whitty, Newark Star-Ledger: There isn't an actor here who really connects. Read more

Kyle Smith, New York Post: If you've seen Gone With the Wind, you've seen what Love in the Time of Cholera isn't. Read more

Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel: Bardem, Elizondo, Bratt and Moreno bring enough to the banquet to make this feast worth sitting through, and best of all, make you want to read the book, Oprah endorsement or no. Read more

Carrie Rickey, Philadelphia Inquirer: Bardem's hypnotic presence, like that of an Easter Island statue come to life, is one of the film's many pleasures. As is its intimations of a love everlasting. Read more

James Berardinelli, ReelViews: It's the kind of motion picture that's crying out to be featured on an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: Is there another great modern writer so hard to translate successfully into cinema? Read more

Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle: [Actress Mezzogiorno] finds the story's emotion by resisting the tug of the movie into grandeur. Read more

Colin Covert, Minneapolis Star Tribune: The overambitious script [tries] to hold onto too much of the sprawling novel. Read more

Stephen Cole, Globe and Mail: Admirers of Gabriel Garcia Marquez's novel Love in the Time of Cholera will be heartbroken to see how dull translators have drained the magic from his worldly romance. Read more

Ben Kenigsberg, Time Out: Read more

Claudia Puig, USA Today: Though Love is a handsome production, it lacks the novel's distinctive blend of passionate intensity and fanciful whimsy. Read more

John Anderson, Variety: Both too literal and too thorough. Read more

Robert Wilonsky, Village Voice: Easily the worst adaptation of a major novel by a Nobel Prize-winning author. Read more

Ann Hornaday, Washington Post: Lush, extravagant, sad and touching, Love in the Time of Cholera still feels weirdly insubstantial when all the febrile passion has abated. Like a fever it breaks, passes and is forgotten. Read more