Georgan G
Story of greed, immorality & jealousy. The main character is "bad", but the rest of the characters who are supposedly of higher morals are just as bad.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
10/21/24
Full Review
Mercedes/Glenn E
This is a much better film than the critic/audience scores might suggest. Admittedly, the protagonist was mis-cast - he needed to be more charming to make his seductions and manipulations of the influential and intelligent society women more credible, but he got other aspects of the scoundrel character right. I am reminded of an opera I attended in Seattle where the audience heartily booed the bass because he was the “bad guy,” instead of applauding him for his excellent singing. The film, for the most part, is faithful to the novel and like the novel does not preach or moralize. This can make us somewhat uncomfortable, particularly in view of the ending, but the idea that scoundrels can attain great wealth and power, while leading what seems to be happy yet loveless lives, being at heart, misogynists, although set in 19th century France is not entirely irrelevant to 21st century America. The film is not great, has some limitations that underlying the novel it is based on, but it has pretensions to being a serious art film. It is a period piece, and the costumes, cinematography, and acting are all very good… and art should make us uncomfortable at times. Forget the critics, read the novel, see the film, and form your own opinion.
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
09/08/24
Full Review
John A
Criminally and thoughtlessly ejected. Pattinson and his female co-leads fit their respective roles like gloves. The story is obviously doubling as a
rapturous character study.
Rated 3.5/5 Stars •
Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars
06/25/24
Full Review
Steve D
Trash. Unless you are really attracted to its lead you won't get it at all.
Rated 0.5/5 Stars •
Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars
02/03/24
Full Review
Audience Member
You never believe for one micro second, that any of these beautiful, upper echelons Parisian society wives, would soiled their reputations... with the jamoke portrayed in the movie. Robert Pattinson character is overly awkward, unsympathetic, empty of charm, with zero charisma, (his perpetual facial expressions, are as if he is smelling something stinky... perhaps his acting).
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
02/19/23
Full Review
eyemovie s
BEL AMI: BEAUTIFUL YET BEMUSING
The main objection to this movie seems to be Robert Pattison's (Georges) performance compared with his Twilight performance. I didn't see Twilight and this was my first time seeing him act and I loved it. The star-studded cast is at its best particularly Uma Thurman, whose throaty mature vocalizations perfectly align with her character as an intelligent sharp-eyed socialite. Christina Ricci looks absolutely beautiful and is the very picture of a sophisticated yet shrewd French woman. Kristin Scott Thomas' transformation into a pious, desperate and ultimately hysterical spurned housewife simply stunned me.
The title "Bel Ami" is a nickname for Georges thought up by his lover's daughter and later spread around town as a cruel moniker. Bel Ami, loosely translated, is Beautiful Friend, which Georges is not and does not have. No one seems to like him that much and this is puzzling since Georges is charming and downright sexy.
Where this movie failed is in establishing a realistic motive for Georges continued philandering. It didn't make sense for him to keep sleeping with woman after woman even until the very end when he married the richest and most naive woman of them all. The audience is nudged into thinking that he is going to continue his wayward ways. It's almost like the director is saying, "He's bad trust me. He's going to stay bad for the sake of being bad."
A villain or hero or must always have a believable reason for why they do what they do. When one of Georges lovers questions his philandering, he retorts with a frustrated outburst, "You've never been poor!" But this doesn't line up with the other characters assessments of him who seem to notice his lack of maturity, integrity and resolve and intelligence but never mention his humble background. It also didn't make sense that he prefers a title with the same name of the poor town where he was born and loathes. We never see the rural town or his father so it's difficult to know what's so horrible about them other than their poverty which seems a very weak reason for Georges behavior.
The men who deal with Georges initially like him but soon grow to despise him because he doesn't do anything well. This is also strange because he was once a soldier and his entree into society is made possible by a man he once served in the army with. As soon as the man recognizes him, he invites him to dinner and gives him money for a new dinner suit! Why would a wealthy man invite a poor ex-soldier to his house who he hadn't seen in years unless he had some merit?? Seems strange. Even worse, Georges specifically attends his death bed in order to marry his rich widow (Uma).
I think Pattinson gave an appropriately sensual and surly performance as a cad- without any real reason for his wickedness perhaps- but he was a convincing lover. He balanced devoted ardor while hotly pursuing his victims with a chilling indifference when he moved on to the next one. However, I think the director should have included a few opening scenes to show why or how Pattinson seemed so comfortable with seducing women far above his status. If he was so crass and poor, how could wealthy educated French woman tolerate him? Another unanswered question.
I didn't read the book that this movie was based on but the film could have benefited from an unexpected plot twist or more decisive conclusion. The one woman who does challenge Georges is a jealous prostitute, who Georges slept with once. Her anger at seeing him with another woman doesn't make any sense. Why should she be jealous? But it would have been nice if she had showed up at his wedding with a pistol and put an end to him.
In any case, this movie is very pretty to watch. Photogenic actors, beautiful costumes and interiors, and a lovely musical score make up for a pretty good story with a few unfortunate plot holes. A scene-stealing surly butler, brilliantly played by Pip Torrens, whose sonorous voice and somber demeanor add gravitasse to some key scenes.
Bel Ami wasn't very good at convincing us that our beautiful friend wasn't beautiful. But it does show that there was more beneath the surface that should have been explored.
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
03/31/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
>
