adonis98-743-186503
A chronicle of a young man's rise to power in Paris via his manipulation of the city's wealthiest and most influential women. Bel Ami is for sure not the greatest film i've ever seen but i was surprised by the whole movie the performances were pretty good by Pattinson, Uma Thurman, Kristin Scott Thomas and Christina Ricci everyone did a great job and i liked the whole plot with Georges being basically a horrible person and using all those women just to get their money and i get it why he used the 2 of them but Ricci actually loved the guy and he treated her the same. Now do i think that this film deserves the ratings it gets? No but i don't blame the reviewers to be honest with you.
James Hitchcock
"Bel Ami", set in the Paris of the 1880s, is centred upon a young man named Georges Duroy, the "bel ami", or "handsome friend", of the title. When we first meet him, Duroy is a former soldier, now employed as a badly-paid office clerk. A chance meeting with an old army comrade leads to an offer of job as a journalist on an influential newspaper and an entry into Parisian high society. Duroy now schemes to improve his social and financial status, a process which generally involves seducing as many society ladies, often the wives of his friends, as possible. I was surprised to note that the budget for the film was as low as €9 million, around £7 million and absolute peanuts by Hollywood standards. Certainly, it does not quite have the rich look of many "heritage cinema" productions, but it captures the look of late nineteenth century Paris quite adequately, and I do not think that the small budget was the reason why the film does not come off. The real reasons go deeper. The main one is the miscasting of Robert Pattinson in the main role. I know that, following his success in the "Twilight" series, Pattinson is regarded as something of a heartthrob, but he does not show much evidence of it here. He comes across as completely inert and lacking in the sexual charisma which one would expect such a successful Lothario to possess. To be fair to Pattinson, however, he does not get a lot of help from the script, which makes Duroy seem mean-spirited and cynical. It is hard to like a film with such a blackguard for its main character. Of the other actors the best is probably Christina Ricci as Clotilde de Marelle. Clotilde is a young, unhappily married woman who makes the fatal mistake of falling in love with Duroy, who can never be faithful to her because he is, of course, passionately in love with himself. I have admired Kristin Scott Thomas in some of her earlier films but here, as Virginie Rousset, another of Duroy's conquests, she seemed too old for the part. Adaptations of nineteenth and early twentieth century novels, a genre which has become known as "heritage cinema", have played an important role in the cinema over the last few decades, particularly in Britain and France but also in other countries. The style has become particularly associated with the work of Merchant-Ivory, but there have been many other important works in the genre such as Schlesinger's "Far from the Madding Crowd", Losey's "The Go-Between", Scorsese's "The Age of Innocence" and Terence Davies's "The House of Mirth". Not all films made in this style, however, are of the same quality; at its worst heritage cinema can be beautiful but static and lifeless; Charles Sturridge's "Where Angels Fear to Tread", a piece of fake Ivory, being a case in point. With a plot that does not flow easily, an implausible storyline and a hero who comes across as completely charmless, even though he is supposed to use his charm as a weapon, "Bel Ami" is another example of heritage cinema at its worst. I have never read the novel by Guy de Maupassant, so cannot pass judgement on its merits as a work of literature, but I'm afraid to say that this adaptation did not exactly fill me with an immediate desire to rush out and buy a copy. 4/10
shrinkucci
Bel Ami is an intriguing film. To me, its most interesting aspect is the Uma Thurman character's need to express herself and her frustration at being blocked career-wise from doing so. She very creatively uses Pattinson,the male lead, as a conduit /front for her ideas and insights. While he is busy fooling around with the ladies in some foolish attempt to get back at the rich guys he envied, he is oblivious to how bright, insightful and liberated Uma Thurman is and how creatively she is using him. The scene where he is ignoring her pain at losing her good friend (the Count) and is focused only on his pride and money, was beautifully done. Guy DeMaupassant wrote Bel Ami in the late 1800s. It's impressive how insightful he was about the plight of women at that time. Pattinson surprised me. He showed a bit of range and texture--a nice step up from his insipid work in the vampire series (albeit the poor scripts were tough to work with).
kparadise3
Pattinson ruins for me an otherwise interesting, well acted and well directed film. I love period movies and this film looks fantastic. Uma Thurman gives a great performance. She is witty and fast. That just makes Pattinson all the more difficult to watch. He has the the same blank expression no matter what the emotion it is he is trying to convey. Great actors make you believe the role they are playing. I just don't believe him. I just see the melancholy expression of a Vampire. He plays a greedy but unintelligent social climber. Who thinks seducing woman is the way to advance his position. He is given a job as a writer by an old army buddy who has succeeded. But he is barely literate and is seen right through by everyone. He seems to be the last to know. Maybe this was not the right role for him right now. But whoever advised him to take this role served him wrong.
