Bel Ami

Good movie!

.

Good movie!

Good movie!

Good movie!

I am a huge fan of period movies. I've probably seen the vast majority of them. I have to say I was looking forward to seeing Bel Ami. Not because of Robert Pattinson (not really one of his fans, but glad to see he's trying to break out of the vampire role). But rather, I love Uma, Christina and Kristin. And thankfully they were in this movie, because if they weren't it would have been a total dud. Honestly, Pattinson was OK, but the women really carried the film. As for the story line, that's one of the reasons I gave it a 5 out of 10. There were several times during the movie where I was like "huh? what just happened??" and had to back up the movie and watch a part over again. Maybe the book was better written, I don't know, I didn't read it. But with these kinds of adaptations, you shouldn't have to read the book in order to know what just happened in the movie. I'll end this here, since I really don't want to give any more minutes of my life to this movie. And neither should you.

Warning, this review might contain a spoiler alert. This movie portrays a heartless, brutal, selfish gold-digger male whose only method of survival is to leech off of married women by seducing and screwing them. This guy has no talent, no marketable skills, not much intelligence and no charm. He does have a particular skill to deceive women and to portray himself as something he's not. As his wife Madeleine admits, "I was a fool for not seeing the depth of your emptiness". This guy is completely empty. He has nothing to offer to anyone. He takes, takes, takes, but never gives back. I wish the movie ended with one of the women teaching this guy a lesson that no, it's not OK to use women like objects, and once you're done leeching dispose of them like garbage.

Twihards insists that critics are unreasonably harsh on the virtues of Robert Pattinson, but notice that they don't rally enough enthusiasm to actually see any of his non-Twilight flicks such, I suspect this is because they realize that there youthful infatuation does not out way the fact that pictures such as Remember Me are not any good, and possibly they also understand that Pattinson himself is no better than the material. In Bel Ami, he is actually given very good material, based on Guy de Maupassant's 1895 novel, but he is merely only the weakest link in speciously poorly made movie. Pattinson plays Georges Duroy, a literary rogue, a skillfully charming social climber, or as de Maupassant himself subtitled his book, "the history of a scoundrel." Here he is transformed by Pattinson into a thoroughly unlikable reprobate, who's unreasonably smug and arrogant, a womanizer and a manipulator, it would be a stretch to call this guy an anti-hero. Pattinson lacks the necessary charisma to pull off such a role, think of Johnny Depp in The Libertine a few years back, he seems ill-at ease here, as if he understands that the material is staggeringly out of his depth. A capable supporting cast comes across mostly badly for one reason or another. Uma Thurman is primed and proper, but has to wobble her way through some horrendous dialogue. Kristen Scott Thomas plays frigid better than any other actress I know, oddly enough, a British actress, she has been a lot more warm and human in some recent French language films. Here she has little to do, but does successfully manage to exert great empathy for her repressive and shrewish character, but she also manages to remain unmoving and their for dull. Colm Meaney and Philip Glenister, two good actors, play the other men in Pattinson's vehicle, this may explain why they fail to get any dynamic scenes or many scenes for that matter away from the dull lead. Only Christina Ricci adds any spark in a spirited supporting turn, but her role is only one dimensional, she comes across more like someone's pet than as a fully developed human being. The proceedings unfold so monotonously, that at one point Pattinson utters the line "this is so boring this endless to and fro." You don't get any more surreal than when movie characters start uttering your own inner thoughts. Everything fails to liven the surroundings, the sex is passionless, the character's motivations either unpleasantly despicable or maidenly vague. No wonder Pattinson is famous for playing a vampire, he is perhaps the most bloodless actor I have seen in ages, these days he's outclassed by Daniel Radcliffe. Adapted by Rachel Bennette and directed by Declan Donnellan and Nick Ormerod, first time directors, who like most virgins know the basic moves, but lack the skills to be fully satisfying. Set in and around Paris at the end of the 19th century, the details look good, though pretentiously photographed by Stefano Falivene, it is filled with what one character calls "astonishing depths of emptiness." Pattinson has recently formed a partnership with legendary cult director David Cronenberg, they have a finished film title that I greatly anticipate titled Cosmopolis set for US release in August, after that they have another film in development. Maybe Cronenberg sees something in Pattinson that has been missing up until now on screen, but will fans ever warm to the actor outside of his popular franchise, I don't have the answer, but one thing that is for sure, it wont start with Bel Ami, a beggar's version of Dangerously Liaisons.

I have to agree with some of the other reviews I have read on this site. I hate to take anything away from the actors in this movie. I think they did a fine job, however the storyline was not good. The characters did not develop well through out the movie, and the relationships were forced on you as a viewer. As much as I love to see Robert Pattinson without any close on, the sex scene in the beginning of the movie was so unnecessary, and really didn't do anything for the story. It was like they added it to get views not to help develop the story. All in all I was really disappointed with this movie, again not from the acting but from the direction and edit teams.

I just saw this film and found it to be well acted by all the principles, beautifully photographed and costumed with a lovely score.I feel that Robert Pattinson, rather than being wooden , showed a great deal of range( remember, this movie was made two years ago, too, and he's progressed from there). All the female leads were fine. My only criticism of them was that it was hard to pick up some of their dialog.My only real complaint was with the screenplay. It jumped around a lot and left some important plot lines hanging. The whole relationship with Susanne was covered in a few short scenes. I'd read the book and knew what was happening, but the bit where he takes her to the Inn as they're eloping was too hurried. Still, I enjoyed it and would recommend it to others.