A lot of talent went into the making of this movie. The director, Stephen Frears', previous feature film was the remarkable "The Queen". Christopher Hampton, the scriptwriter, had also written the script for the almost equally remarkable "Atonement". Kathy Bates and Michelle Pfeiffer have both created memorable portrayals in a variety of films. Yet, despite all that talent, "Cheri" is a wonderful argument for silent movies: it's often very beautiful to look at, fascinating costumes and sets from a beautiful era for sets and costumes. But when you turn up the sound and hear the dialogue, you wince. It sounds like Masterpiece Theater at its very, very worst: stilted and very artificial - which is not how Colette reads, at all.And then there is the actor who plays Chéri. Seldom have I seen an individual who looked less appealing, less interesting than this character, who comes off as a very, very bad knockoff of Johnny Depp in something like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.I could go on listing the many failings of the script, but why bother? It's only 90 minutes long, yet few will find reason to sit even that long to watch it.If you want good period drama for that period, get a good Merchant Ivory movie. Some of them even have Pfeiffer and Bates.

"Cheri," based on the novels by French author Colette, is not a film targeted at men in their early twenties, nor is it the type of film I would have autonomously sought out, however the power of a free screening will dispel just about any of my cobwebbed genre prejudices, at least so far as putting me in a seat. "Cheri," unfortunately, is neither a particularly compelling love story nor a particularly convincing period piece. Stephen Frears, who helmed 2006's Oscar-baiting "Queen," but is perhaps best known for heady romcom "High Fidelity," directs, and though the most glaring issues with the film are issues with the screenplay as an adaptation, Frears' direction doesn'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 an intergenerational relationship between a moody teenager (Rupert Friend) and a retired lady of the evening (Michelle Pfeiffer), "Cheri" risks offending exactly no one. The film is apparently R-rated, which is puzzling, as the scenes of sensuality barely border on the suggestive, and I completely fail to recall the "brief drug use" outlined by the MPAA. It's a sallow, forgettable piece of film-making that owes its only redeeming qualities to earlier, edgier artists. "Harold and Maude," for example, sort of broke the age barrier for romance films back in '71, and the cinematic landscape is peppered with more interesting depictions of prostitutes."Cheri" also lacks a consistent, elegant art direction, usually a staple in even mediocre period pieces. Production designer Alan MacDonald's costumes are gaudy and caricatural, though perhaps impressive if only for their sheer audacity. If widest sunhat diameter or most phosphorescent gown are new categories at this year's academy awards, "Cheri" has them in the bag. Macdonald's set design also under-impresses, rarely providing more than a stodgy veneer of the early nineteenth century, a chasm between the source material that's only widened by the wincingly mawkish dialogue. Christopher Hampton's screenplay paints Lea and her eponymous partner Cheri as cardboard lovers, and Pfeiffer and Friend's sexual chemistry is almost non-existent.The rest of the performances are passable, though the inauthentic dialogue is a constant stumbling block, even for the usually-stellar Kathy Bates, who seems oddly defanged and miscast in her supporting role as Cheri's manipulative mother. The characters are veiled in a layer of faux-elegance, feeling more often like uniformed impressions of turn-of-the- century women than the genuine article. The suspension of 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 itself is adequate, but has no strong reason for existence. Colette's novels ("Cheri" and "The Last of Cheri"), which were combined for the film version, saw publication in France in 1920 and 1926 respectively, assumedly to a more scandalized audience then today's, which were so recently witness to the spectacle of Sacha Baron Cohen's "Bruno.""Cheri" is too reserved a film to justify recommendation. It brings nothing new to the film-making landscape in either content or craft, and though the score by Alexandre Desplat is impressive, probably the picture's highlight, it seems to have wandered into "Cheri" from some more interesting film, upbeat and suspenseful while the plot is languid and sedentary.I don't think I'm letting my prejudice get the better of me in the case of "Cheri." Romance fan or no, there isn't a clear reason why Frears' latest is worth seeking out, even for free.

There is something about Michelle Pfeiffer. She just has an indelible star quality that makes her seem born to be an actress. Even more specifically, she seems to have been born to play a character like Lea de Lonval…not because Lea is a glorified prostitute, but because she is a vivacious, vibrant woman who commands the attention of everyone she meets. Likewise, Pfeiffer commands our attention in "Chéri", a delightfully dishy romantic drama that is as entertaining as freshly-shared gossip and as tragic as a tearjerker. Pfeiffer exudes female sexuality as Lea, a courtesan who has amassed great wealth and a small set of friends over her illustrious career. One of her friends is a fellow courtesan, Madame Peloux (Kathy Bates), who is loud, comical, and concerned about the affairs of her handsome son, Chéri (Rupert Friend), who is not innocent, but rather untrained. And thus begins Lea's assigned mission: refine Chéri and return him as a suitable gentleman.Their affair begins as expected, but continues quite unexpectedly, with them falling in love and devoting years to each other. Lea is twenty-four years older than him and, though a sexual relationship is allowed and even encouraged by his mother, anything beyond that is strictly forbidden by society. Slightly reminiscent of William Shakespeare's pair of star-crossed lovers, Lea and Chéri know that they can never be together, but their love is impossible to restrain. That is until Madame Peloux arranges a marriage between Chéri and a pleasant enough young woman, thus sealing the end of any chance, however slim, they ever had of creating a life together. Lea realizes the searing loss that this arrangement brings immediately, but it takes Chéri, often too blinded by his own childish self-serving nature, much longer to realize…and, in a world populated by such people as these, even a little too long can often be just long enough.Please read my full review on my blog: www.whathappensincinema.blogspot.com

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.