Bel Ami, historia de un seductor

OK, the settings are beautiful, the women are attractive, the dresses very good... and that's about it. The film is totally unreal, it's impossible to believe the characters are French: their attitudes, their movements, their expressions, are totally Anglo-Saxon. The film is unbelievable at all times, there is an excessive use of music (a Hollywood trademark), the acting is wooden... This film is as close to 19th century Paris as a Las Vegas reproduction is close to Venice. For example, the main character - Bel Ami - sports trendy stubble, something that would have got him thrown out of any respectable house at the time.

I found myself yawning and wondering how long until the film ended. And my wife fell asleep for a short while And - let me add - we're both film buffs.

If only the French had made this movie... as it is, my instinctive dislike of Hollywood movies was more than justified by this one. A waste of time, except - as I said before - for the visual enjoyment provided by Uma Thurman and Ricci.

Bel Ami is definitely not for anyone who truly loves French period drama, nor is it the vehicle for changing people's impressions of Pattinson. Here's the ultimate question though: Does Pattinson distance himself markedly from his Twilight character? The answer is "yes, but not enough" because, try as I might, when Georges Duroy walks into the sunlight in the final scene of the movie, I half-expected him to sparkle. And that is a very bad sign. In short, Twihards will totally love this film, but anyone else should skip it.

Bel Ami (2012)

*** (out of 4)

This adaptation of the Guy de Maupassant novel isn't a complete success but the attractive cast give some very good performances, which make the film worth watching. Georges Duroy (Robert Pattinson) decides to climb the Paris wall to riches by seducing three of the most influential women (Christina Ricci, Uma Thurman, Kristin Scott Thomas) that he can get his hands on. BEL AMI is a story that I was only vaguely familiar with. I had read pieces of it when I was younger but I wasn't familiar enough with it to say how well or bad the film captured its mood and spirit. With that said, I'm always one that says it's not important for a movie to fully capture the book because they're just different things and I don't mind them not being alike. For the most part I was happy with the film as it does a pretty good job at showing what a rather shallow person can accomplish as long as they have the looks and someone willing to let themselves be walked on. I thought Pattinson did a very good job in the lead role as he could perfectly handle the seduction scenes but I thought he was most effective when it came time for his character to turn into a snake. Pattinson has a certain look that he's constantly got in his eye and I thought it told you everything you needed to know about this character. The supporting women are all in very good form and especially Ricci who plays perhaps the most mature character here. I thought she really brought a lot to the performance and made you feel for her even if you don't agree with what she's doing. Both Thurman, Thomas and Colm Meaney are very good as well. BEL AMI does have a few problems including the final twenty-minutes, which just seem too rushed. I'd also say that the opening isn't nearly as strong as it could have been and I think there were a few dry moments scattered throughout. Still, the performances are so good that they really keep you attention from start to finish and they make the film worth sitting through.

Bel ami is a huge disappointment for those who are familiar with Guy de Maupassant's novel of the same name, or for those who have seen George Duroy in movies or in TV! Acceptable the fact that the whole novel might not fit into the cinematic body, nonetheless the caspuled version falls flat, and for me, this turns out to be the worst adapted screenplays of all time!

To start with, the casting went terribly wrong, Robert Pattinson never came close to portraying George - still in colored shades of Cedric Gregory and the vampire boy. The screenplay like i mentioned added to the misery, overemphasizing on certain aspects which did mar the intensity of the plot, and then underplaying the characters and the drama as if we were getting to see knitted episodes from a TV series. The saving grace comes in form of the background score which was brilliant - how i wished to see an appeasing drama for the music!!

To sum it up, this was a real disappointment for me, i wouldn't have minded watching a 3 hour drama (the movie really had the stuff to be that long)but this was just a capsuled dose of what i craved for - the ensemble cast and the build up to the release had sedated me, it just blows :( 4/10

Uma - never better grade 10+, Kristin - good as usual grade 9, Christina - very good grade 9+, Robert - painful to watch, barely 1. With his bland and totally misguided performance, he managed to ruin the film that would otherwise been good. What were those face expressions?!? Wasn't he supposed to be attractive, desirable, full of sex-appeal? Why no one told him that? Why no one told him that he's not playing a vampire anymore? In fact, it would be great if he played that Twilight vampire, here he obviously rehearsed for a vampire hit by the first rays of sun, just about to experience slow and very painful death. Exactly how I felt while watching him... And no, I don't think he's a bad actor generally, he was just huge miscast for this role. And you just can't have good movie with such a huge miscast in a leading role.