QuoteReplyTopic: Member Discussion of BEL AMI Posted: June 07 2012 at 8:47am
LIKE LAST WEEK's PIRANHA 3DD, BEL AMI IS DEBUTING BOTH in THEATRES and ON PAY-PER-VIEW (AS WELL as HAVING BEEN "SNEAKED" on HD MOVIE NET) the SAME DAY, and SO IS MORE ACCESSIBLE to OUR MEMBERS THAN MOST ART-HOUSE TITLES (PERHAPS the ONLY TIME the PHRASES "PIRANHA 3DD" and "ART-HOUSE TITLE" WILL EVER APPEAR in the SAME SENTENCE).
STARRING TWILIGHT TWIT (and 4-TIME PAST RAZZIE® NOMINEE) ROBERT PATTINSON, 4-TIME RAZZIE® NOMINEE UMA THURMAN (BATMAN & ROBIN) 2-TIME NOMINEE KRISTIN SCOTT-THOMAS (UNDER THE CHERRY MOON) and BUCKY LARSON CO-STAR CHRISTINA RICCI, BEL AMI IS a GORGEOUS-LOOKING (BUT DRAMATICALLY VACUOUS) LOOK at the RISE of a GRIM-FACED CAD in 19th CENTURY PARIS.
TO BE AMONG the SELECT FEW COMMENTING on THIS MINOR RELEASE (FEATURING a MAJOR RAZZIE®-CREDENTIALED CAST) SIMPLY POST YER THOUGHTS BELOW.
TO SEE/READ Ye Olde Head RAZZberry's FOTO FUNNY on THIS FILM, CLICK HERE...
I thought this was going to slip past the radar, but looks like it is not so lucky. Other than its existence and stars, I'm not too familiar with this title. What is Bel Ami about? Can any of the women be considered Lead Actress?
Worst Supporting: Eddie Redmayne and Julianne Moore.
I've seen it already a few weeks back. It's based on a french classic novel from 1890, which I have not read, so this is what I took from the film. It's by far not as good as the trailer made it look like, but I didn't think it was too bad, just confusing. It's about how a talentless pennyless idiot with good looks gets to be powerful through bedding the right women. The worst about it was the pacing of the story, it starts out slowly showing Patz playing the poor fella DuRoy, who meets an old army friend who has become rich and invites DuRoy to dinner at his house. Immediately then the friend turns against DuRoy, and I couldn't figure out why. At the dinner table he meets Ricci's character and soon after they start an affair. Then the friend dies, and Patz's character marries the rich widow, played by Thurman. The friend got DuRoy a job as a journalist, but he does a crappy job and gets thrown out and comes back again, and because he's angry at the boss he starts an affair with the bosses wife (Scott Thomas, who gives a cringeworthy performance at times), for revenge. I actually liked that scene of him grabbing her in the church. Then things speed up, all of a sudden the main character goes berserk and beats the bosses wife for a reason I couldn't see, parallel there is an interesting backstory about french colonies taking over Morocco and a corrupt french government, multiple backflashes from a rich DuRoy to a poor DuRoy and inbetween he divorces his wife, but somehow manages to get richer and richer. Too many open questions, and a bit boring inbetween when he beds all the woman. I'd rather had watched more about that Maroccan invasion. Scott-Thomas gives a weak performance as vulnerable faithful wife. Thurman for me has too much of a modern look, but gives a clean-cut performance Patz doesn't come across as reckless as they want him to. Ricci somehow fit well in there. For period lovers, the costumes and sets looked great. It was directed by a duo of English award winning theatre directors named Declan Donnellan, Nick Ormerod.
The last time Pattinson made an attempt out of the TWILIGHT saga, he did WATER FOR ELEPHANTS. He was nominated for the Vits Award for Worst Movie Actor for that (and BREAKING DAWN PART 1). He's even more likely be nominated for this and PART 2.
Uma Thurman and Kristin Scott-Thomas don't really have a career. The former seems to have lost star power, with MY SUPER EX-GIRLFRIEND being her last big Hollywood lead role, and the latter seems to have opted for French indies, but I do recommend her 2010 movie LOVE CRIME (7/10).
I'd like to point out that Vits Award nominee for Best Movie Ensemble Natalia Tena (HARRY POTTER; GAME OF THRONES) appears here too.
Originally posted by mbh
It was directed by a duo of English award winning theatre directors named
Declan Donnellan, Nick Ormerod.
And this is their film debut -- and the screenwriter's too.
And this is their film debut, and the script writer's too.
That might explain why it's so uneven, but I don't know how many scenes they cut or if the writer had no clue how to tell the story. Their inexperience definitely shows. Whoever did the sets and costumes had a clue, though.
I saw a black and white version of the book with Angela Lansbury and
George Sanders a few years ago, which had a totally different ending.
Judging between the movies, the Lansbury one was definitely done better
overall, but the story was cheesier.
Pattinson chose to do this movie around the time of the first Twilight movie and he was only 23 when he filmed it. It was filmed prior to Water for Elephants. It is a small foreign indie and the directors had never even filmed a movie before.
It seems weird to me that this small foreign indie is getting a forum when big budget Hollywood films with much lower RT scores that were recently made like The Vow did not get a forum or The Lucky One (with RT at 20%) did not get one started by HeadRazz.
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Not sure if MR understands that R.T. numbers are not the only criteria used for determining RAZZIE® Contenders and/or what gets a Forum discussion on our site. We also look at box office (THE VOW, despite mediocre reviews, actually made "big money" in its theatrical release, topping $125 million domestic w/a production budget of about $30 million - B.O. MoJo LINK). We also look at what I call a film's "RAZZIE® Pedigree." As I explained in the first posting above regarding BEL AMI, it is not only the 5th screen version of this material (meaning it qualifies for Worst Remake, Rip-Off or Sequel) but it also stars three "actors" who, among them, have garnered a total of 10 RAZZIE® nominations in past years.
Also, MR, if you feel berry strongly about a specific title you think we've over-looked, you are always free to set up a "Member Started Forum" using this LINK.
FYI: There is already a Member Started Forum for THE LUCKY ONE (LINK) which has generated all of 4 comments so far...
Wait, fifth version? Can you please link the other four from Imdb or something?
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Here's that IMDb LINK, as requested. It turns out I didn't scroll down the page far enough when doing my research -- NINE previous film versions of this same source material (an 1895 novel by Guy deMaupassant) were released between 1939 and 2005...
Worst Supporting: Eddie Redmayne and Julianne Moore.
This movie is definitely Razzie worthy. Here are my reasons:
Worst Picture: The pacing of the movie seems rushed. As the movie progresses it seems to accelerate. Had this movie been a theme park ride the highest speed would have been at the very end.
Worst Actor: Robert Pattinson is still worthy of a Razzie. He fails to get out the right emotions for his role, just like in those stupid 'Twilight' movies. This failure makes it difficult to like Pattinson's protagonist (part of me wished the female characters would strike him below the belt-line).
Worst Supporting Actress: Uma Thurman was unconvincing as a nineteenth-century person. She sounded and acted like a time-traveller from our time.
Worst Supporting Actor: Colm Meaney was also unsuitable for his role. His words and mannerisms did not give the impression of a person of privilege. Meaney seemed more like a factory worker pretending to be an upper-class snob.
Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel: As mentioned before the novel has been adapted several time before. Since it is worthy of a Worst Picture nomination it also qualifies it for this category.
Worst Director: Declan Donnellan and Nick Ormerod did a poor job of putting together this movie, especially its pacing.
Worst Screenplay: Rachel Bennette's script was dull and that is putting it lightly.
Worst Screen Couple: The main cast have been miscast. So any combination of them is worthy of a nomination, especially with alleged vampire Robert Pattinson.
Worst Screen Ensemble: As with the previous category the miscast actors make the group deserving of getting nominated.
Directed by Michael Bay and M. Night Shyamalan comes...a movie guaranteed to win Razzies!
I'm guessing the reason why this movie doesn't qualify for Razzie noms this year is that it either was first released in 2011 or that it wasn't shown in a theater in either Los Angeles or New York?
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Actually, as was established in an earlier post in this very Forum discussion, BEL AMI was disqualified on an even more obscure "technicality" than when/where it was first released. It's makers permitted their film to appear on pay-per-view outlets prior to putting it in theatres, which is verboten under both AMPAS and GRAF rules. Since it's a fair bet that few people tried to sit through it other than myself (when it was on HD Net Movies) I think it's safe to say it would probably not have had much impact on Pattinson's chances at getting a 2012 Worst Actor nomination...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum