Genres

Visitors Review

TxMike 2012-05-24 01:06:05

A 19th century story of forbidden love.

This story is curiously set in France with two American actors usingBritish accents. So it is in the magic fantasy land of the movies. Set in the late 19th century, a time when becoming a Courtesan, anelite prostitute, was an alternative for young women. Michelle Pfeifferwas about 50 when the filming was done and it appears she is playing aCourtesan about 50, Lea de Lonval. Courtesans, while acknowledged as a legitimate profession, didn'treally mix with the rest of society during their non-working hours, andLea's closest friend was Kathy Bates as Madame Peloux. They didn'treally like each other that much, but they shared a bond. Before I saw the movie I assumed the title referred to Pfeiffer'scharacter, but in fact it was Rupert Friend as Chéri, a name Lea gaveto him when he was growing up. He was the son of Madame Peloux, and ofunknown father, and was 19 as this story begins. While I enjoyed this movie, I find it mostly forgettable. It is a typeof movie I am very optional towards.SPOILERS: As Cheri needed some companionship, Lea became to fill thatrole. She thought they would be together for a few weeks, but thatturned into 6 years. They were lovers. But Madame Peloux decided sheneeded grandchildren and arranged a marriage of her son, Cheri, now 25,to a young woman of 18. But he never really took to her, Lea was alwayson his mind. As he was on her mind. But in the end she convinced himtheir love, while real, could not lead to anything.

Colin George 2012-05-23 08:10:39

"Cheri"

"Cheri," based on the novels by French author Colette, is not a filmtargeted at men in their early twenties, nor is it the type of film Iwould have autonomously sought out, however the power of a freescreening will dispel just about any of my cobwebbed genre prejudices,at least so far as putting me in a seat. "Cheri," unfortunately, isneither a particularly compelling love story nor a particularlyconvincing period piece. Stephen Frears, who helmed 2006'sOscar-baiting "Queen," but is perhaps best known for heady romcom "HighFidelity," directs, and though the most glaring issues with the filmare issues with the screenplay as an adaptation, Frears' directiondoesn't elevate the occasionally interesting banter or the by-the-numbers romantic beats.The bottom line is that "Cheri" plays it safe. For a story about anintergenerational relationship between a moody teenager (Rupert Friend)and a retired lady of the evening (Michelle Pfeiffer), "Cheri" risksoffending exactly no one. The film is apparently R-rated, which ispuzzling, as the scenes of sensuality barely border on the suggestive,and I completely fail to recall the "brief drug use" outlined by theMPAA. It's a sallow, forgettable piece of film-making that owes itsonly redeeming qualities to earlier, edgier artists. "Harold andMaude," for example, sort of broke the age barrier for romance filmsback in '71, and the cinematic landscape is peppered with moreinteresting depictions of prostitutes."Cheri" also lacks a consistent, elegant art direction, usually astaple in even mediocre period pieces. Production designer AlanMacDonald's costumes are gaudy and caricatural, though perhapsimpressive if only for their sheer audacity. If widest sunhat diameteror most phosphorescent gown are new categories at this year's academyawards, "Cheri" has them in the bag. Macdonald's set design alsounder-impresses, rarely providing more than a stodgy veneer of theearly nineteenth century, a chasm between the source material that'sonly widened by the wincingly mawkish dialogue. Christopher Hampton'sscreenplay paints Lea and her eponymous partner Cheri as cardboardlovers, and Pfeiffer and Friend's sexual chemistry is almostnon-existent.The rest of the performances are passable, though the inauthenticdialogue is a constant stumbling block, even for the usually-stellarKathy Bates, who seems oddly defanged and miscast in her supportingrole as Cheri's manipulative mother. The characters are veiled in alayer of faux-elegance, feeling more often like uniformed impressionsof turn-of-the- century women than the genuine article. The suspensionof disbelief is kept at arm's length.But I don't mean to suggest that "Cheri" is at all a worthless film;it's just an unnecessary one, which is almost as bad. The story itselfis adequate, but has no strong reason for existence. Colette's novels("Cheri" and "The Last of Cheri"), which were combined for the filmversion, saw publication in France in 1920 and 1926 respectively,assumedly to a more scandalized audience then today's, which were sorecently witness to the spectacle of Sacha Baron Cohen's "Bruno.""Cheri" is too reserved a film to justify recommendation. It bringsnothing new to the film-making landscape in either content or craft,and though the score by Alexandre Desplat is impressive, probably thepicture's highlight, it seems to have wandered into "Cheri" from somemore interesting film, upbeat and suspenseful while the plot is languidand sedentary.I don't think I'm letting my prejudice get the better of me in the caseof "Cheri." Romance fan or no, there isn't a clear reason why Frears'latest is worth seeking out, even for free.

carlostallman 2012-05-22 14:54:29

Pfeiffer's Friend

You can't really tell as far as Stephen Frears is concerned. After thesensational "The Queen" another film that is only slightly moretolerable than the dreadful "Mrs Henderson Presents" Here Rupert Friendin the title role is a delightful throwback to Oscar Wilde territory.You understand Pfeiffer loosing her head for him but not why he looseshis for her. She's certainly beautiful but lifeless. She looks moredistant than ever, struggling to find the tone of her performance andI'm afraid she never does. Not a glimpse of the Pfeiffer from "The AgeOf Innocence" or even "The Fabulous Baker Boys" No sense of period orof intention. Kathy Bates is an annoying over the top caricature butRuper Friend is the oasis that makes the aridity of this nonsense trulybearable. I had seen him before, most remarkably, in another story withanother 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 hewill dazzle us with other surprises in the future. Here he's badlyserved by his director, co-stars costume designer, make up and hair andin spite of that he emerges as the only reason to see this film.

sjb_can 2012-05-21 18:58:25

All Glamour, No Drama

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

roanmaiden 2012-05-17 02:41:59

I enjoyed this movie

Michelle Pfeiffer looked beautiful in this movie. The only thingdifferent I would have done was to cut the hair of the character thatportrayed Chéri, especially the hair that hangs in his eyes. I lovedthe dresses that were worn in this movie, especially Lea's.I was very surprised at the ending, not what I expected at all, so youmay need a tissue or two. I found myself wanting them to stay together,to love and get old together. It left me feeling a bit sad that theydidn't.I for one was surprised that this went straight to DVD, I would haveloved to see the beautiful dresses the women wore up on the big screen,somehow the small screen doesn't do them justice.Overall, I give it an 8/10. I never go by the critics votes, I reservemy opinions until I see the film myself.

Jay Harris 2012-05-16 20:43:03

another delight in the style of Dangerous Liasons

The basis of this delight is adapted from the novels by Colette,Colette wrote about courtesans (influential ladies of the evening intimes gone by), We all do remember GIGI.In the late 1980's Dangerous Liasons was made into an excellent film,(basically same subject). This award winning movie was written &directed by the same team that created CHERI, Christopher Hampton &Stephen Frears. These 2 talents have many other fine films in thereresumes. Michelle Pfeiffer who was in Dangerous Liasons, is the star ofCheri.They created one more fine film.She portrays an older courtesan in love with a much younger man CHERI.Michele is superb in the role, it is possible that she can get an Oscarnomination for it.A newcomer to films Rupert Friend a handsome young man willing to liveoff an older women.This is until he meets this sweet innocent younglady. Felicity Jones does this role and does it quite well.Cathy Bates is Cheri's domineering mother.This is a hard role to playwell & Cathy does well.The period is prior to the start of WW 1; the sets, costumes areexcellent.This is a first class film & should be seen by all who like first classmovies.Ratings: ***1/2 (out of 4) 94 points (out of 100) IMDb 9 (out of 10)

Chad Shiira 2012-05-13 00:04:33

The mom-bomb of Belle Epoque

During their idle moments or romantic longing, the filmmaker employsthe flashback to show how both Cheri(Rupert Friend) and Lea(MichellePfeiffer) are never far from each other's minds. He's twenty-five;she's forty-nine, old enough to be, you know. A longtime friend/rivalof his mother, Cheri knew the prostitute as "Nunu" before she becamehis lover. Relegated to the backstory, by omitting any dramatization oftheir former roles as adult and child, "Cheri" is complicit in itsendorsement of this relationship, although the nickname the boy coinedfor Lea does at least acknowledge the momentous threshold that the oldassociates embarked on when their relationship turned from maternal tophysical. An arranged marriage orchestrated by Cheri's mother(and Lea'sone-time rival) Mme. Peloux(Kathy Bates), however, ends their six-yearrun, and on the boy's wedding day, the diegesis becomes a rememberingone, as each lover conjures up the other at their most beautiful. Evenin the world of courtesans, as in so-called polite society, Oedipalrelationships are thwarted by too many factors that love simply can'tovercome. But since the film makes judicious use of the flashback, theaudience identifies with this impossible love. This adaptation ofColette's two semi-autobiographical novels "Cheri"(1920), and "Le finde Cheri"(1926) sutures itself(Lea's flashbacks are always of Cheri asa man, not a boy), but the sutures aren't so foolproof that the loveaffair isn't up for a little critical scrutinization. The next timethat Lea reminisces about Cheri, her idyllic abstraction of romancebecomes flawed by a preceding flashback of another cross-generationalcouple whom she had met in Mme. Peloux's orchard. Described by herfriend/rival as "the happy couple", Lea is confronted by a grotesquemirror of her own relationship with Cheri. The happy couple's disparategap in age borders on sexual perversity, and projects a version of theoriginal relationship that Lea had with Cheri during the boy'sformative years. This mother/son dynamic, made discreet by Lea'sability to project a facade of timelessness, forces the well-maintainedcourtesan to reflect that her sex bomb years are finite andfast-approaching its expiration date. In her two-fold flashback,Cheri's bedroom eyes are staring back at not just his significantother, but a mother figure as well, to her dismay.A wife in name only, Edmee(Felicity Jones) understands Cheri, the childof a whore, as she is one too, when the young girl concurs with hisobservance of retrospective hindsight that they were orphaned by theirrespective matriarchal libertines. With this admission, "Cheri"overstates its impetus for the self-described foundling's attractiontowards Lea. But stripping Mme. Peloux's familial title so formallyserves the specific function of recasting her in non-Oedipal terms.Since the complex that Sigmund Freud developed can't work withouttriangulation; can't work without the presence of a father(who could beany number of his mother's johns) to signify the mother he wants tof***. Dictated by heterogeneous rules that a subculture entails, Mme.Peloux acts against the nature of a parent when she hands over her sonto a woman of motherly proportions who can't be trusted to act in aplatonic capacity. She does son, in a vicarious sense where Lea canactualize all the physical fantasies that Peloux may harbor, but resistpursuing, due to the technicality of blood. Neither mother(in her son'sestimation), nor lover, she has no tangible role in Cheri's life. Thefelicitous manner in which she dispenses information about thenewlyweds' conjugality(she tauntingly remarks to Lea on the weather inItaly, site of her lover's honeymoon) seems derived from envy. Althoughthe union was financially motivated, it doesn't seem to be the basis ofMme. Peloux's campaign to humiliate Lea, since no stern admonitionagainst threatening the compounded wealth between the children ofwhores are never made. After six years of vicarious satiation by Lea'ssexual exploits with her son, through the vehicle of disparagingrhetoric, she reminds the courtesan that she's aging and turns herson's lover back into a mother. Cheri knows it too. While Lea makestravel arrangements over the phone, the young man observes her througha crack in the door. Unaware of being monitored, the audience suppliestheir own flashback through Cheri's eyes, recalling scenes in which theboy saw her Lea's colleagues in restaurants and opium dens. They lookedold.

peter kobryn 2012-05-12 06:40:23

An atmospheric love story in pre first world war France

My feelings about this film swung between two competing schools ofthought as I watched it.One - do I feel any attachment and engagement in this story of BelleEpoque Paris where an extremely wealthy courtesan falls in love withthe son of an extremely wealthy courtesan, a young man with apparentlyfew redeeming features to his character ? and Two - This is a very well made and acted film - Michelle Pfeiffer isexcellent, drawing me into the feelings of her character as the filmprogressed and Rupert Friend makes much of a role that I'm sure otheryoung actors would have found too complex In the end I settled closer to thought number two - this is a film withmuch to say about love and who we fall in love with.I was fortunate to attend a screening of this film at which both thewriter - Christopher Hampton & director Stephen Frears were present andenjoyed listening to them talk about the film, it's development andtheir hopes for it. Two very engaging characters who proved to be happyto answer all kinds of questions that we the Nottingham audience couldthrow at them

selffamily 2012-05-11 10:55:41

Sad but true - beauty has a time limit

the elegant and beautiful Michelle Pfeiffer is ageing and her lastgreat romance has faded, leaving her alone and wealthy. Let's putsomething right here - the ladies in this film were NOT prostitutes,they were courtesans, something totally different, like serialmonogamous mistresses if you like. A concept totally accepted inEurope, especially at this time. So taking on the responsibility of heryounger 'godson' at the request of his mother, another retiree, shewhisks him away to the country and they begin his education, whichturns into a relationship and which goes on for several years. Hismother becomes twitchy for grandchildren and arranges a marriage forhim, and the lovers part, clearly unaware of the pain that this willtrigger. And so it goes - their actions and reactions form the rest ofthe story, which is beautifully drawn, sumptuously dressed and depictedwith class and glamour. My only query is why American Actors andBritish Actors? Otherwise, a beautiful film, well portrayed and I lookforward to more.

MGMboy 2012-05-10 20:50:23

Grand Style With Great Stars

A rapture of visual, audio and cinematic emotional brilliance all tiedwith a killer last line. What a wonder is set before the viewer whenone enters the world of "Cheri". The visual richness of this parfait ofthe Belle Epoch is breathtaking from the rich creamy art neuveauarchitecture to the gloriously realized costumes of the early 20thcentury. What they only indicated in "Titanic" of the same periodcostumes. Explodes in luxury and in a sense informs the eye to thescene at hand and seems less costume than authentic clothing. As Cinema"Cheri" succeeds as more than an adaptation of a Collette novel butbecomes a world unto it's own. Here we are presented with some of ourfinest female performers at the top of their game. In short I amspeaking of Michelle Pfeiffer and Kathy Bates. As former courtesanrivals who are now aging friends they come together to define the lastpart of their lives and the beginning of Bates' son's life in aremarkable way. Kathy Bates goes deep into the complexities of her mixof comedy and nuanced drama in the same way she did with Annie Wilkes.Not to say that the characters of Annie and Madame Peloux are anythingalike. But Miss Bates takes this role to a superior level while all thewhile not letting you see her do her magic. She is just THERE! Thescene where her face decays from a radioactively sunny laugh to revealher true deepest disgust her spoiled soul is priceless. Then there isMichelle Pfeiffer as Lea de Lonval, at fifty one she may be older thatthe literary Lea but she has never been more luminous or nearly goddesslike. To look at her is to look upon a woman of a certain age that isageless in her embrace of times changing hands upon her face. But thereis more. This may be the pinnacle of her career, the role of herlifetime. She is Lea in so many levels both within her acting and in asense as an actress. She is stunning and brings forth the soul of agreat character as only our finest actors can. But all of this wouldseem a delightful trifle, a light story of an aging courtesan and heryoung lover if it were not for the narration that gives the film addeddepth and gravitas. I asked a friend today what he thought of the finaloutcome of the story. Of what the narrator reveals of what became ofCheri. He tossed it off lightly and said that it seemed an afterthought. He could not have been more wrong. He missed the whole pointof the film. The last lines of the film that tell us of the ultimatefate of Lea and Cheri are what give this film an emotional strength,irony, and ultimately heart wrenching tragedy. It is the final twistset into a stunning jewel of a film that is as captivating andspellbinding as Lea's mysterious emerald ring.

george karpouzas 2012-05-02 12:10:03

riches do not bring happiness

The most positive aspect of this movie is the meticulous evocation ofthe social environment of the French and international jet-set residingin Paris during the beginning of the 20nth century in the "golden", atleast for some, years of the 3rd French Republic, which after thehorrors of the 1st World War was named "Belle Epoque". Those richpeople had also potent sexual needs for which a specialized class ofwomen was called to cater for, a sort of elevated form of prostitutes,similar to the "heterai" of ancient Athens, enjoying riches andhigh-life but also excluded from respectable society, known also as"demi-mondaines", in the sense that they neither low enough to be partof the underworld neither good enough for normal society.One of them Lea de Lonval, played by Michelle Pfeiffer has aged for thestandards of that age and her profession, when a former colleague andantagonist, requests her help to train her 19 year-old son, not even anadult but the criteria of early 20nth century, in the ways of the worldand of love, in order to save him from his spendthrift and promiscuouslife, guiding him through her expert hands.Unfortunately this temporary solution, that was going to be supersededby an arranged marriage for the boy, develops to a deep love whicheventually brings tragedy to the couple.A study of perhaps outgrown social conventions of a bygone age and of asocial environment which is rich but rife with antagonism andresentment, this movie based on two novels by the acclaimed andcontroversial French author Collete, is a fine evocation of a charmingbut flawed world, which may be found wanting in moral fibre byAnglosaxon Protestant moral criteria.Regardless of the personal opinion one may have about the peopleportrayed in this film, it is true that they are very ably presentedboth in their emotional profile as well as in their materialsurroundings. The mental picture of this era that I have coincides withwhat I saw in this film, although I have not read the novels themselvesto judge if the movie is loyal to their letter;I guess it is loyal totheir spirit.The negative aspects of the movie are the rather vulgar voice of thenarrator who speaks in a tone, as if in a TV show concerned with thesexual escapades of modern Hollywood celebrities. Not that the"demi-mondaines" of the Third Republic were morally better than modernHollywood 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 itdescribes an environment who spoke French, given that the internationallanguage of the rich was still French, at least of those residing inParis, in early 2Onth century, that is before the USA had totallyeclipsed Old Europe in the world stage.But those details are minor and you should watch this film, to savourthe beautiful costumes, rich interiors, fine landscapes and all thoseelements that were unable to offer true happiness to the protagonistsgiven that social convention barred their love from flourishing.

isabelle1955 2012-05-02 06:45:41

Sweet Cheri.

There are several very good reasons to see Cheri, directed by StephenFrears and written by Christopher Hampton from the novel by Colette.It's a beautifully made costume drama, shot in some wonderfullocations. It's well scripted (although it does wander off track andget a little rambling in the middle)and it's moderately entertaining,although probably only for a limited audience. But the best reason ofall is to see some really interesting performances from an array ofpredominantly female actors.Michelle Pfeiffer makes a very welcome and long overdue return tocenter stage, as Lea de Lonval, a Belle Epoch (ie turn of the 20thcentury) courtesan in Paris. Lea is ready to retire from herprofession, the business of sex, and takes up with the son of a fellowcourtesan, the beautiful, languid Cheri (meaning Darling), not formoney this time but for love. Pfeiffer is radiant in the part, andwatching her is a sheer pleasure.Cheri is played by Rupert Friend, who keeps popping up on my radar asone of the more interesting and talented of the young male actorsaround. He seems to be taking his career slowly but carefully, pickingsome interesting roles. I first spotted him in Pride and Prejudice, aswicked Mr Wickham, after which he was excellent in Mrs Palfrey at theClaremont, opposite Joan Plowright. I thought at that time how muchlike Orlando Bloom he looks, but luckily he is a far better actor, andwill, I think, ultimately have a longer shelf life.Also fabulous is Kathy Bates as Cheri's mother. It is her plan to marryhim off to Edmee, the young daughter of a fellow courtesan, taking himaway from his true love Lea (his senior by many years) that sets thescene for what will become a tragedy. The courtesans were hugely rich,but lived lives of isolated splendor. Not accepted by polite society,they turned to each other for social interaction, a small, intense andrather incestuous circle. Bates' Madam Peloux needs to marry Cheri offbut has limited options. Edmee, the daughter of another old rival, isavailable. Both are an only child set to inherit large sums of money.Business takes precedence, marriage is a joining of fortunes and lovemeans nothing, leaving everyone unhappy, Edmee, Cheri and Lea.Perhaps almost as interesting - or even more so – than this movie'sstory, is the story of Colette herself. The novelist lived from 1873 to1954, married three times, had many lovers of both genders includingher stepson, played the music halls, wrote an opera with Ravel, ran ahospital during WW1 and helped her Jewish friends survive during WW2.She wrote some fifty novels including Gigi, (made into a play and anaward winning musical), and is often referred to as one of France'sgreatest writers.And I can't review this movie without saying how quite wonderful it is,for once, to see an older woman entangled with a sexy younger man, andhow rarely we get to see that on screen. Time and time again, we seequite ridiculous age gaps between male stars and much, much youngerwomen. Here, Pfeiffer and Friend make the opposite work perfectly. Iappreciate that costume drama has a fairly limited audience, and thismovie is certainly not perfect, but personally - I loved it!!

thenaomiest 2012-05-01 16:40:53

Lacks passion and character development.

For me this movie was underwhelming. Cheri as a character was vacant,and I struggled to believe there was anything in him that would attractLea to him. He wasn't that attractive, or intriguing. He never SAYSanything, as Lea mentioned herself. And there was no real explanationof why they got together in the first place - even though it seemed setup by HIS mother... to what, keep him out of trouble? Implausible.Lea was a cute character. But Pfeiffer's portrayal was a touch bland.There was no great passion there.Cheri, who apparently had great "passionate" love for Lea, quickly andeasily detached himself and married some other girl. A marriage whichhe took to fairly well for a while. This also seemed off.And then the ending? Stunned me. It just seemed unnecessary.I wouldn't watch this again, or recommend it. It's random and vacant.

Robert 2012-05-01 02:30:19

Insipid, mediocre and unbelievable

I can't (or won't) criticize the source material, as Colette wroteprimarily for women, and I'm a man. My wife enjoys Colette's oeuvre, soI'll take her word for the quality of the stories.However, this film fails at anything approaching bringing a story tolife, despite some appealing sets. Some of the blame must be laid uponthe 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 adesirable 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 Pfeifferwhose acting skills are seldom detectable here. Nearly every line isdelivered as if she's reading a Barbara Courtland novel aloud to anaudience in the next room. Her voice is flat and declamatory, and sheseldom shows any depth or subtlety. If she was reading for anaudio-book, this might be acceptable; for a film, it's an endless lineof 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 beelegant but just looks posed. It tries to be sophisticated, but neverrises above soap opera. It attempts to give us a believablerelationship, but it's really just actors going through the motions. Ididn't buy any of it for a second. And my Colette-reading wife fared nobetter than I.

HM-3 2012-04-29 19:19:43

Not at all impressed

This makes the list of my all-time worst movies. The dialog wasunimaginative, the "acting" was mostly posturing, the directiondisjointed, and, I'm sorry, but the costumes and sets were not thatspectacular given this historical period. Kathy Bates, who has createdsome memorable characters, this time created a caricature, with aperformance that was overly broad and lacking in depth. Rupert Friend'sangst-filled youth, besides being another caricature, was a performancethat can best be described as dull and boring. And what was with thatbackground music, which kept loudly intruding? I like Michelle Pfeiffer, and I like Kathy Bates. But I suppose everyactor has an "Ishtar" and I'm afraid this is theirs.

john-575 2012-04-29 06:45:40

Very, very disappointing

The Classic Cinema in Elsternwick (Melbourne) Australia go to a certainamount of trouble with movie previews. So yesterday with Cheri we had aviolinist playing in the cinema before the preview session, acomplimentary afternoon tea.. normally a box of cakes and goodies (butonly a single one yesterday), a range of teas in yesterday's case (nocoffee). In the past a glass of champagne has been offered andsometimes there are lucky seats with prizes under them.So perhaps no coffee yesterday was a forerunner of what was to come.The list of cons is sadly far greater than the prosCONS The relationship between Michelle Pfeiffers character and RupertFriends character is I am sorry to say more like Aunty and nephew.There's a passion missing here. Are they out lunching or enjoying otherpleasures? No it's all indoors and not very exciting to watch at all.Ms Pfeiffer has wonderful hair, carries her age well (50 is not old),has perhaps nice back assuming no body doubles. But for me neither sheor her character are not warm enough or sensual enough. In fact thelady I sat next to a cinema had more ooh la la. And she was a payingcustomer like us! And on the plus side of 60. Rupert Friend as someonehere alluded to was too Olivia Bloom like, foppish almost gay if youlike. His dark hair and pale skin gave him a very unhealthy allure.Set in pre WW1 Paris and France I was looking forward to a variety ofold veteran cars (only 3 in the whole show... perhaps the vehiclebudget was limited.. surely there must be more veteran cars in France).The Edwardian style fashions I love but for these give me the GreatRace 1965 style. Sadly there was no Mademsoielle Dubois here (NatalieWood) to carry this off yet the period was the same.One of the problems with Cheri is it lacked oxygen, location,recreations of pre WW1 France, any sense of movement timewise andromance on any level. In many ways the film was shot like a play. A fewdifferent sets mainly indoors but little of interest outdoors. Verytightly framed shots of gravel driveways in stately old homes... fullstop.Regarding the other courtesans with the exception of Cheri's wifesmother these were not a very stunning lot. Kathy Bates as a courtesan?Surely no man would pay serious money for her pleasures unless thesupply of other courtesans was very short. Clearly these 19th century,20th century gentlemen were either too free with their money or notfussy enough?Perhaps Stephen Frears should have stayed on his side of the EnglishChannel. Mrs Henderson presents was quite enjoyable... it did have JudiDench, Bob Hoskins and the lovely Kelly Reilly.Cheri should clearly have been left to the French, done with Frenchactors and actresses in French with English sub-titles. What we havehere sadly is about as French as McDonalds and must surely be a lostopportunity. Very disappointing.

cestmoi 2012-04-26 22:27:22

Outstandingly bad

The TWO is for the set dresser, but barely. This is an astoundingly badfilm in every way. The spoken words are so bad and off-key that theviewer winces. I promised to remember bad lines but there were so manymy mind is overwhelmed by them. Just be assured that an uneducatedvalley boy or girl could have (probably did) written the text. Theacting is wooden (forgive me, wood) and totally uncommitted. The goodnews for all involved on that level, I suppose, is that the checkcleared. I must except the performance of the little unloved wifey,which was pretty good, and the two friends, a sexually ambiguous oldercouple, were very good. They did the job well under what must have beenawful circumstances. The photography was miserable. Setting the shotswas almost always wrong. The little house of Michelle Pfeiffer was verybadly framed. I expected to see milk bottles at the entry, as well.Music was not a factor for me, though when I did notice it it wasdreadful. To know that there are children starving and money is beingused for this sort of amateurish movie making absolutely makes melivid.

simona gianotti 2012-04-26 01:41:41

refined and melancholic

"Cheri" is the nickname given by Lea (Michelle Pfeiffer) to the young,much younger Fred, whom she brings to discover the truth aboutlovemaking, and unintentionally but inevitably, about loving. The actorplaying Fred is handsome, attractive, but who really hits the sign (asusually, I would say) is Michelle Pfeiffer, who proved to be verycourageous in playing a role where she constantly repeats to herselfhow old she is. Indeed, her beauty, elegance and refinement are alwaysthere to remind her and us how difficult it is to come to terms withageing, 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 managesto capture the viewer, thanks to its capability to render the emotionalside through glances and through effective and intense framing of bothcharacters 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 theoverall tone is a melancholic one, above all for the female public, wecannot but sympathize with Lea's inner strength, and at the same timefeel moved by her deep suffering. From an aesthetic point of view, themovie is to be visually appreciated for its pleasant settings, itsrefined costumes and in general for a deep care for precious details.

FrameXFrame 2012-04-25 07:23:55

A beautiful slice of La Belle Epoque

One of the delights of this film is the lushness and perfection of thesets and costumes of the Belle Époque (c. 1890-1914). The sets andcostumes are so gorgeous they threaten to overwhelm the actors.Threaten, but don't succeed. Michelle Pfeiffer is sensual and beautifulas the aging courtesan Lea—a woman approaching a "certain age," as thenarrator (Stephen Frears) informs us. Lea has known the love andadmiration of the wealthiest men in Europe, many of them titled. Shehas 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 manmore than she should.Kathy Bates is wonderful as Madame Peloux, a former competitor ofLea's—a woman who, if you squint hard (and catch the "portrait" of ayounger Peloux) you can imagine having a gamine charm years before.Bates' acting moves effortlessly from laughing delightedly at smuttygossip to quickly assuming the pouting self-righteous expression of adisapproving mama as she discusses her son. From former courtesan tobourgeois matron in the blink of an eye. Bates carries this quickswitch act off several times in the movie, and it's a pleasure to watchher skill at these rapid changes. The sets and costumes of Mme. Peloux,heavy 2nd Empire furnishings, stiff wired dressed with bustles, arebeautifully contrasted with Lea's lighter look—slender, graceful,light. The clothes each character wears, and the styles of theirrespective homes, gives some subtext to the story. Mme. Peloux, a bitolder than Lea, had her taste formed in an era of overdone stuffypretentiousness, while Lea, a bit younger, has embraced the airy beautyof Art Nouveau. The stultifying life of aging and former courtesans iswell-depicted—unwelcome in respectable society they have to fall backon each other's company. Former competitors, they still can't helpsniping at one another. Lea, as one of the youngest of the group, moveslike a sylph among the faded charms of her cohort. One amazing scene:Among a bower of faded courtesans, one of them, a busty brassyred-head, cuddles and squeals like a teenager as she introduces herlover, 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, theviewer can see Lea's discomfort—seeing the loud red-head and her boylover seems like seeing a grotesque mockery of herself and Cheri.Cheri, the title character, is played by Rupert Friend (Prince Albertin "The Young Victoria," and Mr. Wickham in the 2005 version of "Prideand Prejudice"). He's a young man who has only two responsibilities:marry, and manage the large amount of money his mother settles on himat his marriage. He's a young man without purpose, but finds love withLea. What starts as a light-hearted affair turns into a relationshipboth Cheri and Lea need more than they realized. Lea and Cheri's affairends—as does the wonderful era depicted in this gorgeous movie. The warends Lea and Cheri's world. The 20th century starts with bleakness andhardness after the golden afternoon of La Belle Époque. We are indebtedto Collette and Stephen Frears for showing us the loveliness, and eventhe artful decadence, of that time, and we are indebted to the talentedcast for giving life to the "demi-monde" ("half-world") of that era.

home-133 2012-04-24 17:29:57

Ravishing to look at, touching and romantic

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 alwaysseems 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 whomrecognise 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-Jonespainting. Christopher Hampton's screenplay is witty and seductive. Thefilm score sets the tale off perfectly.