‘Bel Ami’: Pattinson can’t act
I’m not sure why, but no one has been willing or able to speak truth to box-office power, so let me try:
Robert Pattinson is a terrible actor.
Oh, he’s pretty enough, with his sleepy eyes and pouty lips. Let him play a vampire in the “Twilight” series and he’s fine, for two reasons:
1) He’s doing a James Dean impression.
2) He’s sharing most of his scenes with Kristen Stewart, who has such a vital screen presence that he benefits from reflected glory.
But put him at the center of an actual movie – as opposed to something presold and predigested like the “Twilight” films – and he’s revealed as an empty pretty boy, a black hole of talent.
If you don’t believe that, go back and look at “Little Ashes,” where he was embarrassing as a young Salvador Dali; or “Remember Me,” a forgettable 9/11 romance; or “Water for Elephants,” in which he was chewed to pieces by a scenery-gobbling Christoph Waltz (and the elephants themselves).
Or watch him in the new “Bel Ami,” which opened in limited release 6/8/12, in which he alternately smirks and pouts as a Belle Epoque social-climber. Adapted from a novel by Guy de Maupassant by a pair of directors – Declan Donnellan and Nick Ormerod – “Bel Ami” follows Pattinson’s character, Georges Duroy, as he clambers from a roach-infested garret to the poshest chambers in 1890 Paris.
He starts with an old army buddy, Forestier (Philip Glenister), who he runs into at a raucous can-can joint and who stakes him to a new set of clothes so he can come for dinner. At dinner, he meets Forestier’s crowd, including the three women who will make his future: Clothilde (Christina Ricci), Virginie (Kristin Scott Thomas) and Madeleine (Uma Thurman).
Duroy leverages his acquaintance with Forestier, who works at a political newspaper, into his own gig on the paper, working for Virginie’s husband, Rousset (Colm Meaney). He takes Clothilde as a lover and begins to enjoy the swank appurtenances that go with life in what passed for the fast lane.
Duroy is canny enough to turn each setback he faces with the various men in his business life into a victory with one of their women. By the film’s midpoint, he has married Madeleine (who is Forestier’s widow) and seemingly become an arbiter of political and social fortunes at Rousset’s newspaper. In fact, he’s a pawn in a much larger scheme, and it’s completely understandable that Pattinson himself would fall prey to it.
But the script is too sketchy by half and Pattinson lacks the resources to show us any inner life of this character. The story’s point is that Georges is both foxy and self-deluding, but Pattinson can’t carry both thoughts at the same time. Georges comes off as a petulant dope, who can think strategically but only in the broadest strokes. As a result, this becomes less a tale of intricate scheming and more one about a lucky dolt who fails upward.
The women are all more than capable, and Meaney is a cagey old pro. But they’re undermined by Pattinson, who gives nothing and drains energy, turning “Bel Ami” into a kind of holding action between the directors’ attempts to go forward and Pattinson’s determination to sink the ship, simply with his enervating presence.
Print This Post
June 11th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
If Robert Pattinson is such a ‘terrible’ actor why did Cosmopolis receive an 8 1/2 minute STANDING ovation at Cannes? The film is receiving 4 and 5 stars…don’t think that can happen with with a “terrible actor”. Actors ‘do’ what directors tell them to do! Maybe your problem with Bel Ami has more to do with the directing than with the acting…I can’t believe you said that! I mean, seriously!
June 11th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
There is a reason no one has been able to speak “the truth” about Robert Pattinson’s acting. Because it isn’t true. With people like David Cronenberg praising his talent, who are you to say he has none?
June 12th, 2012 at 10:10 am
He can act. Its just you to be a horrible critic. Go to The San Francisco Chronicle and and teach.
June 12th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
You do realize that your personal attack on Robert Pattinson in every movie he does reflects on you as a critic and not on him. People have for some time now been ignoring your reviews because they know before they come out what they will say. It appears that you write them before you even see the movie that he is in. You have obvious bias for reasons that have nothing to do with his acting, bringing Twilight up every time shows that. And yes we get it you hate him and like Kristen. Why bring her up at all in a review of him (because you are the one who is a talentless hack relying on a bias and hate toward an actor.) You used to get away with this, well no longer. Wake up and smell the coffee, with the exception of some American critics like you who are still holding onto the “he didnt earn his fame” hate, just about every other critic is giving him rave reviews in his new movie, Cosmopolis. What are you going do now? Its amazing how this article reveals how little talent you have and how much Robert Pattinson has. My advice to you is if you cannot get out of your own way, put your personal bias and obvious personal dislike for an actor aside, and do your job as a professional, it is time that you throw in the towel and retire for it is you who is and will remain terrible at their job, not the actor.
June 12th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Perhaps these ratings and reviews of his new movie will help you see that you are in fact mistaken and its time for you to review his movies with a new set of eyes. (There are over 40 ratings/reviews in each) and I can provide you with many more if you need.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmdgVGA_rtJzdHhmRmRtejhteGs1V0NiWVJhTWJOUlE#gid=0
http://www.inquisitr.com/242559/cosmopolis-roars-into-cannes-first-wave-majority-robert-pattinson-nailed-it/
June 12th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
So don’t watch his movies,dear ”critic”,I’m sure nobody forced you.It’s your 3 bad review of Pattinson’s movies,so maybe stop torture yourself.
June 13th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Why do some critics sound like an old toothless snake with no venom in its teeth but still hissing and splitting its useless venom all around? And why so much hate for the sake of pure hate? Why does the rest of the world have to carry responsibilities for one’s unfulfilled ambitions? Lastly, envy is an awful thing.
June 14th, 2012 at 12:42 am
he got plenty of praise for cosmopolis so i guess he is doing something right.
June 14th, 2012 at 3:07 am
MF – To counter the surprising replies to your review of this film and Robert Pattinson:
1. The “Twilight Movies” – enough said about any creditable “acting.”
2. “Water for Elephants” – yikes – he sank what should have have been a strong adaptation of an excellent prize-winning novel
3. “Remember Me” – all I could do was TRY TRY TRY NOT to remember him.
4. Now “Bel Ami” – in which he now tackles a Guy de Maupassant adaptation? These fine actresses effortlessly act rings around him.
Pattinson, stick with the vampire roles in the Twilight films because you do suck the life out of every film you are in.
MY ASSESSMENT: YES – ROBERT PATTINSON CAN’T ACT!!
June 14th, 2012 at 6:49 am
First off, it’s a critics JOB to watch all movies, Mi, so if this guy wants to keep his job and pay the bills than, yes, he has to watch all movies.
As far as Robert Pattinson goes, I don’t think he is a good actor; I also think he’s super weird looking — it’s truly perplexing as to what he is so popular.
June 15th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
It is with the utmost certainty that Pattinson is a genre actor. He is specific to the Twilight franchise and his range is just that of the Twilight franchise. Now, I’ve seen Cosmopolis, he is brilliant in it, however, I agree with Mr. Fine in that in this particular film, Pattinson CAN’T act. There are films that actors are good in, granted. They cannot all be fantastic in every film that they star in. Especially, after seeing the same actors in so many films, you learn their faces, reactions, etc., so their acting talents are easily comparable from film to film. Everyone cannot be perfect in or at everything. Fantastic review, Mr. Fine.
June 19th, 2012 at 5:51 am
I agree with mbn – its is a critic’s job to see all films and its a critic’s job to give his utmost professional opinion.
I also agree with AIDY in that everyone can’t be perfect in everything – haven’t seen “Cosmopolis” – all I can say is that I hope they hype on his performance is as good as people are saying.
No one wants to see a “star” fall – least most critics – I believe they would like to see a “star” who generally doesn’t deliver “good” performances (such as Pattinson) succeed and deliver a performance that is worthy of their stardom.
Having read Mr. Fine’s reviews for 20 years, I certainly believe that he is among those critics that are mentioned above.
June 19th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
A critics job is to review every aspect of the film they’re seeing. The setting, the plot, the music, the scenery, the atmosphere, the script and most importantly, THE ACTORS! Are his fans living in a world of ignorance? Do you even read the reviews he gets? Are they ignoring every single bad review his movies get? It’s sad that they just can’t live with the fact that he isn’t as good an actor as they think he is. If he’s as good as you guys think he is, then why didn’t he win any awards at Cannes? Why doesn’t he win any major awards not voted on by fans? Why doesn’t he get positive reviews for that matter?
Everyone of his fans are going crazy because his movie Cosmopolis was as Cannes.
A) Robert Pattinson isn’t the reason why Cosmopolis is at Cannes, David Cronenberg is!
B) Just because he gets 1 or 2 good reviews for his role in Cosmopolis doesn’t mean he’s good in it. So, everyone that says he’s up to Cannes level, get back down into the real world.
C) Every single one of his movies are complete flops. Little Ashes, Remember Me, Bel Ami and all 4 Twilight movies. The only reason why Water For Elephants did well at the box office is because of 2 people-Reese Witherspoon and Cristoph Walz.
June 19th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Also, the critics at Cannes aren’t giving Robert Pattinson the 7, 8 or 9 out of 10, they’re giving David Cronenberg’s movie that score.
Yes, Pattinson has something to do with that, seeing as he’s the star, but not as much as you think.
June 23rd, 2012 at 12:12 am
“As far as Robert Pattinson goes, I don’t think he is a good actor; I also think he’s super weird looking — it’s truly perplexing as to what he is so popular.”
Same here. I am a heterosexual woman, and I fnd it baffling that he should be referred to as “pretty boy” etc.
I haven’t watched any of the Twilight movies, so I did not know him before I watched Bel ami.
I was surprised to hear he had been selected to play Georges Duroy.
After having seen the film, I am not only surprised, I am also sorry.
July 2nd, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Some actors need good direction. Even Natalie Portman is this type of actor. She was DREADFUL in the Star Wars movies. They can’t all be Meryl Streep.
August 7th, 2012 at 12:21 am
Pattinson is a boring, characterless and draining presence on the screen. Don’t believe the hype: Cosmpolis was the most disappointing piece of cinema in years. And I am a fan of Cronenberg’s!
We actually left after an hour as it was agonizingly painful to watch, absolutely pretentious and plotless paired with zero character development. The Edward Cullen faces and smirks made it almost laughable too. This man has no depth as an actor. The same goes for Kirsten who survives ‘acting’ by pulling the same faces looking slightly cross eyed in every motion picture she makes. But hey, like Calypso says, they can’t be all Meryl!