Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

I am not and will never be a filmmaker and indeed it is a challenge for me at times to get a decent shot on a $80 digital camera far less anything else; but one thing that always will impress me when it comes to camera work is a long tracking shot, whether it be Goodfellas or the reveal of Hitchcock's Young & Innocent. Cholera is a treat in this way because it is presented as one shot even though there is at least one masked edit in there. The plot sees a mob keen to drive out an infected man who is living just outside the village in a shack. We follow the group striding towards the shack with violent intent.In terms of plot there is not too much of one but it does set up a nice conclusion to the simple tale. For the most part though the film is about the delivery and as such it is really slick. A I said, there is for sure one edit (where the man raises his weapon Mitch McConnell style) but there may be others – either that or a young girl in the cast needs to be signed up for some sports team with a precision throwing arm like that. However it is done and wherever the specific cuts come, the film does have a very impressive flow to it. Okay it is helped by the low numbers of people involved but it is still impressive. Make-up on the infected man is also very good and generally the film works very well as a technically impressive piece but with enough of substance and climax to make it worth seeing for more than just the tracking shots.