Chéri (2009) User Reviews

Sanitized Colette

[gradyharp · 7/10 · 25 October 2009]

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

refined and melancholic

[yris2002 · 7/10 · 11 September 2009]

"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.

Pfeiffer's Friend

[carlostallman · 6/10 · 27 June 2009]

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.

Belle Epoque

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 4 October 2010]

The years preceding the first world war in Paris were characterized by a style of living never equaled again in any other period of time. It was a time of living lavishly in a society where money mattered more than anything. The newly rich, as well as the royalty, loved playing in what became the place where they went to party and see one another, Maxim's.

Lea De Lonval was a high class act. She was highly sought by men searching for an adventure, outside their marriage. As the story begins, Lea goes to pay a visit to an old friend, Madame Peloux, a former courtesan, now living in splendor from the fortune she made out of her good fortune while playing the field. Lea is pleasantly surprised to find Cheri, the son of her friend, whom she had not seen in a while.

Cheri is instantly smitten by the gorgeous creature he used to know as Nounou. Lean, in turn, feels suddenly alive with the attentions the young man is paying to her. What Lea started as an innocent affair turned into a relationship of six years. Madame Peloux, wanting to have Cheri settled, arranges a marriage with the young daughter of Marie Laure, another woman in their circle who is eager to marry the girl.

Lea is not prepared for what happens to her after Cheri goes away, for she had fallen in love at this stage of her life. Trying to forget the young man, she goes to Biarritz in search of adventure, but it is too late for her. She cannot forget the man that brought a new lease to her life. Cheri, on the other hand, is still obsessed with Lea, but during their last meeting she points out to the fact she has aged and he will be better off trying to make a go with his own wife, an unselfish deed on her part.

Stephen Frears directed the Colette novel about that golden era in Paris. The adaptation was by Christopher Hampton, a distinguished playwright himself. The production offers a glimpse on that society, focusing on one woman who falls in love against her better judgment and must pay for the pleasure she got. One would have imagined this take on Colette's work could not have a great impact if not done by the French, but Mr. Frears and Mr. Hampton pulled a surprise with this enjoyable film.

Michelle Pfeiffer makes a wonderful Lea. She has been one of the most beautiful presence in the movies ever since her beginning. Now, approaching fifty, her looks have not diminished as she glows with a different light. Obviously, she understood the tragedy for the woman she is playing where looks mattered more than anything, and aging was indeed a tragedy. Rupert Friend makes a dashing Cherie. Kathy Bates has some fun playing Madame Peloux, the aging former courtesan. Felicity Jones is seen as Edmee.

Cinematographer Darius Khondij captures the atmosphere required of the period where the action is set in vivid colors. The tuneful musical score by Alexandre Desplat adds texture to the film. Stephen Frears got an excellent work out of his cast and crew.

Sweet Cheri.

[isabelle1955 · 1 July 2009]

There are several very good reasons to see Cheri, directed by Stephen Frears and written by Christopher Hampton from the novel by Colette. It's a beautifully made costume drama, shot in some wonderful locations. It's well scripted (although it does wander off track and get a little rambling in the middle)and it's moderately entertaining, although probably only for a limited audience. But the best reason of all is to see some really interesting performances from an array of predominantly female actors.

Michelle Pfeiffer makes a very welcome and long overdue return to center stage, as Lea de Lonval, a Belle Epoch (ie turn of the 20th century) courtesan in Paris. Lea is ready to retire from her profession, the business of sex, and takes up with the son of a fellow courtesan, the beautiful, languid Cheri (meaning Darling), not for money this time but for love. Pfeiffer is radiant in the part, and watching her is a sheer pleasure.

Cheri is played by Rupert Friend, who keeps popping up on my radar as one of the more interesting and talented of the young male actors around. He seems to be taking his career slowly but carefully, picking some interesting roles. I first spotted him in Pride and Prejudice, as wicked Mr Wickham, after which he was excellent in Mrs Palfrey at the Claremont, opposite Joan Plowright. I thought at that time how much like Orlando Bloom he looks, but luckily he is a far better actor, and will, I think, ultimately have a longer shelf life.

Also fabulous is Kathy Bates as Cheri's mother. It is her plan to marry him off to Edmee, the young daughter of a fellow courtesan, taking him away from his true love Lea (his senior by many years) that sets the scene 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 and rather incestuous circle. Bates' Madam Peloux needs to marry Cheri off but has limited options. Edmee, the daughter of another old rival, is available. Both are an only child set to inherit large sums of money. Business takes precedence, marriage is a joining of fortunes and love means nothing, leaving everyone unhappy, Edmee, Cheri and Lea.

Perhaps almost as interesting - or even more so – than this movie's story, is the story of Colette herself. The novelist lived from 1873 to 1954, married three times, had many lovers of both genders including her stepson, played the music halls, wrote an opera with Ravel, ran a hospital during WW1 and helped her Jewish friends survive during WW2. She wrote some fifty novels including Gigi, (made into a play and an award winning musical), and is often referred to as one of France's greatest 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, and how rarely we get to see that on screen. Time and time again, we see quite ridiculous age gaps between male stars and much, much younger women. Here, Pfeiffer and Friend make the opposite work perfectly. I appreciate that costume drama has a fairly limited audience, and this movie is certainly not perfect, but personally - I loved it!!

An atmospheric love story in pre first world war France

[pedrothefish · 7/10 · 20 April 2009]

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

The mom-bomb of Belle Epoque

[fablesofthereconstru-1 · 6/10 · 14 July 2009]

During their idle moments or romantic longing, the filmmaker employs the flashback to show how both Cheri(Rupert Friend) and Lea(Michelle Pfeiffer) 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/rival of his mother, Cheri knew the prostitute as "Nunu" before she became his lover. Relegated to the backstory, by omitting any dramatization of their former roles as adult and child, "Cheri" is complicit in its endorsement of this relationship, although the nickname the boy coined for Lea does at least acknowledge the momentous threshold that the old associates embarked on when their relationship turned from maternal to physical. An arranged marriage orchestrated by Cheri's mother(and Lea's one-time rival) Mme. Peloux(Kathy Bates), however, ends their six-year run, and on the boy's wedding day, the diegesis becomes a remembering one, as each lover conjures up the other at their most beautiful. Even in the world of courtesans, as in so-called polite society, Oedipal relationships are thwarted by too many factors that love simply can't overcome. But since the film makes judicious use of the flashback, the audience identifies with this impossible love. This adaptation of Colette's two semi-autobiographical novels "Cheri"(1920), and "Le fin de Cheri"(1926) sutures itself(Lea's flashbacks are always of Cheri as a man, not a boy), but the sutures aren't so foolproof that the love affair isn't up for a little critical scrutinization. The next time that Lea reminisces about Cheri, her idyllic abstraction of romance becomes flawed by a preceding flashback of another cross-generational couple whom she had met in Mme. Peloux's orchard. Described by her friend/rival as "the happy couple", Lea is confronted by a grotesque mirror of her own relationship with Cheri. The happy couple's disparate gap in age borders on sexual perversity, and projects a version of the original relationship that Lea had with Cheri during the boy's formative years. This mother/son dynamic, made discreet by Lea's ability to project a facade of timelessness, forces the well-maintained courtesan to reflect that her sex bomb years are finite and fast-approaching its expiration date. In her two-fold flashback, Cheri's bedroom eyes are staring back at not just his significant other, but a mother figure as well, to her dismay.

A wife in name only, Edmee(Felicity Jones) understands Cheri, the child of a whore, as she is one too, when the young girl concurs with his observance of retrospective hindsight that they were orphaned by their respective matriarchal libertines. With this admission, "Cheri" overstates its impetus for the self-described foundling's attraction towards Lea. But stripping Mme. Peloux's familial title so formally serves the specific function of recasting her in non-Oedipal terms. Since the complex that Sigmund Freud developed can't work without triangulation; can't work without the presence of a father(who could be any number of his mother's johns) to signify the mother he wants to f***. Dictated by heterogeneous rules that a subculture entails, Mme. Peloux acts against the nature of a parent when she hands over her son to a woman of motherly proportions who can't be trusted to act in a platonic capacity. She does son, in a vicarious sense where Lea can actualize all the physical fantasies that Peloux may harbor, but resist pursuing, due to the technicality of blood. Neither mother(in her son's estimation), nor lover, she has no tangible role in Cheri's life. The felicitous manner in which she dispenses information about the newlyweds' conjugality(she tauntingly remarks to Lea on the weather in Italy, site of her lover's honeymoon) seems derived from envy. Although the union was financially motivated, it doesn't seem to be the basis of Mme. Peloux's campaign to humiliate Lea, since no stern admonition against threatening the compounded wealth between the children of whores are never made. After six years of vicarious satiation by Lea's sexual exploits with her son, through the vehicle of disparaging rhetoric, she reminds the courtesan that she's aging and turns her son's lover back into a mother. Cheri knows it too. While Lea makes travel arrangements over the phone, the young man observes her through a crack in the door. Unaware of being monitored, the audience supplies their own flashback through Cheri's eyes, recalling scenes in which the boy saw her Lea's colleagues in restaurants and opium dens. They looked old.

Very, very disappointing

[john-575 · 3/10 · 19 July 2009]

The Classic Cinema in Elsternwick (Melbourne) Australia go to a certain amount of trouble with movie previews. So yesterday with Cheri we had a violinist playing in the cinema before the preview session, a complimentary afternoon tea.. normally a box of cakes and goodies (but only a single one yesterday), a range of teas in yesterday's case (no coffee). In the past a glass of champagne has been offered and sometimes 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 pros

CONS The relationship between Michelle Pfeiffers character and Rupert Friends character is I am sorry to say more like Aunty and nephew. There's a passion missing here. Are they out lunching or enjoying other pleasures? 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 she or her character are not warm enough or sensual enough. In fact the lady I sat next to a cinema had more ooh la la. And she was a paying customer like us! And on the plus side of 60. Rupert Friend as someone here alluded to was too Olivia Bloom like, foppish almost gay if you like. 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 of old veteran cars (only 3 in the whole show... perhaps the vehicle budget was limited.. surely there must be more veteran cars in France). The Edwardian style fashions I love but for these give me the Great Race 1965 style. Sadly there was no Mademsoielle Dubois here (Natalie Wood) 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 and romance on any level. In many ways the film was shot like a play. A few different sets mainly indoors but little of interest outdoors. Very tightly framed shots of gravel driveways in stately old homes... full stop.

Regarding the other courtesans with the exception of Cheri's wifes mother these were not a very stunning lot. Kathy Bates as a courtesan? Surely no man would pay serious money for her pleasures unless the supply of other courtesans was very short. Clearly these 19th century, 20th century gentlemen were either too free with their money or not fussy enough?

Perhaps Stephen Frears should have stayed on his side of the English Channel. Mrs Henderson presents was quite enjoyable... it did have Judi Dench, Bob Hoskins and the lovely Kelly Reilly.

Cheri should clearly have been left to the French, done with French actors and actresses in French with English sub-titles. What we have here sadly is about as French as McDonalds and must surely be a lost opportunity. Very disappointing.

A beautiful slice of La Belle Epoque

[FrameXFrame · 8/10 · 9 May 2010]

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.

riches do not bring happiness

[georgioskarpouzas · 7/10 · 13 February 2011]

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.

Do not cherish Cheri

[bwanabrad-1 · 5/10 · 31 December 2012]

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 so badly rated?

[anonanon22 · 9/10 · 18 March 2010]

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.

Lost in Translation.

[davidtraversa-1 · 6/10 · 16 December 2011]

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.

Insipid, mediocre and unbelievable

[rch427 · 3/10 · 16 June 2010]

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.

Pfeiffer Dazzles The Screen And Carries The Film

[Chrysanthepop · 21 February 2011]

Stephen Frears and Michelle Pfeiffer reunite to create an intense period piece called 'Cheri'. Frears's presentation of the courtesan culture in the 1800s is interesting and the captivating visuals, elegant sets and costumes grab the viewer's attention. It's a visual treat to watch thanks to the first rate art direction and cinematography. Frears's attention to detail is remarkable as he subtly demonstrates the contrast between the culture and class of the characters. The focus of 'Cheri' is the relationship between Cheri (Rupert Friend) and Lea (Michelle Pfeiffer). Lea is decades older and a former rival courtesan of Cheri's mother (Kathy Bates). Cheri and Lea fall in love but because of society's norm, their relationship must remain a secret. I liked that Pfeiffer's Lea wasn't a vamp seductress and that she genuinely wants Cheri to do right by his wife except during moments of weakness. Michelle Pfeiffer is spellbinding as she owns the part. I couldn't imagine anyone else do a better Lea. Kathy Bates is just as good as Madame Peloux and Rupert Friend is competent in the title role. Frears has created another winner. 'Cheri' could have easily been a melodramatic soap opera type movie but Frears keeps it subtle and smooth. It might not be everyone's kind of film but it's stunning to look at and captivating.

Withering realism masked by sparkling wit

[louisahc · 7/10 · 26 July 2009]

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.

I'm probably making a fool of myself... but then again, why not? Life is short!

[lastliberal · 7/10 · 28 October 2009]

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.

an above-average adaptation neither sully nor elevate its urtext's cachet and essence

[lasttimeisaw · 7/10 · 6 April 2019]

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.

All Glamour, No Drama

[sjb_can · 3/10 · 15 November 2009]

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.

Ravishing to look at, touching and romantic

[home-133 · 10/10 · 23 May 2009]

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.

There were emos at the beginning of the century, too

[siderite · 6/10 · 13 September 2009]

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.

Lacks passion and character development.

[thenaomiest · 2/10 · 24 July 2009]

For me this movie was underwhelming. Cheri as a character was vacant, and I struggled to believe there was anything in him that would attract Lea to him. He wasn't that attractive, or intriguing. He never SAYS anything, as Lea mentioned herself. And there was no real explanation of why they got together in the first place - even though it seemed set up 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 and easily detached himself and married some other girl. A marriage which he 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.

Grand Style With Great Stars

[MGMboy · 10/10 · 21 July 2009]

A rapture of visual, audio and cinematic emotional brilliance all tied with a killer last line. What a wonder is set before the viewer when one enters the world of "Cheri". The visual richness of this parfait of the Belle Epoch is breathtaking from the rich creamy art neuveau architecture to the gloriously realized costumes of the early 20th century. What they only indicated in "Titanic" of the same period costumes. Explodes in luxury and in a sense informs the eye to the scene at hand and seems less costume than authentic clothing. As Cinema "Cheri" succeeds as more than an adaptation of a Collette novel but becomes a world unto it's own. Here we are presented with some of our finest female performers at the top of their game. In short I am speaking of Michelle Pfeiffer and Kathy Bates. As former courtesan rivals who are now aging friends they come together to define the last part of their lives and the beginning of Bates' son's life in a remarkable way. Kathy Bates goes deep into the complexities of her mix of 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 anything alike. But Miss Bates takes this role to a superior level while all the while not letting you see her do her magic. She is just THERE! The scene where her face decays from a radioactively sunny laugh to reveal her true deepest disgust her spoiled soul is priceless. Then there is Michelle Pfeiffer as Lea de Lonval, at fifty one she may be older that the literary Lea but she has never been more luminous or nearly goddess like. To look at her is to look upon a woman of a certain age that is ageless in her embrace of times changing hands upon her face. But there is more. This may be the pinnacle of her career, the role of her lifetime. She is Lea in so many levels both within her acting and in a sense as an actress. She is stunning and brings forth the soul of a great character as only our finest actors can. But all of this would seem a delightful trifle, a light story of an aging courtesan and her young lover if it were not for the narration that gives the film added depth and gravitas. I asked a friend today what he thought of the final outcome of the story. Of what the narrator reveals of what became of Cheri. He tossed it off lightly and said that it seemed an after thought. He could not have been more wrong. He missed the whole point of the film. The last lines of the film that tell us of the ultimate fate of Lea and Cheri are what give this film an emotional strength, irony, and ultimately heart wrenching tragedy. It is the final twist set into a stunning jewel of a film that is as captivating and spellbinding as Lea's mysterious emerald ring.

Cheri

[henry8-3 · 7/10 · 4 August 2022]

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.

Not at all impressed

[HM-3 · 1/10 · 12 August 2009]

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.