Not everyone is going to like every movie. And bad reviews aren't stopping The Vow from making a bundle.
http://entertainment.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981 141265#.T0frkF1u1tk.twitter
by Page MacKinley:
Even before the stars of Bel Ami left the red carpet at its Berlinale première, a slew of corrosive reviews about the film—and in particular, Robert Pattinson—hit the web. Some were brutal, even venomous, while others loved this revisit to Maupassant's politically overtoned story about a twisted Casanova's social ascent.
Jennie Kermode, at Eye for Film, praising Pattinson's performance, wrote, "He certainly doesn't disappoint but largely because he knows how to play an unlikeable character." Reasoning that, "because Pattinson isn't afraid to play weakness, mediocrity or petty spite, he is perfect in the role," Kermode affirmed Pattinson's "ability to keep the audience interested in his [character's] fate," as illustrating "real talent."
Kermode, an insightful critic, is right. It also says something about Pattinson that he chose a role like Georges Duroy, a character whose capacity for exploitation is about as far from the self-sacrificing Edward Cullen as you can get. Brave enough not to want to stay safely within the genre that propelled him to uber fame, it's clear from recent comments made by Pattinson, that here is an actor chomping at the bit to explore new challenges—no matter how much incentive Lionsgate and Summit dangle.
Total Film Magazine gave, "full marks to Pattinson for tearing into his Edward Cullen persona with plenty of arse-bearing sex-scenes," while Cineuropa said the entire cast, "shine in this satire of a vile and corrupt society." Movieblog admitted to being, "pleasantly surprised" by the film, adding that [they], "don't subscribe to the idea that Pattinson is a weak actor, a piece of internet gospel that seems to spread around as part of the overwhelming Twilight hatedom." Rating the movie 3 out of a possible 4, perhaps the highest praise they offered was that it was "undoubtedly Pattinson's film."
Compared to reviews like these, THR critic, David Rooney's, swipes at Pattinson seem acutely over-personalised. Misreading Pattinson's non-histrionic interpretation of Duroy's walking storm personality, as "one-dimensional characterization," Rooney, settles for easy jabs instead of insight. Retooling Uma Thurman's (Madeleine) film line to Duroy—"I had no conception of the depths of your emptiness"—Rooney uses this as a blunt instrument to beat Pattinson with.
Rooney snarks, "The assessment is aimed at the venal character [Duroy's] but applies equally to the charisma-free performance, in which there's nobody home." Variety's Justin Chang, echoed with, "It's one thing to embody a moral void, quite another to look merely vacant, and in scene after scene, Pattinson registers a visible strain in negotiating the character's shifts from slick, droll charm to animal-like desperation and thwarted rage."
MovieLine's, Stephanie Zacharek, piled on with, "Poor Robert Pattinson. The weight of proving himself, in a movie that doesn't have the words 'Twilight' and 'Saga' in the title, is shaping up to be heavier than a vampire's curse." More condescension followed. "Pattinson isn't half-bad. He doesn't overreach, which perhaps saves him from embarrassment."
Sight and Sound complimented Pattinson's "alert amusedly insinuating performance," while straying into the ludicrous when it declared, "in close-up [Pattinson's] face tends to lapse into the bovine." A curious observation to make about an actor habitually accused of being "too beautiful" to convince in gritty roles.
So who's right? The "nay's" or the "yay's?" And why are critics often so divided about Pattinson? Routinely pilloried, it seems it's become fashionable to dismiss this young actor's abilities. Could it be that some critics are suffering from a case of inverted snobbery—assuming that the more commercially successful an actor is, their credibility is automatically checked at the door?
One can clearly see this assumption in the self-invited psych consult Zacharek gives Pattinson, when she says, "He's trying so hard—why can't he use those lizardlike eyes, that cat-that-ate-the-canary smile, in the service of making us forget who he is? Maybe it's because he can't forget who he is. And that's the stiffest, tightest collar any young actor can wear."
Except the collar isn't Pattinson's. Critics often overestimate how much actors cling to their roles, even the ones others define them by—maybe especially those. It's doubtful whether, today, Harrison Ford gives Hans Solo a moment's thought. Yet for successive generations of children, Solo's character has become a cultural fix-point. It's likely Pattinson feels the same way about Edward Cullen.
David Cronenberg, who directed Pattinson in Cosmopolis, when asked in a 2011 interview with Moviefone why he cast Pattinson, said, "You have a young actor who's found success with a franchise just like Keira [Knightley] did with Pirates of the Caribbean, who's underrated because of that. In each case, they're too pretty and too successful so people are jealous. As a result, people assume that they can't possibly be good actors."
Since that interview, Cronenberg has gone on record, telling MTV in 2011 that Pattinson's performance in Cosmopolis was "sensational." This veteran director's verdict? "He's a great actor. It's obvious in the movie. It's not like maybe yes, maybe no. It's obvious."
And so, to Bel Ami himself. Pattinson imbues Duroy with an array of emotions. Confusion, as he negotiates the alien social circles he forced his way into; rage, at the emotional shut-out he endures in his mostly frigid marriage to Madeleine; disgust, for the needy Madame Rousset and her daughter (Scott Thomas and Grainger); and real affection—if not quite love—for Clotilde (Christina Ricci), the one character that comes closest to understanding Duroy.
A sumptuous romp through belle époque Paris, undeniably the film delivers a rich visual hit to the senses. Pulsing with sensuality, it revels in exposing the corruption at the core of its anti-hero, and those around him. Where it doesn't work, is in its—at times—serrated joins between scenes and reductive screenplay. But gosh, it's fun. Unashamed, balls-out, sexy, fun.
As for the Pattinson-bashing; for this maturing actor, he might find it worthwhile remembering his own words about his younger self: "If someone insulted me, I would get ten years of ambition out of it." Those numbers may have grown. But so has Robert Pattinson.
.
reply
share