Opiniones de usuarios

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

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.

This film tells the story of a poor soldier's rise to the upper class in Paris.

Robert Pattinson plays a poor soldier who uses his charm to seduce women in upper class circles. His stone cold face suits the plot well, and his unscrupulous manner in which he played with the women's hearts is revolting and almost spine chilling. His character is so unlikable, that it makes me have a negative effect on the film. Fortunately, the leading ladies all have great performances, Christina Ricci consistently charms, while Kristin Scott Thomas shines in the one scene where she was treated in an appalling way.

"Bel Ami" is am engaging adaptation of a classical story, and I enjoyed it because these three leading ladies are all my favorite actresses.

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.

I'm not sure that Guy de Maupassant would be really happy to see this dull movie. it's okay, he's not with us so let's make a movie like we want to make it. I'm not going to describe this movie in general, but here're some highlights:

1) Main hero is pretending to radiate some sexual extra powers using his magic smile which i can describe as a "creepy" mixed with "weird". 2) Sometimes he acts like a poor retarded guy that has to be placed in a hands of a good doctor rather than hands of his sexual partner but sometimes looks like he's on drugs from a "Limitless" movie. 3) Other persons act like a clockwork toys and partly zombies. 4) Sometimes you have to enjoy main hero's magic smile evolution for a ten seconds at least. 5) Movie is full of dramatic pauses and they are pretty long so you can fall asleep. 6) I can only give 2 of 10 for its music which i forgot right after the movie was over.

This is one of crappiest movies i've ever seen. i'm not usually saying "give my bucks back for that ****" because any movie is worth to spend money but it'd be better to watch "Bel Ami" for free.

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.

My reasons for seeing this film were as follows: I quite like period dramas, it was an adaptation of a classic book, it had a good cast, it looked well-made in the trailer. I was hopeful of maybe even seeing a film of the quality of The Duchess or Dangerous Liaisons.

Well how wrong could I have been? Myself and my friend both looked at each other when the film ended and said what a load of rubbish it was!

Whilst most of the cast were very good (especially Philip Glenister and Kristin Scott Thomas), Robert Pattinson spoilt all of their efforts. Not only was his acting awful and unconvincing, he looked completely unappealing, which I'm sure was not the intention as he was playing a man who is irresistible to women. I was also left totally confused as to what his character was about; one minute he seemed to be a uneducated loser, the next a calculating swine. Also, I'm never sure what he actually did to elevate himself from abject poverty to high level politics except sleep with everybody's wives.

All in all then a confusing and badly-made mess. One to maybe have a go at on TV rather than see at the cinema.

****this review may contain spoilers****

'Come and meet my wife'

With these words Charles Forestier opens a new world for his former friend and ex-soldier Georges Duroy. A world where a poor, working man can only dream of. A world where the high society has its own rules, where sex is power, where power leads to connections, where connections lead to the top and where the top is dominated by corruption and intrigues.

It's the world of Belle Epoque Paris at the end of the 19th century, with its carriages and boudoirs,its beautiful salons and ladies in stunning dresses.

Georges Duroy, a poor, handsome man with no special talents but with the strong ambition to become rich and important, takes the invitation of his wealthy friend and puts his first steps on the social ladder. Uncertain and awkward in the beginning, looking how to behave in this elitist company he learns fast, conquers the hearts of the wives of influential men (by sleeping with them) to break them shamelessly when a better opportunity shows up.

Bel ami, film adaptation of the famous classic novel by Guy de Maupassant, is an adult tale of the rise of Georges Duroy to the top but also of the dubious and corrupt relationships between politicians and journalists. These themes are still actual and recognizable, which makes the movie very accessible. The film makers did a big effort in creating a wonderful setting as authentic as possible. Also the costumes are a joy to watch.

The performances were very well done IMO.

Though Robert Pattinson was only 23 when he took this role he held his own against experienced actresses as Uma Thurman, Christina Ricci and Kristin Scott Thomas who brought respectively the intelligent Madeleine, the frivolous Clotilde and the devote Virginie convincingly to life. Because of his strong screen presence and the way he showed Georges' evolution from a beginning casanova to the cad he became, Rob nailed the character and showed that he can have a bright future as an actor.

Bel ami, though it has dark themes, is entertaining and has more than once funny moments apart from several steamy sex scenes. It depends of each one's perception of the movie but I can't help but being amused by Georges'conquests or is it Robert Pattinson who has succeeded to make an unlikeable character likable?

If you love period movies, it's a must see. If you don't love them, you may do after Bel ami.

Robert Pattinson sinks this Guy de Maupassant adaptation, it truly doesn't matter how good his co-stars are, and honestly some of them carry their roles with aplomb, the tale of a vapid intellectual simpleton who.rises to fame solely on his looks rests solely on its lead shoulders. The directors (or more likely producers) decision to cast Rob in hopes of getting the much coveted lonely elderly women with too many cats demographic is at the cost of the quality of the film itself. Almost every scene that he's in rings false and the fact that he's supremely out of his element as to the tedious film's great source material would be laughable if it wasn't so maddening. If there were one silver lining it's that I caught this on HDnet Movies, so I didn't have to pay to watch this travesty.

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.

Being uninterested in Pattinson as a vampire, teenage heart-throb, I thought myself unbiased and ready to appreciate his acting skills. Unfortunately, this movie did not reveal any.

Pattinson plays Georges Duroy, a penniless ex-NCO, who seduces and manipulates rich women despite a complete lack of wit or endowments. Besides not showing any of the charisma required by the part, Pattinson's rough features add further hindrance. The role would have suited an actor of refined handsomeness, to make the contrast with Georges personality even more striking. What we get instead is Pattinson's boxer nose, coupled with a flat delivery of his lines. It makes it hard to believe that so many women would find him irresistible.

The story follows Duroy meeting in a brothel Forestier, a former comrade. For reasons impossible to understand, Forestier invites him to dinner and ends up offering Georges a job. During this dinner Georges meets three women willing to be manipulated like puppets, despite the fact that they all seem smarter than Georges.

The first is Clotilde is a rich, dizzy married woman, who just wants to be Georges lover at all costs. For their first sexual encounter, Georges invites her to his squalid abode and Clotilde decides to rent an expensive love nest to continue their relationship.

Madeleine is Forestier's wife, played by Thurman. She is an independent, clever woman who ends up marrying Georges, although she has absolutely no reason whatsoever to do so. Their relation is completely inexplicable.

Mme Rousset, played by Scott Thomas, is a middle aged married woman who loses her head for the completely charm-free Georges. The seduction scene that involves the two of them is cringe-inducing.

Finally, a fourth woman also falls for Georges, making the whole movie a sequel of sexual encounters strangely lacking any passion. Not bad for a boy who would hardly get a second glance, but incredibly tedious as a movie plot

"Bel Ami" follows Georges Duroy (Robert Pattinson) and his sexual travails with rich women. And that appears to be the entire story. The setting is the Belle Epoque, 19th century era of Paris. The women wear appalling makeup and monstrous hair-styles, the men are bland and indescribable, and the setting is supposed to mirror the lavishness of the rich and the squalor of the poor.

The film is very skimp on dialogue and I couldn't describe any of the characters even if I wanted to. Every introduction, or I'm assuming the scenes that were meant to be introductory, were set to a dramatic classical music score and all that was revealed was that our "hero" liked women, especially married women that verbally say no but physically say yes.

The music didn't let up once throughout the entire film so essentially nothing else was revealed. It was a head-ache inducing, puzzling experience that boiled down to empty pointlessness.

"Bel Ami" is based on the novel of the same name by French author Guy de Maupassant in 1885. It's quite possible that the novel held some significance in the time that it was written, but the question begs to be asked, why was it made into a film now? And why was it made into an American film? It stars American and British actors speaking English with French accents while in Paris. That doesn't have to be a sticking point but if the film gives you nothing else to think about, it certainly causes some head-scratching.

A key ingredient in all dramas is conflict of some kind. Good versus evil, life versus death, or morality versus immorality, which I was expecting to find an abundance of in this film. But there was no conflict. The characters weren't necessarily happy or sad, but like the film, they were just nothing.

Nice play by Robert P , with such a good determination to became a powerfull name! The 3 women are like some rocks which shape the central piece and give him a special sparcle!

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.

I was fully surprised by how much I enjoyed this film. I love the book, so was sure I'd be disappointed by the movie, which is typically the case. I was also skeptical of the casting, particularly of the lead role. But even so, I couldn't NOT see it.

I soon found myself completely taken in, watching the vision in my head (from reading the book) come to life on screen. The wardrobe and sets and music and lighting were rich and beautiful. The pace was excellent and kept me engaged every minute - the time just flew by.

I was also completely won over by the casting, including Pattinson in the lead role, which was probably the biggest surprise. Not only did he manage to hold his own in the role and with a far more experienced cast, he completely nailed George Duvoy. This required him to convey a depth and range of nuanced emotions and intentions through expression and tone and manner as well as interpretation of script. Kudos must go to the director as well.

Some of the criticisms of the story or of the Duvoy character are mistakenly pinned on the actor's performance, when what they are really reacting to is actually how the character is depicted in the book. That's an argument for the author, not the actor or director. So I have to assume they haven't read the book or would not like it if they did. And certainly there are a lot of people who just can't be objective about Pattinson because of a strong need to belittle his teen idle celebrity and association with the tweenage-targeted Twilight films.

I do think the movie is probably more enjoyable for those who have read the book and can, therefore, connect the dots and fill the gaps that a movie just doesn't have time to do - but that's true of any movie that tries to stay true to the book.

I highly recommend the movie (and the book) to anyone who loves period dramas with great characters. It is beautifully done.

Bel Ami – CATCH IT (Robert Pattison's fans)/TRASH IT (Otherwise) (C+) Based upon French novelist Guy de Maupassant' critical acclaimed novel "Bel Ami or The History of a Scoundrel: A Novel" is a story of young men trying to become a rich men in France by manipulating the wealthiest women of French. Bel Ami is an incredible story of wealth, lust & greed. There are many examples of popular novels not translating well on screen and sadly Bel Ami is also became a victim of bad screenplay or should I say no screenplay at all. There is no continuity in the movie, it seems like the whole movie was shot in one building, mostly in their bedrooms. Bel Ami strongly reminded of another foreign movie "Dorian Grey" starring Ben Barnes. Though, in Dorian Grey he was a beautiful man hides his ugly inside in a picture but here the beautiful man doesn't hides his ugly self. He selfishly uses his beauty to gain the trust of wealthy married women and then utilize them to become one of the richest people of France. Robert Pattinson is a good actor and does a decent job as Bel Ami. Especially in a scene where he throws Kirsten Scott-Thomas out or where Uma Thurman emasculates him during sex. Even though he was great, it kept reminding me of his performance as Salvador Dali in "Little Ashes". Which is not a good thing considering it's a different movie altogether. Among women Christina Ricci is excellent, after years finally I saw that spark in her eyes which we loved in "Casper & Adams Family. Unfortunately, she never got a good role since she has grown up. Uma Thurman is great and mesmerizing, after KillBill she finally did something worth watching. Kirsten Scott Thomas is great as always. Holliday Grainger is good in her small pivotal role, though we all know what she is capable of (as Lucrezia Borgia in SHO's The Borgias). On the whole, Bel Ami had a great dark story but bad direction, screenplay and discontinuity made it look like just another attempt to capture the essence of 1800 in France. Catch it if you're Robert Pattinson's fan and wants to see him doing dirty deeds with incredible women otherwise trash it.