list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Love in the Time of Cholera on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Love_in_the_Time_of_Cholera/280009/default.aspx Title: Love in the Time of Cholera
Year: 2007
Director: Mike Newell
Plot: Based on Nobel Prize-winning author Gabriel García Márquez's novel of the same name, director Mike Newell's Love in the Time of Cholera details a passionate love triangle that unfolds in turn-of-the-century South America. Oscar-winning Pianist scribe Ronald Harwood adapts the story of two young lovers who bide their time for years while anxiously awaiting the day they can finally be together. Through marriages, affairs, careers, and deaths, the couple never loses hope that destiny will unite them in the end. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Number of Lists: 3
Number of blog posts: 2
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:00:58 GMTLove in the Time of Cholera2007Mike NewellBased on Nobel Prize-winning author <a href="/players/P___101365/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gabriel García Márquez</a>'s novel of the same name, director <a href="/players/P___104358/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Mike Newell</a>'s Love in the Time of Cholera details a passionate love triangle that unfolds in turn-of-the-century South America. Oscar-winning <a href=/films/238418/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Pianist</a> scribe Ronald Harwood adapts the story of two young lovers who bide their time for years while anxiously awaiting the day they can finally be together. Through marriages, affairs, careers, and deaths, the couple never loses hope that destiny will unite them in the end. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide323http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s280009.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Love_in_the_Time_of_Cholera/280009/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/17/37380.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/17/2008 5:00:58 PM
Body: Oprah Winfrey can certainly create a best seller when it comes to books, and her pick of the presidential candidates is on his way to the White House. But can she get behind a movie and contribute to its success? 20th Century Fox seems to hope so, because the studio apparently allowed the talk show host to screen an unfinished cut of Australia in preparation for her November 10 show, which featured the film’s stars, Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, as well as a live-via-Skype call-in from filmmaker Baz Luhrman. Fortunately for Fox, Oprah raved about the film, and now the media has latched on to the endorsement, creating some much-needed positive buzz for the Oscar-hopeful. Yet there’s a big problem with all the excitement: Oprah’s film recommendations have hardly been sure-fire champs in the past. Case in point: the first title I came upon while searching for Oprah-select cinema was something called Christmas in the Clouds, a 2005 indie that she chose as her “must see holiday movie,” in O magazine a few years back. The film barely grossed a quarter-million dollars in theaters, but even if her endorsement didn’t occur until its DVD release in November 2006, there’s still no proof of popularity from the rental charts of the time, and two years later fewer than 250 people have rated it on IMDb (not the best for determining how many people have seen it, sure, but such a small number of votes is still somewhat revealing). As for awards recognition, well, it received the Audience Award at the 2001 Austin Film Festival, and it was named the best Native American-themed film the same year at the Santa Fe Film Festival, but the majority of Academy voters probably never even heard of it. Okay, so that is an extreme example of a film that had not even one percent of the marketing budget of Australia. So, let’s take a look at some of the bigger releases that Oprah has recommended more recently. Well, there is Michael Moore’s Sicko, which she labeled “the one movie you must see this summer,” a few weeks prior to its barely wide release in June 2007. Considering its theater count and its genre, the documentary’s final domestic gross of $24.5 million was quite an achievement, especially since only two other docs have grossed more (including Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which will stay on top for quite awhile with its $119.1 million). Oh, and yes, Sicko earned an Oscar nomination, too. But did Oprah’s statement really have that much impact on Sicko’s success? What about all the other titles with Oprah connections that haven’t performed so well? Films based on her book club selections, from her inaugural title, The Deep End of the Ocean, to the recent adaptation of Love in the Time of Cholera, have rarely been blockbusters, and the three Academy nominations for House of Sand and Fog are hardly thanks to her love for and endorsement of that novel. Of course, film adaptations are not necessarily ever pegged to the praises of their source material, which is why Oprah’s name has not been linked to the expected Oscar contenders The Reader and The Road. Then there are the films she’s been directly involved with. Beloved, which she produced and starred in, earned a middling gross of $22.9 million. Its sole Oscar nomination was for costume design. Her more recent production, The Great Debaters, did a little better money-wise with $30.2 million, but it failed to garner the Academy’s attention. Ignoring the animated films she’s lent her voice to, you have to go back 23 years, long before she had the powers of influence she’s currently known for, to find something as big as Fox would like Australia to be. It was then that The Color Purple earned nearly $100 million and 11 Oscar nominations (none of which it won). As for films that Oprah simply promotes and recommends on her show, there is no clear certainty that she can influence either box office or the Oscars. She’s featured the casts from Crash and Brokeback Mountain, yet she’s also given time to publicize films like Alexander and Things We Lost in the Fire. Last week, after calling Australia “the film we needed to see,” she also helped to sell Marley & Me, a movie that might benefit slightly in increased ticket sales thanks to the appearances by Jennifer Aniston, yet there are no news reports mentioning anything but Aniston’s comments about her ex-husband. There’s likewise little media attention given to the fact that Oprah also apparently saw Seven Pounds, the Will Smith movie that, like Australia, has so far received no reviews. Was there no soundbite from Smith’s appearance earlier this month? Seven Pounds is also a mysterious Oscar contender with some needed positive buzz, though maybe Sony Pictures didn’t think to feed the press anything regarding Oprah’s connection to that film the way Fox has pushed them on the Australia endorsement. And what of Oprah’s praise anyway? She said, “I have not been this excited about a movie since I don’t know when.” How excited? And be more specific. Since forty years ago? Since Titanic? Since Christmas in the Clouds? Is this really the best movie of the year? Other than turning the expectations up a little higher following the recent negativity surrounding Australia, Oprah hasn’t really offered us anything except hope. So, a word to Fox: it’s about time you let the real critics see this alleged masterpiece so we can actually find out if this film has some real chances at an Oscar. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:00:58 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/17/2008 5:00:58 PMOprah Winfrey can certainly create a best seller when it comes to books, and her pick of the presidential candidates is on his way to the White House. But can she get behind a movie and contribute to its success? 20th Century Fox seems to hope so, because the studio apparently allowed the talk show host to screen an unfinished cut of Australia in preparation for her November 10 show, which featured the film’s stars, Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, as well as a live-via-Skype call-in from filmmaker Baz Luhrman. Fortunately for Fox, Oprah raved about the film, and now the media has latched on to the endorsement, creating some much-needed positive buzz for the Oscar-hopeful. Yet there’s a big problem with all the excitement: Oprah’s film recommendations have hardly been sure-fire champs in the past. Case in point: the first title I came upon while searching for Oprah-select cinema was something called Christmas in the Clouds, a 2005 indie that she chose as her “must see holiday movie,” in O magazine a few years back. The film barely grossed a quarter-million dollars in theaters, but even if her endorsement didn’t occur until its DVD release in November 2006, there’s still no proof of popularity from the rental charts of the time, and two years later fewer than 250 people have rated it on IMDb (not the best for determining how many people have seen it, sure, but such a small number of votes is still somewhat revealing). As for awards recognition, well, it received the Audience Award at the 2001 Austin Film Festival, and it was named the best Native American-themed film the same year at the Santa Fe Film Festival, but the majority of Academy voters probably never even heard of it. Okay, so that is an extreme example of a film that had not even one percent of the marketing budget of Australia. So, let’s take a look at some of the bigger releases that Oprah has recommended more recently. Well, there is Michael Moore’s Sicko, which she labeled “the one movie you must see this summer,” a few weeks prior to its barely wide release in June 2007. Considering its theater count and its genre, the documentary’s final domestic gross of $24.5 million was quite an achievement, especially since only two other docs have grossed more (including Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which will stay on top for quite awhile with its $119.1 million). Oh, and yes, Sicko earned an Oscar nomination, too. But did Oprah’s statement really have that much impact on Sicko’s success? What about all the other titles with Oprah connections that haven’t performed so well? Films based on her book club selections, from her inaugural title, The Deep End of the Ocean, to the recent adaptation of Love in the Time of Cholera, have rarely been blockbusters, and the three Academy nominations for House of Sand and Fog are hardly thanks to her love for and endorsement of that novel. Of course, film adaptations are not necessarily ever pegged to the praises of their source material, which is why Oprah’s name has not been linked to the expected Oscar contenders The Reader and The Road. Then there are the films she’s been directly involved with. Beloved, which she produced and starred in, earned a middling gross of $22.9 million. Its sole Oscar nomination was for costume design. Her more recent production, The Great Debaters, did a little better money-wise with $30.2 million, but it failed to garner the Academy’s attention. Ignoring the animated films she’s lent her voice to, you have to go back 23 years, long before she had the powers of influence she’s currently known for, to find something as big as Fox would like Australia to be. It was then that The Color Purple earned nearly $100 million and 11 Oscar nominations (none of which it won). As for films that Oprah simply promotes and recommends on her show, there is no clear certainty that she can influence either box office or the Oscars. She’s featured the casts from Crash and Brokeback Mountain, yet she’s also given time to publicize films like Alexander and Things We Lost in the Fire. Last week, after calling Australia “the film we needed to see,” she also helped to sell Marley & Me, a movie that might benefit slightly in increased ticket sales thanks to the appearances by Jennifer Aniston, yet there are no news reports mentioning anything but Aniston’s comments about her ex-husband. There’s likewise little media attention given to the fact that Oprah also apparently saw Seven Pounds, the Will Smith movie that, like Australia, has so far received no reviews. Was there no soundbite from Smith’s appearance earlier this month? Seven Pounds is also a mysterious Oscar contender with some needed positive buzz, though maybe Sony Pictures didn’t think to feed the press anything regarding Oprah’s connection to that film the way Fox has pushed them on the Australia endorsement. And what of Oprah’s praise anyway? She said, “I have not been this excited about a movie since I don’t know when.” How excited? And be more specific. Since forty years ago? Since Titanic? Since Christmas in the Clouds? Is this really the best movie of the year? Other than turning the expectations up a little higher following the recent negativity surrounding Australia, Oprah hasn’t really offered us anything except hope. So, a word to Fox: it’s about time you let the real critics see this alleged masterpiece so we can actually find out if this film has some real chances at an Oscar. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/peterfecteau/archive/2007/11/27/22221.aspx Post By: peterfecteau
Post To: peterfecteau Blog
Post Date: 11/27/2007 9:06:51 AM
Body: A week ago today I took my girlfriend to see Love in the Time of Cholera. I read the book from which it's based and figured that this would be the quinisential "chick flick". I was very hyped about the adaptation but knew from past experiences not to expect much. Still, I'm a huge fan of Gabriel García Márquez's work. I've read all his books and a good number of his editorial works as well. Having seen the movie, I can't imagine they'll be adapting any of his other works. His style of writing has been termed "Magical Realism" and is a blur between South American storytelling and senility, imo. To write a screenplay from him is to pluck a bird clean and ask it to fly. I think this was doomed from the beginning. Most things about this movie were par if not subpar. Mike Newell's direction, subpar. the cast was strong and yet somehow came across as fledgling. Newell's most recent notible work, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. It's not like he's been pushed to direct lately. I'm thinking New Line Cinema thought that the book sales, and the plot would drive the movie instead of getting this movie to be a work in and of itself. To Newell's credit, the set and costumes were damn good, like Potter. The makeup was atrocious. how many gallons of eggwhites did they use? This is the 21st century people! You can't have a character age 50 years without changing the actor. It's more unpleasant to see a thirty year old person in a wrinkle suit then to see a completely different actor. AHHH. I'm so pissed this movie fell short. If you liked the book... read it again.
]]>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:06:51 GMTpeterfecteaupeterfecteau Blog11/27/2007 9:06:51 AMA week ago today I took my girlfriend to see Love in the Time of Cholera. I read the book from which it&#39;s based and figured that this would be the quinisential &quot;chick flick&quot;. I was very hyped about the adaptation but knew from past experiences not to expect much. Still, I&#39;m a huge fan of Gabriel Garc&iacute;a M&aacute;rquez&#39;s work. I&#39;ve read all his books and a good number of his editorial works as well. Having seen the movie, I can&#39;t imagine they&#39;ll be adapting any of his other works. His style of writing has been termed &quot;Magical Realism&quot; and is a blur between South American storytelling and senility, imo. To write a screenplay from him is to pluck a bird clean and ask it to fly. I think this was doomed from the beginning. Most things about this movie were par if not subpar. Mike Newell&#39;s direction, subpar. the cast was strong and yet somehow came across as fledgling. Newell&#39;s most recent notible work, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. It&#39;s not like he&#39;s been pushed to direct lately. I&#39;m thinking New Line Cinema thought that the book sales, and the plot would drive the movie instead of getting this movie to be a work in and of itself. To Newell&#39;s credit, the set and costumes were damn good, like Potter. The makeup was atrocious. how many gallons of eggwhites did they use? This is the 21st century people! You can&#39;t have a character age 50 years without changing the actor. It&#39;s more unpleasant to see a thirty year old person in a wrinkle suit then to see a completely different actor. AHHH. I&#39;m so pissed this movie fell short. If you liked the book... read it again. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lovetriangle/MemberTagFilms.aspxlovetriangle
Number of films tagged: 2902

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 75

]]>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:12:01 GMT29023875Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/starcrossedlovers/MemberTagFilms.aspxstarcrossedlovers
Number of films tagged: 257

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 11

]]>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:03:08 GMT257911Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/unrequited/MemberTagFilms.aspxunrequited
Number of films tagged: 228

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 14

]]>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:03:08 GMT228914Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/southamerica/MemberTagFilms.aspxsouthamerica
Number of films tagged: 96

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:02:39 GMT9611Tag