I didn’t like this movie. Bye.
Kidding. Well, only about the second part. I really didn’t like this movie.
I like period pieces and romantic/sexy stories. I love Michelle Pfeiffer. Director Stephen Fears made Dangerous Liaisons in 1988, starring John Malkovich Glenn Close and Michelle, a movie I adored. So I was expecting something spectacular from Stephen again. Well, the magic is just isn’t here. Of course that cast included the-ever-amazing John Malkovich. Here, we have Rupert Friend. I had previously seen him in Pride and Prejudice in a small role and he had done alright. Now, even “alright” would be overstatement.
The story:
Michelle plays Lea- a glorified prostitute who is near her retirement age. I am saying glorified, because we are talking about times where some prostitutes had power, money and more style and grace than any other woman in society. She is the godmother of Chéri and this young man has started to concern his mother Madame Peloux (Kathy Bates), an ex-prostitute herself. Chéri’s life consists of sex and booze and she’d rather have him mature under the wings of her old friend Lea. But this maturing period lasts longer than they all expected. After 6 years, they are still together. But according to Madame, it is time for his son to get married. She finds the girl and makes all the arrangements. Chéri still would like to have an affair, but Lea doesn’t want to be him after he is married. So they break up, which sends both lovers to different types of depression. They try to get on with their lives, but 6 years of passion and love are not easily forgotten…
Not a story we aren’t used to but hey, it will do. The costumes are fine and Michelle Pfeiffer is still very pretty. But the movie doesn’t work. I easily got tired of Kathy Bates’ over the top character. I was annoyed by almost everything about Rupert Friend’s Chéri. I failed to see what might have been so appealing about him. He has a pretty face I guess, in a weird way but I half-expected him to announce he was actually gay throughout the movie. He walks, talks and acts funny. He has this weird fascination of pearls and if a guy isn’t gay, his wanting to borrow pink pearls can’t be endearing. I failed to recognize the slightest level of testosterone from him. His personality? There was nothing good or charming. So how am I supposed to believe a “love” story when the guy has nothing to offer? Youth can not be the answer, she has seen many of young men before. I guess we can explain that as shit happens. But surely, a girl finding Chéri as annoying, spoilt and gay is not a good sign?
And the ending is disappointing too. I am not saying it is happy or sad. I didn’t really care either way but it was just a pointless ending to a pointless story.
I watched it because as I said: 1) Michelle Pfeiffer
2) Stephen Frears
Don’t watch it unless you love period pieces no matter what the story and find Rupert Friend cute.
Also with Michelle Pfeiffer:
P.S. I love you – plays Gerard Butler’s mother-in-law
White Palace – plays James Spader’s boss
Thanks Zoey, How can you have a romantic movie that works if the guy has little to no sex appeal? I like Michelle and Kathy Bates, but this definitely sounds like one to put on the skip list.
Exactly. You know, the guy doesn’t even have to be your type for the appeal. For instance, I don’t normally find Edward Norton attractive at all, but I am absolutely in love with his face and characters in The Illusionist and The Painted Veil. I have always thought he was a brilliant actor but he can be passionate and handsome too when he wants.