Is this rated so low cause RP is in it?

I rated it two because I found it rather boring and pointless. It was glossy and slick but hollow underneath. I have no feelings one way or the other about Pattinson.

In case you haven't watched it yet, don't. It's not Pattinson, per se. It's the script and the pacing.

I have a feeling that the directors (with a lot of theater experience), didn't really think they were making a MOVIE.

btw, Pattinson actually puts in a good enough performance toward the last half of the movie...

---
Fear not for the future; weep not for the past -- Percy Bysshe Shelley
---

I liked movie, the pace and the story a lot.
I'm not sure why people did not like it, maybe they have expected a story of a seducer that will make a heart flutter, but in my opinion, this was not meant to be the case.
I'm a huge fan of period movies and I can honestly say that it's better than its rating.
My partner has enjoyed the movie as well. He does not like Robert, or boring movies, obviously, and I was pleasantly surprised that he liked it as much as he did. He knew nothing about the movie, did not read the book, and did not even recognize Pattinson, so he had no reservations about the movie of any kind.
I have seen the movie for Rob,and was aware of poor ratings, but I was pleasantly surprised, I liked it a lot, and I'm talking as a period movies fan now.
If you liked the book, enjoy Maupassant and writers like Balzac, I think you should see the movie and decide for yourself.