MovieChat Forums > Bel Ami (2012) Discussion > Ebert, really?

Ebert, really?

posted 12 years ago by princeG
22 replies | jump to latest

Disappointed in Ebert and Phillips reviews: they don't see why women fall for poor, uneducated Georges and how Pattinson plays him:

... he successfully seduces three of the most powerful beauties in Paris society despite having no talent, no money and no conversation... Why do they find him attractive? We don't, and that failure is the downfall of the film.

C'mon, Roger: compare him to those husbands ignoring their wives, combine that with the possibility that these wives are just taking on an easily-controlled lover or using him as a mouthpiece in a male-dominated world. He doesn't have to possess scintillating conversation skills or be rich; he just has to pay attention and show up. And Georges learns the ropes.

And Rob plays this convincingly. And we do find him attractive (obviously).

I don't care that they gave the film 2 stars (the direction and editing were lacking, I agree). I dislike how they reviewed Rob's performance in a depressingly shallow way.

[–] CurzonStreet 12 years ago

Many critics saw a different film, evidently. They liked it.

http://http//www.moviefanatic.com/2012/06/bel-ami-movie-review-robert-pattinsons-power-and-privilege/

Robert Pattinson has officially moved past Edward in the Twilight series. The British actor is downright fierce in the film adaptation of Guy de Maupassant’s novel Bel Ami.

Immediately he is thrust into the upper crust world of Parisian high-end social circles. Georges lands a job as a writer for the most powerful newspaper in the city, led by Rousset Walters (Colm Meaney). Although the men he encounters appreciate him, it is their wives who seem to find him more fascinating than what they have at home.

Georges uses that “in” to manipulate and connive his way up the social ladder.
Pattinson brings a shyness meets slyness to the role and sizzles on every frame. The young actor has truly arrived with Bel Ami as he inhabits every scene of the movie with a panache that shows what Twilight director Catherine Hardwicke first saw in him when she cast him as Edward. The entire film would not work if not for the choices Pattinson makes as a performer throughout. The audience pulls for his character, even if he is less than morally sound.

The supporting cast is stellar with Christina Ricci, Kristin Scott Thomas and Uma Thurman as his romantic conquests. Each plays their role efficiently and even though Bel Ami is the Robert Pattinson show, the trio of female leads makes the entire screen experience feel more like an ensemble than the one-man show it could have been.

It is clear after witnessing Bel Ami that the work is based on a book. Maupassant’s Paris has such intricate detail, that screenwriter Rachel Bennette had half her work already done by the author’s uncanny account of the French capital of that time. Movies based on classic books can either disappoint or invigorate. Bel Ami does the latter and makes us want to return to Maupassant’s pages for more.
.

[–] C.S.Wood 12 years ago

Many critics saw a different film, evidently. They liked it.

28% on the TomatoMeter http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bel_ami_2011/

I gave the film a fair shake and I was mostly bored by it, but I will say that Ricci and KST were pretty good. Uma, who I usually like, was not so good. Especially the scene where she tells off RP. I've never seen her overact so much.

And RP, eh, he wasn't awful but he always has that weird constipation look on his face. What he needs to do is play a serial killer. I was thinking Jack the Ripper. He looks the way I imagine Jack the Ripper might have looked.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] CurzonStreet 12 years ago

Yeah, I don't know. I know it got bad reviews, but if you read them all, it's clear that a lot of the critics had never heard of the book, and they didn't understand it. Literally, some of the reviews were so dumb, they complained about things that should have been obvious, they were waiting for Georges to get punished at the end--they just didn't get it at all.

But that's neither here nor there, everyone has to decide if they like a movie on their own anyway. I liked the book, and I thought this was a fairly faithful adaptation, so I enjoyed it.

I thought everyone was good, and the thing is, Uma's part is not likable. She's really unlikable, and people who play unlikable characters often get blamed when they are really doing a good job.

The "constipated look" is just pure BS. He makes dozens of expressions and has a very expressive face.
http://nylfn.deviantart.com/art/Bel-Ami-wallpaper-285251561

He plays a sociopath in Cosmopolis, you might like that. Have you seen the trailers?
Cosmopolis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwehC_EuN-k
http://ow.ly/1iTyiC
.

[–] C.S.Wood 12 years ago

A movie should exist on its own merits. You shouldn't have to read a book to understand the movie.

Movies are very different from books. There are certain things that need to happen for most audiences to enjoy the movie. Liking the main character and caring whether or not they get what they're after is key. I, personally, didn't care. If RP's character had been killed at the end I wouldn't have cared either way just like I didn't care that he got what he wanted because I didn't care about his character.

I think that's why people wanted him to see him punished in the end. A movie audience can't root for a character they don't like, or who seems to be a bad guy. The main character has to be someone the audience can relate to or sympathize with, and that's not RP's character.

This is really the kind of role that needed a good charismatic actor to pull it off. If RP had played it like he was enjoying himself and having fun I probably would have liked it more. But he just doesn't give you any emotion, except brooding I guess.

As for Cosmopolis, I actually haven't seen the trailers but I know it's David Cronenberg so I will certainly watch it just for him (though I will wait for DVD).

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] CurzonStreet 12 years ago

I didn't say the critics had read the book, I said it was clear that they hadn't because they didn't understand the characters or the plot, even after they watched it unfold. They had it in their minds that Georges would get his upcommance at the end of the film, and when he didn't, they complained about it.

That's not the fault of the filmmakers, that's the way the book is written. The critics who complained about it simply wanted to see a different film.

Georges wasn't having fun a lot of the time. He was driven to get ahead because his alternative was abject poverty, and going back to the village where his parents were peasants. So he wasn't doing the things he was doing for fun, he was doing them with the object of advancing himself and securing his future.

Again, I just have to laugh about the "charismatic" part, since Cronenberg told the NY Times this week that the main reason he chose Pattinson for Cosmopolis was that because he's in literally every single scene in the film, he has to carry it himself, and he had the charisma to do it.

This brooding *beep* is just BS. Georges goes through a range of emotions and they're all there on screen. If you choose not to see them, that's your problem.

These are the Cosmopolis trailers:
Cosmopolis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwehC_EuN-k
http://ow.ly/1iTyiC

[–] C.S.Wood 12 years ago

That's not the fault of the filmmakers, that's the way the book is written. The critics who complained about it simply wanted to see a different film.

Since when are filmmakers required to stick to the source material 100%? The filmmakers chose to go ahead with the book's ending and no one liked it. Like I said before, the film has to stand apart from its source material. "You didn't read the book" is not an excuse.

It's not the critics fault that they didn't like the ending, its the filmmakers fault for not going with a better ending or not filming the story in a way so that that ending is what the audience was hoping would happen.

The movie makes no real effort to get us to like RP's character. That is the true downfall of the film.

Georges wasn't having fun a lot of the time. He was driven to get ahead because his alternative was abject poverty, and going back to the village where his parents were peasants.

I get that. The problem is he wasn't the only one not having a lot of fun. It is no fun watching a character like this.

Again, I just have to laugh about the "charismatic" part, since Cronenberg told the NY Times this week that the main reason he chose Pattinson for Cosmopolis was that because he's in literally every single scene in the film, he has to carry it himself, and he had the charisma to do it.

This brooding *beep* is just BS. Georges goes through a range of emotions and they're all there on screen. If you choose not to see them, that's your problem.

Maybe Cronenberg sees something in this guy I don't. Maybe he got a good performance out of him. I mean he managed to get a good performance out of Keira Knightley so it's possible.

But I (and apparently a lot of other people, critics and audiences alike) did not care for this movie and I was not impressed with much of the acting even from some actors I like. It's a bland film all around. I simply didn't care about any of the characters.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] sammie1863 12 years ago

Since when are filmmakers required to stick to the source material

When it is an adaption of a classic piece of literature that is a part of the basic school curriculum in many countries of the world. Should they end an adaption of Romeo and Juliet differently? Would it still be Romeo and Juliet then? Changing the nature of the character and the ending would not have been appropriate.

[–] C.S.Wood 12 years ago

When it is an adaption of a classic piece of literature that is a part of the basic school curriculum in many countries of the world.

You mean like Romeo and Juliet, or virtually any Shakespeare play ever written?
How many different film versions of his work have we seen (granted he's a playwright and not an author, but still)? How many different film versions of Cinderella, Frankenstein or Agatha Christie, Tolstoy and Hemingway's work have we seen that was vastly different from its source?

What I'm saying is, film is a different medium. Certain things that work in a novel just wouldn't work in a film. Films have to hit certain marks at certain points throughout its running time. When they don't they risk losing the audience.

And surprise surprise, that's exactly what we have here.

If I have to read a film's source material to like or understand it then it's a bad film even if it's based on a great book.

One of my favorite movies is Double Indemnity. It is pretty far from an exact copy of the book and has a very different (and much better) ending.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] sammie1863 12 years ago

Have the characters been inherantly changed in those adaptions? I don't think so. This doesn't have to do with you knowing the source material, this has to do with changing the source material/character to fit the bizarre need of today's audiences to sympathize with/like the characters. The characters should be interesting not necessarily likeable/relateable.

[–] C.S.Wood 12 years ago

...this has to do with changing the source material/character to fit the bizarre need of today's audiences to sympathize with/like the characters. The characters should be interesting not necessarily likeable/relateable.

But that's just it, the characters as portrayed in this film were not interesting. So the guy sleeps around to get ahead. Yeah, so what? It was a story about a handsome jerk who gets ahead and wins. End.

There's a show based on a popular book series called Dexter. Maybe you've heard of it? It's about a serial killer. Technically we shouldn't like him, but we get into his head and we see his point of view and understand him (also the people he kills are bad guys so that helps). I didn't get that from any of the characters in Bel Ami. The only sense of passion any of the character expressed were the women when they were betrayed by the handsome jerk. That's it.

This was a boring story with boring characters that really need an x-factor to spice it up.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] sammie1863 12 years ago

This is really absurd. If you are going to change the arc of a central character from a work of acclaimed literature, than it is no longer even an adaption (actually, it barely could be called 'inspired by'). They were adapting this novel not creating their own story. I agree with you on one point, the characters are not interesting to many today, but, not because they are boring. The truth is, just the opposite-they are not easy. For audiences wowed by insipidly bland superheros, anything that doesn't hold their hand through each and every scene and doesn't end on a pleasing, uplifting note, is too difficult. Sad state of of cinema today. It is only going to get worse too. Every story will ultimately have the same basic premise because audiences are UNABLE and unwilling to embrace something different.

[–] C.S.Wood 12 years ago

For audiences wowed by insipidly bland superheros, anything that doesn't hold their hand through each and every scene and doesn't end on a pleasing, uplifting note, is too difficult. Sad state of of cinema today.

Although I agree with you, I don't want to pay $10 bucks a ticket to watch a boring mess. I can take a downer ending if it fits. Rosemary's Baby doesn't end happily but it fits.

My problem with Bel Ami is that I found it to be boring and uninteresting. They could have fixed this by changing certain aspects, but they didn't and "stayed true" to the source material, so the question becomes why spend millions of dollars on a period film about unlikeable characters that most people will not pay to see? They should have changed it or not made it at all (I vote the latter).

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] sammie1863 12 years ago

The concern about box office receipts is a slippery slope. Sadly, there are already plenty of studios only producing films for their potential box office returns. Because everyone's taste is different and we are not robotic followers (at least not yet), I would much rather see us have a choice. There is room for modestly budgeted films to be made for their artistic merit rather an 'appeal' designation determined by committee. One should always remember that just because an individual does not enjoy a film, it does not mean that film shouldn't have been made. Someone else may have loved it. Ain't it great that we are allowed to have different opinions and that there is something to have an opinion about?

[–] C.S.Wood 12 years ago

One should always remember that just because an individual does not enjoy a film, it does not mean that film shouldn't have been made. Someone else may have loved it.

You're right, I agree there. I mean we really won't know if a movie is good or worth making until after it's made so there's really nothing we can do about that, but we can analyze why a certain film did or did not catch on with the public, which is something I study constantly.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] sammie1863 12 years ago

we can analyze why a certain film did or did not catch on with the public, which is something I study constantly.

The quality of a film rarely equates to success. Today, I think promotion is a big part of a film catching on with the general public. Out of sight, out of mind. It is too bad, because it only makes it that much more difficult for inetresting small films to gain an audience. Hardly anyone makes an effort to find out about something on their own.

[–] C.S.Wood 12 years ago

The quality of a film rarely equates to success.

Again, very true, but in this particular case we have a film that not only failed at the box office but scored low with critics and audiences alike (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bel_ami_2011/) unlike a film such as Premium Rush which did not do well at the box office but scored high with critics and the audience that saw it (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/premium_rush/).

Today, I think promotion is a big part of a film catching on with the general public. Out of sight, out of mind. It is too bad, because it only makes it that much more difficult for inetresting small films to gain an audience. Hardly anyone makes an effort to find out about something on their own.

I don't know if I agree with that 100%. Thanks to things like Netflix and the simple act of watching the previews on DVD releases it's easier to catch up on certain kinds of films on video that were missed in theaters. There are plenty of good films that fizzled at the box office but were rediscovered on video.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] Tedracat 12 years ago

It's not the critics fault that they didn't like the ending, its the filmmakers fault for not going with a better ending or not filming the story in a way so that that ending is what the audience was hoping would happen.

They're not going to go with a "better ending"! That would be the suck-ass, easy way out! Georges wins, after being an *beep* It's a story that rings true today. Changing the ending would make the entire thing irrelevant. What you are referring to is pandering to an audience - something I'm very pleased the filmmakers didn't do.

The movie makes no real effort to get us to like RP's character. That is the true downfall of the film.

This is not a mainstream film. It's a nontraditional take on a period film. We're not supposed to "like" Georges, or identify with him. Audiences that need that are lazy. It's enough to question why he does what he does...and if that's not enough, it's not the film/story for you.

I truly don't agree that dramas require us to root for an anti-hero. There are no hard and fast rules in art.

"Art is not an email. It's not supposed to send a message. It provokes questions."

[–] C.S.Wood 12 years ago

This is not a mainstream film. It's a nontraditional take on a period film. We're not supposed to "like" Georges, or identify with him.

Then what's the point of making a film about people we're not supposed to like or care about?

Remember, movies are a business. They are made with the intent that people will buy a ticket to see them and that they will make money. People don't want to pay to watch a movie about stupid boring unlikeable characters.

What it boils down to is that not all books deserve to be adapted into films and this is one of those situations.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] Tedracat 12 years ago

People don't want to pay to watch a movie about stupid boring unlikeable characters.

Well, I'm a person and I'll pay to watch a film with characters that I don't "like" per se. If the characters, concept or situation interest me, that's all I need. I primarily watch art and foreign films, as well as quality indies. There are a lot of others like me, although we are outnumbered by those who prefer the mindless drivel. It is the commercial, pandering films that follow the narrow "must like the characters" script.

What it boils down to is that not all books deserve to be adapted into films and this is one of those situations.

I also don't agree with this. Cronenberg did fantastic things with Naked Lunch and Crash - books that were deemed to be unfilmable. If the creators can find a way to adapt a work and keep its essence intact, I think there should be no sacred cows.

Sorry, I don't mean to harp on. You have every right to your opinion. Just realize that it is an opinion and not fact.

"Art is not an email. It's not supposed to send a message. It provokes questions."

[–] C.S.Wood 12 years ago

Well, I'm a person and I'll pay to watch a film with characters that I don't "like" per se.

There aren't many moviegoers like you is what I'm saying. It's bad business sense to spend millions of dollars on a product most people don't typically pay for.

I also don't agree with this. Cronenberg did fantastic things with Naked Lunch and Crash - books that were deemed to be unfilmable. If the creators can find a way to adapt a work and keep its essence intact, I think there should be no sacred cows.

I agree, but this is one of those cases where it clearly didn't pan out. The fact that they tried is commendable but there are people that are convincing themselves that this was a good film with interesting characters when the reviews and box office numbers prove that the majority of people who saw it hated it.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] randommovies2002 12 years ago

It's not true that people won't watch or appreciate a film about an anti hero. There are a number of good examples that did well enough at the box office (for an art house or foreign film). It depends on how the source material is handled. I disagree that it needs to be manipulated in order to make it more palatable to a typical hollywood audience. Pandering to the audience shouldn't be what an art house film is about. A good case in point: Milos Foreman's Valmont vs. Stephen Frears' Dangerous Liaisons.

that said, I really don't think the script was the problem. I tyically enjoy this sort of film. But some of the casting (particularly the lead actor) just didn't work for me, and that is this film's biggest problem.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]