Bel Ami (2012)

The is an exciting production of Guy de Maupassant's classic novel of society in late 19thC Paris. There is nothing clichéd or dated with the passion, betrayal, political and media machinations that take place. It charts the rise of a humble man through Paris society and the newspaper business via several women. The characters are realistic not one dimensional - no one is a all good or bad. In a short time one can see love, insecurity and ambition. The pace is good and doesn't lag. It's intense but not melodramatic. A couple scenes are a bit explicit for some of R Patz's younger fans.

Top acting from a European and American cast. Robert Pattinson has grown a lot as an actor. He used to have 2 basic expressions - the charming grin and the monstrous look. Here his monstrous look is well used to show the darker side of the central character. He also manages to show a multitude of emotions required by this complex role. He more than holds his own against accomplished actresses. Kristin Scott Thomas is terrific as always. Her devastation and vulnerability are fascinating to watch. Uma Thurman plays an enigmatic independent woman quite well. One fault is the casting of Christina Ricci - she isn't A list and isn't attractive enough maybe a Continental actress would have been better.

Production wise, the interiors include some lovely rooms. For the exteriors it would have been more authentic if they had actually shot in Paris with some familiar landmarks.

It's such a treat to have a fresh exciting adaptation of great literature that hasn't been done many times. Do watch this one. This is the kind of movie that should be rewarded by box office success instead of the decapitation a minute type movies that rule these days.

Fmovies: The storyline and setting for the book is well known, but this film focuses on the main character's development into a ruthless and determined man who will stop at nothing to ensure he does not return to his previous life of poverty and hardship. Robert Pattinson's interpretation is entirely rational and believable.

At the start of the film we see Georges hungry living in conditions that would lead anyone to become desperate. He sees the rich squandering their wealth and when a turn of fate allows him to enter this world he grabs it and initially cannot believe his good luck. However the men who made him decide they no longer want to support him leading him to take his revenge. He has learnt that everyone in these circles is flawed and are willing to take risks in order to get what they want, so he feels that he can do the same.

Robert Pattinson demonstrates that he has grown as an actor and is building on his previous roles.

Go and see this film you will not be disappointed.

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

Bel Ami fmovies. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant!!!…having read the book not only once, in German but also in French, I was impressed by this movie adaptation of the French classic novel by Guy de Maupassant (5 August 1850 – 6 July 1893) .

I must admit however, that the events happen very fast (it is very hard to pack such an intense and complex story into 160minutes) and it's mainly fully understandable to those who have actually read, loved, discussed and grasped the novel. The movie incorporates many swift innuendos and hints at passages taken directly from the novel. It is is very accurate to, and there are even scenes and dialogues straight from, the novel. The relevant essence of 19th century French society rules is obvious. And even though the director skips some of the specific historical and political details, the viewer gets indications and references to catch on. The actors/characters from the book, especially the ladies in question, couldn't be cast more perfectly Uma Thurman, the immaculate representation of Madeleine int he novel, Kristin Scott- Thomas, ditto as Virginie with her age, looks and temperament and Christina Ricci, down-to- earth, less intellectual but utterly sensual (maybe with a little exception of Ricci who played Clotilde's character perfectly, but should have been more voluptuous physically).

Robert Pattinson impersonated the poor protagonist George Duroy, without name nor heritage, however street-smart and snobbish, yet still sensitive and compassionate arriviste George Duroy, just as I imagined so many years ago upon reading the book. You might despise or pity, but you will always love him in the meantime. Beautiful authentic settings, costumes and props and the soundtrack just gets under your the skin, courtesy of . If you still question Robert Pattison as an actor (which I did, but do no more) then at least you may praise the direction of Declan Donnellan & Nick OrmerodÂ…. for Â… the movie is simplyÂ…very good, VERY Good indeed...

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 can see that a lot of people didn't like the movie. And it makes sense, because this is not fancy, nor does it try to be popular. And there is no big story backing this up either. But you can see by my rating that I did like it. I have to admit, I'm not a fan of those Twilight movies (though the first one did exactly what it promised ... for the target audience). But Robert P. does show that there is more to him than glitter and pouting. Of course there was "Remember me" and other movies that would back that up, but this is the first movie where he has a stellar cast beside him, that also works as a drama.

There is a dark and sinister side to the character he is playing here and there are a lot of nice little moments where the "true" character is coming to light and shows his true colors. The performance is brilliant, but will be overlooked by a few for obvious reasons. Still, if you like drama movies with great performances, you probably will like this too.