User reviews

Stephen Frears has created some powerful and very well crafted movies: 'Dangerous Liaisons', 'My Beautiful Laundrette', 'The Grifters', 'The Queen', 'Prick up your Ears', 'Dirty Pretty Things', etc. One would expect that his experience in dealing with edgy issues would make him the perfect choice for adapting the famous French writer of 'naughty novels' - Colette - but somewhere in the flow of this production, perhaps in the Christopher Hampton's adaptation of the novel to screenplay, the original stories become perfumed and sanitized. And the reasons why this happened remain obscure.

The story is simple: courtesans in Paris must eventually retire form their lives of becoming wealthy through pleasing men of the higher class, and either they live out their lives in the luxuries of fluff or they must confront their aging and feel pangs of remorse as they end their lives alone, without a man to bolster them. Lea de Lonval (Michelle Pfeiffer) has been longtime 'friends' with Madame Peloux (Kathy Bates), even to the point of nurturing Madame's son Chéri (Rupert Friend) as he approaches manhood. Madame asks Lea to 'polish' Chéri for other women and after what might have been a brief fling in Normandy, the young Chéri and the aging Lea fall into a six year relationship. But as Madame realizes she needs grandchildren, she eventually finds a proper girl Edmee (Felicity Jones) for Chéri to marry. The remainder of the story is how these two age-disparate characters adapt to the 'social rules' of La Belle Epoque, suggesting that even under extraordinary circumstances the power of love is an issue that must be confronted.

Despite the performances by Pfeiffer and Friend (and even the miscast Bates) the story feels somehow sterile. Perhaps it is the out of place use of a male narrator who gives the film an unnecessary feeling of being a documentary, or the somewhat overused musical score of Alexandre Desplat, or the emphasis on costumes that hardly add to the beauty of Pfeiffer as Lea that keep the production grounded. It is a pleasant enough film, but hardly a memorable one. Grady Harp

"Cheri" is the nickname given by Lea (Michelle Pfeiffer) to the young, much younger Fred, whom she brings to discover the truth about lovemaking, and unintentionally but inevitably, about loving. The actor playing Fred is handsome, attractive, but who really hits the sign (as usually, I would say) is Michelle Pfeiffer, who proved to be very courageous in playing a role where she constantly repeats to herself how old she is. Indeed, her beauty, elegance and refinement are always there to remind her and us how difficult it is to come to terms with ageing, mainly when beauty has been the very essence of your life.

The plot is almost absent, being the story more based on emotions, moods, sensations, rather than facts, and the movie in the end manages to capture the viewer, thanks to its capability to render the emotional side through glances and through effective and intense framing of both characters and situations: the last one is incisive, almost paralyzing.

Ironic and funny moments are not absent, mainly when Cathy Bates, playing the odd, high spirited mother, enters the scene, but the overall tone is a melancholic one, above all for the female public, we cannot but sympathize with Lea's inner strength, and at the same time feel moved by her deep suffering. From an aesthetic point of view, the movie is to be visually appreciated for its pleasant settings, its refined costumes and in general for a deep care for precious details.

You can't really tell as far as Stephen Frears is concerned. After the sensational "The Queen" another film that is only slightly more tolerable than the dreadful "Mrs Henderson Presents" Here Rupert Friend in the title role is a delightful throwback to Oscar Wilde territory. You understand Pfeiffer loosing her head for him but not why he looses his for her. She's certainly beautiful but lifeless. She looks more distant than ever, struggling to find the tone of her performance and I'm afraid she never does. Not a glimpse of the Pfeiffer from "The Age Of Innocence" or even "The Fabulous Baker Boys" No sense of period or of intention. Kathy Bates is an annoying over the top caricature but Ruper Friend is the oasis that makes the aridity of this nonsense truly bearable. I had seen him before, most remarkably, in another story with another older woman, Joan Plowright in "Mrs Palfrey At The Claremont" He is an actor with, clearly, a few aces up his sleeve and I bet he will dazzle us with other surprises in the future. Here he's badly served by his director, co-stars costume designer, make up and hair and in spite of that he emerges as the only reason to see this film.

My feelings about this film swung between two competing schools of thought as I watched it.

One - do I feel any attachment and engagement in this story of Belle Epoque Paris where an extremely wealthy courtesan falls in love with the son of an extremely wealthy courtesan, a young man with apparently few redeeming features to his character ?

and

Two - This is a very well made and acted film - Michelle Pfeiffer is excellent, drawing me into the feelings of her character as the film progressed and Rupert Friend makes much of a role that I'm sure other young actors would have found too complex

In the end I settled closer to thought number two - this is a film with much to say about love and who we fall in love with.

I was fortunate to attend a screening of this film at which both the writer - Christopher Hampton & director Stephen Frears were present and enjoyed listening to them talk about the film, it's development and their hopes for it. Two very engaging characters who proved to be happy to answer all kinds of questions that we the Nottingham audience could throw at them

One of the delights of this film is the lushness and perfection of the sets and costumes of the Belle Époque (c. 1890-1914). The sets and costumes are so gorgeous they threaten to overwhelm the actors. Threaten, but don't succeed. Michelle Pfeiffer is sensual and beautiful as the aging courtesan Lea—a woman approaching a "certain age," as the narrator (Stephen Frears) informs us. Lea has known the love and admiration of the wealthiest men in Europe, many of them titled. She has been wise to keep her heart out of her affairs. Then Fred, ("Cheri") the son of another courtesan (Kathy Bates) enters Lea's life, and she finds herself caring for the aimless but charming young man more than she should.

Kathy Bates is wonderful as Madame Peloux, a former competitor of Lea's—a woman who, if you squint hard (and catch the "portrait" of a younger Peloux) you can imagine having a gamine charm years before. Bates' acting moves effortlessly from laughing delightedly at smutty gossip to quickly assuming the pouting self-righteous expression of a disapproving mama as she discusses her son. From former courtesan to bourgeois matron in the blink of an eye. Bates carries this quick switch act off several times in the movie, and it's a pleasure to watch her skill at these rapid changes. The sets and costumes of Mme. Peloux, heavy 2nd Empire furnishings, stiff wired dressed with bustles, are beautifully contrasted with Lea's lighter look—slender, graceful, light. The clothes each character wears, and the styles of their respective homes, gives some subtext to the story. Mme. Peloux, a bit older than Lea, had her taste formed in an era of overdone stuffy pretentiousness, while Lea, a bit younger, has embraced the airy beauty of Art Nouveau.

The stultifying life of aging and former courtesans is well-depicted—unwelcome in respectable society they have to fall back on each other's company. Former competitors, they still can't help sniping at one another. Lea, as one of the youngest of the group, moves like a sylph among the faded charms of her cohort. One amazing scene: Among a bower of faded courtesans, one of them, a busty brassy red-head, cuddles and squeals like a teenager as she introduces her lover, a young man who's the son of one this woman's "official lovers." As she overwhelms the rather weedy young man with her caresses, the viewer can see Lea's discomfort—seeing the loud red-head and her boy lover seems like seeing a grotesque mockery of herself and Cheri.

Cheri, the title character, is played by Rupert Friend (Prince Albert in "The Young Victoria," and Mr. Wickham in the 2005 version of "Pride and Prejudice"). He's a young man who has only two responsibilities: marry, and manage the large amount of money his mother settles on him at his marriage. He's a young man without purpose, but finds love with Lea. What starts as a light-hearted affair turns into a relationship both Cheri and Lea need more than they realized. Lea and Cheri's affair ends—as does the wonderful era depicted in this gorgeous movie. The war ends Lea and Cheri's world. The 20th century starts with bleakness and hardness after the golden afternoon of La Belle Époque. We are indebted to Collette and Stephen Frears for showing us the loveliness, and even the artful decadence, of that time, and we are indebted to the talented cast for giving life to the "demi-monde" ("half-world") of that era.

Aging, Michelle Pfeiffer has become what Oscar Wilde called "That abomination of nature: A Handsome Woman". Her very trimmed figure looks spectacular sheathed in very glamorous Belle Epoque dresses and looking at her with contemporary eyes, that's fine.

What the director forgot in recreating so beautifully, so painfully all the paraphernalia necessary to reproduce that magnificent time in history was... the ideal of feminine beauty at the time.

We glaringly see it in the same old pictures (authentic) shown at the start of the movie, pictures of the great beauties then, like Lillie Langtry, Lia de Putti, la Bella Otero, etc. and it's obvious that those beauties where more on the side of Marilyn Monroe than Michelle Pfeiffer, who looks like a window display mannequin with no curves in the right places and no minimal waistline (Hourglass figure painfully obtained thanks to an oppressing corset, but there it was).

To give us total recall of that time our protagonist should have been somebody a bit fatter than Ms. Pfeiffer, since we readily forget all the changes the feminine figure has suffered just in the last 100 years; what was considered fashionable or desirable then was quite different from now, and a thin woman was totally undesirable.

The film is nice, in a very superficial way, since its main flaw is irreparable, because speaking English in this superbly French story, we get a jarring note, and it's this: All the "decadent" morality, social behavior, points of view about richly kept elegant cocottes by the upper class French men is something totally unknown to puritan Victorian English society. This utterly French "Menage a Trois" is totally lost in this English version of Paris life at the turn of the century.

The house where she lives, the street, the interior locations, the dresses, all that is perfectly fine (more than fine, exquisite), but THE ESENCE of Colette masterpiece is not there. Due to the strong visual appeal in interiors, color schemes, Art Nuveau architecture and Belle Epoque fashions, this is mainly eye candy for dress designers and interior decorators.

A film that fails to ignite much interest. Not for the first time in recent memory Pfeiffer plays the older woman in love with a younger man, in this case one much younger. Scorsese and Pfeiffer covered some of this same territory in The Age of Innocence, and to much better effect. She is a courtesan, he the son of another famous courtesan. He has led an indolent life, spoiled throughout his entire existence. As a result he has grown to manhood completely divorced from any feelings for anyone. Instead he allows himself to be forced into a hastily arranged marriage by his ambitious mother, to a young woman he neither loves nor cares for. He is indifferent to his wife and drifts back and forth between the two women.

The script is pretty nondescript in places. Pfeiffer has a few decent lines and still radiates enough screen presence to carry some scenes, and Bates matches her well. Most of the problems with this film are based on the male character Cheri (Friend). He is left with too little too late for us to care about his fate. lnstead he allows himself to have his opinions formed for him by his mother and and Lea who also does much of what passes for thinking on his behalf as well. He is married off to a woman he doesn't love, and then proceeds to drift between her and his lover without ever showing any real sense of commitment to either.

Due to the limitations of the script and his character, he comes across as only half formed, and too many scenes end with him staring blankly into the camera, looking quite vacuous, and a penny for his thoughts would be an understatement of inflation. lt is not easy to know which audience this movie is aimed at. It is not quite glamorous enough to be mainstream nor is it memorable enough to be art-house. As a result it meanders along without ever really being anything more than an exercise in self indulgence. That is a pity as l was expecting a fair bit more from those involved.

Why is this movie rated as 6.2 out of 10? Are people blind? Crowds of movie goers flock to Avatar and Alice in Wonderland, and stuff like Cheri are completely overlooked. This is a delicious flick, with a great unusual and touching romantic story, gorgeous early 20th century atmosphere and brilliant interpretations from gorgeous Michele Pfeiffer and Kathy Bates. The story flows slow and stylishly like the surroundings of Belle Epoque and the final is so moving it makes a stone cry. Definitely the best movie I saw in 2009 together with Bright Star from Jane Campion. Please go see it and don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise.

The most positive aspect of this movie is the meticulous evocation of the social environment of the French and international jet-set residing in Paris during the beginning of the 20nth century in the "golden", at least for some, years of the 3rd French Republic, which after the horrors of the 1st World War was named "Belle Epoque". Those rich people had also potent sexual needs for which a specialized class of women was called to cater for, a sort of elevated form of prostitutes, similar to the "heterai" of ancient Athens, enjoying riches and high-life but also excluded from respectable society, known also as "demi-mondaines", in the sense that they neither low enough to be part of the underworld neither good enough for normal society.

One of them Lea de Lonval, played by Michelle Pfeiffer has aged for the standards of that age and her profession, when a former colleague and antagonist, requests her help to train her 19 year-old son, not even an adult but the criteria of early 20nth century, in the ways of the world and of love, in order to save him from his spendthrift and promiscuous life, guiding him through her expert hands.

Unfortunately this temporary solution, that was going to be superseded by an arranged marriage for the boy, develops to a deep love which eventually brings tragedy to the couple.

A study of perhaps outgrown social conventions of a bygone age and of a social environment which is rich but rife with antagonism and resentment, this movie based on two novels by the acclaimed and controversial French author Collete, is a fine evocation of a charming but flawed world, which may be found wanting in moral fibre by Anglosaxon Protestant moral criteria.

Regardless of the personal opinion one may have about the people portrayed in this film, it is true that they are very ably presented both in their emotional profile as well as in their material surroundings. The mental picture of this era that I have coincides with what I saw in this film, although I have not read the novels themselves to judge if the movie is loyal to their letter;I guess it is loyal to their spirit.

The negative aspects of the movie are the rather vulgar voice of the narrator who speaks in a tone, as if in a TV show concerned with the sexual escapades of modern Hollywood celebrities. Not that the "demi-mondaines" of the Third Republic were morally better than modern Hollywood celebrities, but the passing of time has let an aura to them, destroyed by the intrusion of the annoying voice of the narrator.

The other point is that the language of the movie is English, while it describes an environment who spoke French, given that the international language of the rich was still French, at least of those residing in Paris, in early 2Onth century, that is before the USA had totally eclipsed Old Europe in the world stage.

But those details are minor and you should watch this film, to savour the beautiful costumes, rich interiors, fine landscapes and all those elements that were unable to offer true happiness to the protagonists given that social convention barred their love from flourishing.

I can't (or won't) criticize the source material, as Colette wrote primarily for women, and I'm a man. My wife enjoys Colette's oeuvre, so I'll take her word for the quality of the stories.

However, this film fails at anything approaching bringing a story to life, despite some appealing sets. Some of the blame must be laid upon the director and producers who decided to make another one of those "Americans playing non-Americans, please suspend your disbelief" films. How is it possible to suspend the disbelief that Kathy Bates was ever a desirable courtesan, much less French?! Much of the costuming, hairstyles and makeup are period-wrong. The re-use of exterior settings (particularly the recurring "car arriving at the manor house" scenes) gives the film a cheapness.

But the majority of the blame has to be assigned to Michelle Pfeiffer whose acting skills are seldom detectable here. Nearly every line is delivered as if she's reading a Barbara Courtland novel aloud to an audience in the next room. Her voice is flat and declamatory, and she seldom shows any depth or subtlety. If she was reading for an audio-book, this might be acceptable; for a film, it's an endless line of sour notes.

"Cheri" mostly reads as soft-core porn from the 1970s, like one of the "Emmanuelle" series, or perhaps David Hamilton's work. It aspires to be elegant but just looks posed. It tries to be sophisticated, but never rises above soap opera. It attempts to give us a believable relationship, but it's really just actors going through the motions. I didn't buy any of it for a second. And my Colette-reading wife fared no better than I.

After you get over how beautiful the lighting makes 51 year old Michelle Pfeiffer playing her age and how old it makes 28 year old Rupert Friend playing 19, there's not much else to love about Cheri. Or maybe you can love the sumptuous 19th century Paris estates, cars, and gowns of the idle rich, whose lives will morph into something less glamorous as the Belle Epoque slides into WWI.

Colette's two novels about Chéri (Friend) the son of wealthy courtesan Madame Peloux (Kathy Bates), are not just about an indolent but beautiful rich slacker; they also follow the good fortune of Lea de Lonval (Pfeiffer), an unusually beautiful and profitable courtesan who has shrewdly prepared herself for financial comfort but forget the cardinal rule of prostitutes: Don't fall in love.

After six years of lover's paradise, Chéri and Lea part as the takes an arranged bride. And that's all there is, folks, as the film moves from a robust ramble about the various courtesans to a dreary hour of Twilight-like longing between this old-fashioned Harold and Maude. Director Steven Frears, who has had a fair share of intriguing films and characters, just lets the camera make love to Pfeiffer and Friend without fleshing out the characters to let is know what is so lovable to be longing for so long. Writer Christopher Hampton with Dangerous Liaisons and Atonement on his resume can't seem to muster a memorable line or develop his characters from flat clichés into round characters.

I do concede that Kathy Bates delivering this line saved the film for the moment: "Don't you find that when the skin is a little less firm, it holds perfume so much better?" Said to Michelle Pfeiffer, these lines give Bates bite of the year honors and a brief respite from spare, meaningless dialogue.

Retired and wealthy courtesan to princes, Michelle Pfieffer, is asked by her friend Kathy Bates to teach her son, Rupert Friend the nuances of love in preparation for his future. The short term arrangement lasts for 6 years as they fall hopelessly in love with each other.

Rather beautiful, touching and insightful love story held together by a good performance by Friend and exemplary one by Pfeiffer. She manages to convey cunning, happiness and dreadful heartache so brilliantly, without uttering a word, such that the film seems to miss something when she's not on screen. Bates is fine in one of her exuberant jolly roles; her wars of words with Pfeiffer are great fun.

My one criticism is the commentary by Frears himself which is bland and out of place and seems like he's reading the news - it needed a Dench or a Redgrave.

I think this commentary does not do justice to the complexity of the tale.

Cheri's courtesan mother was loving and cheerful? She was no more fit to be a mother than my arm is for the wing of an airplane. Cheri was orphaned from the beginning because of his mother's profession as well as the usual self-preoccupation of such great beauties. When she saw fit, she arranged a loveless and mercenary marriage for him. The withering realism of this tale about the egotism and cruelty in almost all human relationships is only masked and made palatable by the sparkling wit it is mixed with.

The movie is by no means perfect, but there is a lot to explore. I would not write off Colette and Pfeiffer without attending with a bit more care.

Let's see; Michelle Pfeiffer is 51, and Rupert Friend is 28. A typical cougar relationship, except there were no cougars in the late 19th Century France, during the Belle Epoque.

This is a period of excess and Lea de Lonval (Pfeiffer) is living on her earnings, and she is teaching Cheri (Friend). the son of a friend (Kathy Bates), a fellow retired prostitute, about life. After six years of companionship, she has grown attached to Cheri, and is dismayed to learn his mother wants him married to the daughter (Felicity Jones) of another prostitute (Iben Hjejle).

It is definitely a period piece with lavish costumes and sumptuous living, and emotions the rule of the day.

What should have been a French film is decidedly English, but it was enjoyable nonetheless.

While I thought the idea of the movie interesting--a May/December romance with Lea, played by Michelle Pfeiffer, being much older--it was distasteful that Michelle's character was like an aunt to the nineteen-year-old Cheri, played by Rupert Friend. There was a hint that Cheri's mother, Kathy Bates (who I always love), wanted the affair to occur to keep Cheri out of trouble. That seemed a bit creepy. As for the romance, there was no chemistry between Lea and Cheri, and no character development for Cheri, even though the movie was named for him. He remained sullen, brooding, immature and amazingly dull, although I don't blame Rupert Friend for the performance. I think the script, direction and editing were to blame, if not the story itself. The love scenes were tasteful but not believable. The pair were together for six years, but the relationship didn't seem to have love or even lust at its core, just a boredom being filled with champagne and satin sheets. Michelle was the reason my rating was a 3 rather than a 1. She did a good job with what she had to work with and I was invested in her character. However, the character was ultimately a disappointment. I think we were supposed to come away with an experience of a slice of French culture (courtesans) during La Belle Epoque, but it didn't work. I was stunned to see a car pull up to a country house; it seemed out of place. The director had no idea how to set the time and place properly. The overlong verbal narration at the beginning and end of the movie was not only annoying (I hate being told what should be shown) but it didn't tell us things helpful to the story. The voice-over at the end was particularly awful because Cheri's entire life's arc was given three sentences. If they had edited that out, I may have been able to nudge my rating to a 5.

How wonderful to escape recessionary 2009 for a more glamorous world - Paris of the Belle Epoque. Every scene is a feast for the eye - including some marvellous Art Nouveau interiors - and the sun always seems to be shining on dewy gardens or a blue-green sea.

And in these luscious settings unfolds a tale of love with a capital L. It is the tale of a strong, wise heroine and a poetic, spoilt young man - a couple who never thought they would find love, both of whom recognise in their different ways that it has found them.

The acting is superb. Michelle Pfeiffer plays the heroine splendidly, and Rupert Friend has the beauty of a figure from a Burne-Jones painting. Christopher Hampton's screenplay is witty and seductive. The film score sets the tale off perfectly.

This movie comes from several directions, but fails in almost all of them. It is a period film, showing us how people were at that time. OK, I can see some clothes, some specific behaviours, some cars, but that's about it; there is nothing that brings novelty or interest. Then there is the romantic side. Seasoned sex partners fall in love and then, faced with the choice of losing their image or losing their infatuation, they oscillate between, making the characters human, but the plot really boring. And then there is the Michelle Pfeiffer angle, but she is truly too old for it.

Bottom line: Dangerous Liaisons did all that this film tried to and a lot better. It actually worked enough for a high school remake. This one is plain boring.

A cinematic reification of Colette's belle époque novel CHÉRI, viewers can rest assured that its period glamor is superbly captured in the safe hands of Stephen Frears, who has a knack to sate our ocular desire of sumptuous costumes and scenic divinity, here aided by Alexandre Desplat's euphonious accompaniment. Elsewhere, the magnificent Michelle Pfeiffer gives a thoroughly self-reflective dissection of being a cradle-snatcher with stunning aplomb, lucidity and poignancy.

Tapping into the May-December romance between a bloom-is-off-the-rose former Parisian courtesan Léa de Lonval (Pfeiffer), and a shiftless trustafarian (avant la lettre) Fred "Chéri" Peloux, the decades-younger son of her quondam-rival-present-friend Charlotte Peloux (Bates), CHÉRI is headily permeated with a waft of faux-insouciance from the beginning, the initiation of their mutual attraction is prompted by Charlotte's solicitation of Léa to rid Chéri of debauchery and malaise (and it turns out Léa is a perfect remedy for that purpose), to the time when they put a kibosh on their 6-years-long "casual romance", in the wake of Chéri pending marriage with an 18-year-old Edmée (an underutilized Felicity Jones), daughter of another former file de joie.

The undertow only surfaces in the aftermath, both sense a void caused by each other's absence, while Chéri and Edmée head to their honeymoon in Italy, Léa finds temporary solace in the arm of a young beefcake during her sojourn in Biarritz, but absence makes the heart grow fonder. In Léa's case, what distinguishes Chéri's allure is his buttoned-up mystique (sometimes can be veiled by vacuity), and a tacit understanding (he knows her line-of-work perfectly well) which leavens their relationship with a rather relaxing overlay, for Léa, that can be lethally seductive; as for Chéri, he is an emblematic mama's boy, Léa represents a dyadic entity with motherly affection and amorous passion, it is a jones he simply cannot quit on his own volition.

Respective resolution is conceived by each when they meet again on their home turf, Léa, after realizing Chéri is the love of her life, looks forward to an elope, whereas Chéri naively wants to have the cake and eat it as well, his realization that Léa is the one will only strike him latterly (confirmed by Frears' own voiceover in the epilogue, seals his unfortunate fate), which Léa presciently discerns and ascribes to their massive age difference, then calls off their entanglement as a last-ditch proposition to elicit Chéri's response, but foreshadowed by his giveaway reaction to a horrid cameo presence of Anita Pallenberg, the answer is very much in evidence, no amount of wisdom can offset that image of furrows creeping on a woman's face in a young man's mind, Léa has to learn it the hard way.

Apart from a heads-turning Michelle Pfeiffer and a prime Rupert Friend whose curly charm might not be everyone's cuppa, the one-and-the-only Kathy Bates, although some hefty suspended disbelief is requisite to credit her as Pfeiffer's chief rival in her heyday, steals many a scene in her underhanded barbs and visible delight in earning the one-upmanship athwart a poised Pfeiffer, while both dressed to the nines in Charlotte's exotic and luxuriant conservatory, a curio at you own peril to savor.

This makes the list of my all-time worst movies. The dialog was unimaginative, the "acting" was mostly posturing, the direction disjointed, and, I'm sorry, but the costumes and sets were not that spectacular given this historical period. Kathy Bates, who has created some memorable characters, this time created a caricature, with a performance that was overly broad and lacking in depth. Rupert Friend's angst-filled youth, besides being another caricature, was a performance that can best be described as dull and boring. And what was with that background music, which kept loudly intruding?

I like Michelle Pfeiffer, and I like Kathy Bates. But I suppose every actor has an "Ishtar" and I'm afraid this is theirs.