Bel Ami(in Hollywood Movies) Bel Ami (2012) - Download Movie for mobile in best quality 3gp and mp4 format. Also stream Bel Ami on your mobile, tablets and ipads
Plot: Georges Duroy is a penniless soldier returning from war. He travels to Paris in a search for ways to improve his social and financial status. He uses his wit and powers of seduction to charm wealthy women. Runtime: 102 mins Release Date: 07 Jun 2012
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.
'Bel Ami' was a pleasant film to me, interesting, sometimes even exciting. (by twmmy)
My son's review... MilĂˇÄŤik â€“ Bel Ami I remember it was more than two years ago that word had reached into my ears that the novel of Guy De Maupassant titled 'Bel Ami' was about to be adapted on screen. The cast was already fabulous: the leading role of Georges Duroy was given to Robert Pattinson, the young actor trying to squeeze himself out of the stereotype of being a teenage idol. The list of leading actresses at the same level of importance or even more important included Uma Thurman, Christina Ricci and Kristin Scott Thomas. The film already had a Hungarian relation, as <more>
the Paris street scenes were shot on the streets of the more cost effective Budapest and even the French Riviera is substituted by the Tihany peninsula on lake Balaton. With the southern shore removed on post-production, as the viaduct of the motorway would show weird. Somehow the distributor had not found it important to bring 'Bel Ami' to the cinemas in Hungary, but after all, I don't care. Still, the cinema in the not too distant ÂŠtĂşrovo, Slovakia had the film on its program. I joined my family on the trip, to watch the film in English, with Czech subtitles really Czech, with the letter ĹŻ in the text . There were five more people present in the comfortable, air conditioned place, which had the ability of 3D-screening and 7.1 Dolby Digital sound. Not bad for the cinema of a small town with ten and some thousand inhabitants, compared to similar facilities in the region. Before taking wide consequences from the low number of viewers, I'd make the remark that the next film on the program did not attract more of them. So, let the curtain roll.Just a few lines on the story if someone would not find it familiar: the anti hero of the story set in the year of 1890 is the hardly literate Georges Duroy, who lives in a battered tenement in Paris and works as a railway cashier â€“ and he becomes a social climber, making his fortune mostly by sleeping with wives of powerful men. Meanwhile he is unable to write a single sentence on his own, but he is indeed able to look charming and do things needed to win the hearts of neglected women. I think I don't rush too ahead when I say that by the end of the film, the high society life sits well with Duroy. Very well.Is the story familiar? Several critics find parallel syndromes when looking at the life of Duroy and looking at the carriers of short-time stars of the present days. This might be a real analogy, but there are differences: Duroy of the film does not think of himself as a talented man. He does not even act consciously, he is a man of his instincts, and he is getting shown a few possibilities, which he uses according to his own talent. i.e. sleeps with more women The person showing these possibilities is Clotilde played by Christina Ricci , who ends up being given a couple of verbal slaps, given by the very man she loves.Let's now leave the storyline â€“ if interested, the book is present in the libraries or one can travel to a country where it is still/already in the theaters. Or one can wait the release of the DVD. And then order it from another country... Take now a look at the actors. I admit that I'm not one of the screaming Pattinson-fans, and there is no way that I'd start screaming if I saw him walking in the streets of this place. Yet he was a positive surprise to me: looked with an empty face when he had to use an empty face and looked angry when he had to look angry. Duroy is such a character, an empty, shallow beast, who gets angry easily. Hands up if you don't know such a person and smile, because you're lucky. Listing the three leading actresses: there is Uma Thurman as the injured, intelligent but sometimes ebullient Madeleine. We've got Christina Ricci, charming, a little silly as Clotilde, who loves Georges almost unconditionally â€“ it's easy to believe that she's the poor good girl used up by the evil Georges. Kristin Scott Thomas is great at playing the elegant lady neglected by her husband. Philip Glenister plays the arrogant, rich editor, Charles Forestier brilliantly. Looking at the job done by the actors, I don't find anything disputable.Taking a look at the directing of the film. Some changes between the scenes are slow and forced at the first sight, but this is not Avatar, and remember, we're not watching a video-clip but a period novel adaptation. We get a large amount of close-ups, I found this a bit unnecessary and boring, whoever was the subject of the actual close-up. It was odd to me that Pattinson was tried to be made look older by leaving this partly unshaven style. First of all, it didn't succeed, secondly, in a period when guys had the possibility to join the army at the age of 18 or under , being a retired solider at the age of twenty-some is not very surprising. This unshaven style simply doesn't work â€“ a mustache, a beard, or nothing. But this really is bagatelle.The music was all right, the sound was fine. I've already wrote on the location, it was funny to recognize some of the buildings. Or even the interior of the tenement of Duroy, you've seen one, you've seen them all: some buildings in the inner city still can be sold as 100 years old, almost without modifications.
Held my attention through out - would strongly recommend (by twilight-eve)
I wasn't sure what to expect but was greatly surprised by how much I enjoyed the film.The story line is very current, particularly with what is going on with the Lord Justice Leveson's Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the media! Strong performances from a credible cast allowed the story to flow well.All of the characters were very believable, particularly Georges Duroy, Madeleine,Virginie and Clotilde. Although Georges was an unscrupulous cad, I didn't blame Clotiidle for taking him back time and time again!Its a real shame that the publicity for this film has <more>
been so low key.I just hope that lots of people will have the opportunity to view it.
****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, <more>
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.
I just saw this film and found it to be well acted by all the principles, beautifully photographed and costumed with a lovely score.I feel that Robert Pattinson, rather than being wooden , showed a great deal of range remember, this movie was made two years ago, too, and he's progressed from there . All the female leads were fine. My only criticism of them was that it was hard to pick up some of their dialog.My only real complaint was with the screenplay. It jumped around a lot and left some important plot lines hanging. The whole relationship with Susanne was covered in a few short <more>
scenes. I'd read the book and knew what was happening, but the bit where he takes her to the Inn as they're eloping was too hurried. Still, I enjoyed it and would recommend it to others.
I stumbled upon this movie on Netflix and have watched it several times since my first viewing. All the actors did justice to their parts and the story progressed at the pace it was intended. Rob Pattinson was sexy and convincing as the desperate social climber who put his heart on the back-burner to achieve his goal. Uma Thurman down plays her sexiness yet turns on the sex appeal and ice cold stoicism perfectly. Christina Ricci has matured into a beautiful woman and excels as a character actor. She convinced me as the lady in public, whore in bed. Kristin Scott Thomas did wonderfully as the <more>
sex starved proper lady of her time but was out shined by the aforementioned. Special moments for me: Rob P's character taking Christina R's character to his flat for their first encounter and his feeble attempts of decorating his "dump" with paper lanterns. Another beautiful moment was brief but he and Uma, after they were married...in the hallway...he was so enamored by her; she took his breath away. You'll know when you see it. Another peek into his character's heart is the flowers. Rob P. shows himself as an actor with great potential, although he excels in this movie. He is subtle yet convincing. The entire cast shines. Fun romp of a movie.
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 <more>
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.
Exactly how I pictured the book (by lstevens-361-48896)
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 <more>
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.
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 <more>
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.