I guess small budget, lack of funds for promotion which is why Rob and noone else for that matter other than Christina Ricci promoted this film (didn’t see Uma or Kristin pounding the streets) leads to low box office.  Oh and of course the harsh reviews  because I forgot Edward can only sparkle and not act.   I know people are quick to jump on the – it’s a flop bandwagon – but it’s playing arthouse cinemas, sometimes only one screening per day and I’m not blaming the cast for their lack of promotion.  It costs a lot of money to promote and have a premiere.   I  understand the distributors of indie films can’t justify spending millions to promote when they know it’s not the kind of film that is going to reimburse those efforts.  You get what I’m saying – it’s further proof too of what Rob’s been saying during the Cosmopolis promotion – it’s hard to find directors/studios who will take this kind of risk because it’s not always about financial success.  And no I’m not making excuses – bigger budget films have had less box office success than Bel Ami in comparison – yeah I’m side eyeing a few of them now.   Well at least we can thank Russia for getting behind this film, but Russians more than likely love period dramas since they really do only appeal to a small minority … like me.   Oh I’m rambling … anyway here’s some stats:

Box Office Mojo – US – $38,018 (15 cinemas over 3 days … 15 cinemas?)

Box Office Mojo – International – $7,467,691 (are my calcs but I didn’t double check and we know the Aussie figure is wrong).

UrbanCine – Australia – $684,726 (dropped out of Top 10 and is sitting at no. 13 and screening at 84 cinemas)

On a side note – at this stage it hasn’t met budget.  And I think the formula for what Hollywood considers a success is that a film needs to make 2.5 times its production costs or something like that … yeah.  Oh well – onwards and upwards.  I enjoyed it … that’s all that matters to me.

Rob have you been hacking into my emails?  I swear to God “the dumbing down” from Hollywood has been something I’ve been going on about for years.  It’s quite funny that you happen to mention that.  Also, did I hear correctly “what was it like filming this in New York?”  Um …. clearly a lot of research went into this interview *sarcasm*.

As we know, Bel Ami opened in selected US theatres on June 8 & with that comes more reviews.  I really love this one from Movie Fanatic.  They have some wonderful praise for Rob, LOVE seeing that.

Robert Pattinson has officially moved past Edward in the Twilight series. The British actor is downright fierce in the film adaptation of Guy de Maupassant’s novel Bel Ami. Pattinson is Georges Duroy, the son of a poor farmer, who finds himself in 1890′s Paris after serving as a soldier in Africa. Barely able to put two coins together for a meal, he heads out one fateful night and meets Charles Forestier (Philip Glenister) — an officer who took a liking to him on the fighting fields.

Immediately he is thrust into the upper crust world of Parisian high-end social circles. Georges lands a job as a writer for the most powerful newspaper in the city, led by Rousset Walters (Colm Meaney). Although the men he encounters appreciate him, it is their wives who seem to find him more fascinating than what they have at home.

Georges uses that “in” to manipulate and connive his way up the social ladder.

Pattinson brings a shyness meets slyness to the role and sizzles on every frame. The young actor has truly arrived with Bel Ami as he inhabits every scene of the movie with a panache that shows what Twilight director Catherine Hardwicke first saw in him when she cast him as Edward. The entire film would not work if not for the choices Pattinson makes as a performer throughout. The audience pulls for his character, even if he is less than morally sound.

The supporting cast is stellar with Christina Ricci, Kristin Scott Thomas and Uma Thurman as his romantic conquests. Each plays their role efficiently and even though Bel Ami is the Robert Pattinson show, the trio of female leads makes the entire screen experience feel more like an ensemble than the one-man show it could have been. She is always fantastic, so it should hardly be a surprise, but Thomas astounds as the wife of Rousset. Her wife is lonely, but happy. And it is not until Pattinson’s Georges sets his sights on her that the actress truly brings the power. How her character alters in a matter of moments is a lesson in the art of acting.

It is clear after witnessing Bel Ami that the work is based on a book. Maupassant’s Paris has such intricate detail, that screenwriter Rachel Bennette had half her work already done by the author’s uncanny account of the French capital of that time. Movies based on classic books can either disappoint or invigorate. Bel Ami does the latter and makes us want to return to Maupassant’s pages for more.

4.5 stars.

I cannot wait to own Bel Ami on DVD so I can see Rob as Georges again.  He is just fantastic in the role – absolutely magnificent.

I heard you loud and clear the other day about not wanting me to post anti-Rob articles/reviews, but Alt Film Guide has done some work for me and provided a bit of a rebuttal to the claim made the other day (not by me of course) that ” Word out of Cannes about his next film, David Cronenberg’s Cosmopolis, isn’t encouraging”.   Let’s see what the Canadians have to say:

“Reviews have been generally positive-leaning [Maria:  Really?  That's not what some people want us to believe]. Even so, Canadian critics aren’t of the same mind when discussing Cosmopolis: too cold and overly intellectualized, or gripping and thought-provoking?

Referring to Cosmopolis as a “blockbuster of the mind,” Toronto Star critic Peter Howell says “We might quibble with the emphasis Cronenberg places on dialogue, on the staginess of his sets and on the relative lack of action. … What we can’t argue is that Cosmopolis is the work of a master filmmaker, one who is determined to have us think about the ideas packed into the trunk of this limo bound for the furthest corners of the psyche.”

As for Robert Pattinson, Howell says the following: “Very well played by Pattinson as a mash of guile and naivety, Packer would have made a good patient for the subjects of A Dangerous Method, Cronenberg’s previous movie.”

T’cha Dunlevy in the Montreal Gazette: “This is not, for the most part, Cronenberg the macabre (though that side of him does surface). Nor is it the more subdued, plot-driven Cronenberg we saw in last year’s A Dangerous Method. It is a mix of the two: a contained, quirky film in which he lets his weird side shine through in the details.”

Dunlevy thus sums up the review: “But this film rests squarely on Pattinson’s broad shoulders, and in the brooding features of his perfectly chiseled face. Cronenberg is at play in this slippery, surreal affair that is best appreciated with open ears and an open mind – and begs to be seen twice.”

• Read More?

According to Peter Knegt from Indiewire, LA & New York will be getting

“Entertainment One Films US has set a date for David Cronenberg’s “Cosmopolis.” On August 17th, the film will open in New York and Los Angeles, expanding into additional markets soon after.”

 Click on link above to read full article.

Well according to Caryn James the answer is no or sort of.  Oh well – like I’ve said before, it’s subjective and everyone is entitled to their opinions, everyone loved Titanic the movie – I would rather stick pins in my eyes than have to ever sit through that again.  The Academy also gave Nicole Kidman an Oscar for The Hours when I thought Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore acted circles around her.  And don’t even get me started about Gwenyth Paltrow who I have not watched in a film since Sliding Doors (and contrary to popular opinion her English accent made my ears bleed).  So all that I’m saying is – I’m posting this so that noone can say we are biased and only post positive opinions about Rob.  The one thing though is that my understanding of what came out of Cannes was a pretty even 50/50 split of what they thought about Cosmopolis.  Interesting twist on things …

“Robert Pattinson has made some daring artistic choices apart from his most famous, pasty-faced role; too bad so many of those fillms have been clunkers.

He played the young Salvador Dali in Little Ashes, a pre-Twilight film so badly written it left open the question of whether Pattinson could really act. He played the doomed young lover in the icky, maudlin Remember Me (2010), which grafts a contemporary Romeo and Juliet plot onto a 9-11 drama [Maria:  I must have read a different Romeo & Juliette]; not his most inspired choice, but at least he was reaching for something serious again. And if Reese Witherspoon and circus animals couldn’t save the snoozefest that was Water for Elephants, you can’t hold Pattinson responsible for that one either.

 So we’re still wondering if he can act in strong sunlight and  – uh-oh —  along comes Bel Ami, a predictably pretty, unexpectedly moribund drama.

…