In response to the post title... "no, No, and NO"
I like the idea of the Atlas I5 (and I'm guessing that's what spurred the interest of the OP; no problem there.) But the styling... it's so bad, it hurts my eyes to look at it.
First off... the only design elements they noticeably captured from the Bel Air are:
Column Mount shifter (meh, but, ok)
The cluster & twin dash pods (which look out of place, with the rest of the controls, esp. the center stack)
The horn bar in the steering wheel (which gets its own separate mention for its being out of place, here; way too moderistic, and the buttons / labels are garish)
The front bench seat (60-40 split, upholstery is a bit reminiscent)
The big-ass transmission hump (likely exaggerated, vs. what was required)
The 'accordion' style wiper arms (my name; not sure what they're called); these can be seen from the shot from above / behind the front seats
Since I don't see a fuel filler door on either rear quarter, I'll guess that they incorporated the same hidden version in the D/S tail light (since it's not mentioned in the article). What makes that even worse is that there's no hint of a fin.
The side mirrors (and, here, safety / functionality was sacrificed for design; too small)
The quarter vent windows (which stop short of the top of the windshield.)
Now let's turn our gaze to the styling, which looks like it was done by the usual GM committee...
Front lip - from a same-era Malibu. Not even a hint of a badge where the old 'jet-style' hood ornament was on the original. Fail.
Front fenders - I can't recall whether the 'shark gills' were part of the original (they remind me of 1st-gen F-body, TBH). And I'm too lazy to go look it up right now, so...
Windshield / cowl area: The shape, trim, and quarter vent suggest the Saturn / Pontiac roadster twins. We're not shown the roofline, so assuming that it's a softtop convertible, that would also attach to the windshield like the Saturn / Pontiac did (which was probably one of the worst design elements of those two cars). If you look from the rear quarter toward the front (3/4 view), you catch the curvature of the windshield, which is a nod to the original. But that's the only angle you notice it from -- so you notice the windshield cue, from the *back* of the car. SMFH, there.
The original did not have a retracting cover for the top, a la similar era Ford full-size verts, nor did it have a 'parade boot', that I recall. Another cue, missed. This looks similar to the Cadillac Allante of the era.
Body sides / character line -- I do not see one element here, reminiscent of the original. In fact, it's the *opposite* - the original had a line that flared upward to become the finned tail; this main line on this one, curves downward. There's a secondary line after the rear of the door that reminds me (again) of 1st-gen F-body. Actually, as I look at it more closely, I do see the reminder of the original. But my 1st and 2nd impression is of a 67-69 Camaro convertible. When I have to look that hard to see the element... that's a fail.
The flared wheel housings didn't exist on the original, either. They do fit the 18" wheels fairly well, in that you don't see the GM-tradition 4"-6" space between top of tire & top of wheel opening. So I'll give them one point there... LOL.
Tail / deck: Reminiscent of Caddy (Allante, again?). The tails are *very* vaguely reminiscent of the originals, but those were radiused on both the inside / outside edges. Here, they're cut off flush with the deck lid. Since this is one of the easiest areas to pull a design cue from... fail, again.
Finally, the rear suspension is a Hotchkiss setup. Yes, that was on the original. BUT - you can't *see* it, and the ride comfort is ass, compared to a coil setup. Other than the full-size pickups, what GM vehicle in this timeframe (late 90's / early '00s) used leaf springs?
In closing... I'm
glad they never built this car, at least the way it looks here.
www.lefthandutes.com
