Bling Ring

The Bling Ring pace was fast simply because the kids went from one burglary to the next without much else in between. The acting, what there was of it, was okay. And Emily Watson's Valley Girl accent was spot on. But, there was hardly any character development.

How did these well-off privileged kids turn into obsessive narcissists? What are they doing now? There was no reaction shown from the victims.

The kids parents played minor roles in the film and they showed little reaction to the crimes their kids committed.

The film seemed a rush through the plot without bringing into play all the elements that one would expect in this real life caper plot. In the end it seemed more like an outline for a film rather than a completed film.

Yeah this is a dismal misfire. Worse it shows a new Coppola that I'll be avoiding in the future. I say this as someone who can get excited for a project like this, one that embraces youth without sugarcoating the folly and pretensions, that brings a genuine curiosity to a vibrant world—in short something like Spring Breakers that in the thuggish lifestyle finds room for reflection.

This is a superficial look at superficial people, and I mean superficial in what Coppola sees of them. For what it's worth she decided to delve into these lives, apparently inspired by real events. The real events are not a concern here, they are always a springboard for our cinematic journey. She decided to bring these people into focus for us to see, at least so far as she could see into them.

And what does she see? A flaky, rootless youth that has not worked to create its world, that emptily covets expensive trinkets and finds them by merely walking through the door and grabbing stuff. This isn't just about these four individuals who sneak into celebrities' homes, it is a broader look at instagram culture. Naturally.

What's worse is that Coppola has not found some inner space where souls feebly try to know each other and participate, how stealing fabrics can be a search for the identity of what to wrap around self. I'm not saying they should have been shown as troubled romantics. Looking at my youth I recognize a lot of superficial obsessions with unimportant things, it comes with being young and just throwing yourself at this or that current, but I also recognize that as inadvertent part of a larger floating sense of everything feeling doable and airy, which is the essence of youthfulness.

It's what Korine brings to Spring Breakers and feels transcendent, the free wandering of mind.

Coppola tries to show some of that, for instance in the scenes of partying where time ecstatically slows, but is constantly bogged down by the surly need to press on with their neuroses and vacant desires. She adopts a catty and empty look because in her eyes they are merely catty and empty people. There's too much judgement here and not enough intuitive understanding of subtler pulls.

In the future I expect her to be torn to shreds for this one film. How is it that her Marie Antoinette, obviously modeled after her own self, can be shown wistfully in spite of the sheltered privilege as a quietly suffering soul but not these girls? It's a worthless film and even manages to reduce everything else she's done.

Remember back when you were in school and you had to write a 15 page paper? Remember how you'd finish organizing and writing all your information only to see you've written just 11 pages. Remember how you would go back and just kinda fluff the paper and put in some fluff words and sentences that are super redundant?

That is what this film is. 15 pages = The 90 minute runtime, and 11 pages = The 15 or 20 minutes that this film could have been condensed into.

Now, I am a fan of Sofia Coppola's Lost in Translation and The Virgin Suicides, and even her less popular work like Marie Antoinette. But her use of artsy and dull shots that linger...and linger...and linger in this film just didn't work. This film had a great premise, and when I first heard that a film was being made about the "Bling Ring", I was very excited to see how they would be portrayed.

All we saw was some fame obsessed teens doing cocaine and smoking weed while inside of big houses, all the while stealing money and clothes. Occasionally they went out and bought more clothes with the money they stole. There wasn't even any cinematic techniques involving sophistication, or generation of interest. There was really almost no climax, and the film was somewhat like a simple narrative of whats happening, with no REAL story involved. Yes, I know this was based on real life, but I'm sure Miss Coppola could have written in some more juicy scenes that would create interest and grip the audience. I do understand her style and what she did, but that slow pace and the lingering visuals just didn't fit the given subject matter because a film with this premise could have been very upbeat and intense, yet it was drawn out just too much.

It seems as if Sofia Coppola was relying on the skimpy outfits and attractive faces of Emma Watson, Taissa Farmiga and Claire Julien to generate a male audience, while using the "famous lifestyle" for the girls who can almost relate to the characters on screen who, after all, are backed by real people. I, a male, wasn't attracted by either, but by the fact that I was very interested to see whether or not the occurrences were going to be portrayed in a positive or negative light, and I was disappointed to see that it was basically neutral!

The way the annoying, fame obsessed, teenagers were portrayed in this film was somewhat weak, only because the actors were given one of the weakest scripts I had ever seen! I thoroughly understand that Miss Coppola was trying to portray the annoying teenage dialog of our day, but really? Reeeaaaalllly? The actors are not to blame, as the dialog was just stiffly written and impossible to make seem natural.

Emma Watson, I think, did a great job with her portrayal of the real life Nicki who is actually named Alexis Neiers. If you watch some of her interviews and see the way she really talks and how stupid she really seems, you'll know that Emma didn't do anything over-the-top, or any overly annoying acting. Also, Taissa Farmiga stood out as the strongest actress in the group, although her screen time was cut a bit short. I hope she follows in her sister's footsteps with more and more roles.

Overall, not a good one for Sofia Coppola.

5/10, and the one thing that saved it from a 4 was the fact that Emma Watson is gorgeous.

Sofia Coppola brings us this inspired by true story movie. Rebecca (Katie Chang), and new kid Marc (Israel Broussard) go to dropout school Indian Hills. She's a petty thief and he gets sucked up into her world. They break into people's home when they're away. Soon their friends Chloe (Claire Julien), Nicki (Emma Watson) and Sam (Taissa Farmiga) join in the Bling Ring.

This is a damning portrayal of superficial vapid kids. The problem is that they're actually very boring with their self-indulgent celebrity-obsessed lives. It may be that Coppola is making a statement, but the jabs need to be much sharper. It's interesting to see the unabashed consumerism for about 15 minutes but the constant flood of fashionista names gets tired. The long takes do nothing but add to the sense of superficiality. Maybe that's the point. The narrative goes nowhere. The story is basically laid out by the first 5 minutes if not sooner. There is a change when they're arrested. Emma Watson is especially good in this part. I just wish that the movie isn't 95% pre-arrest. The characters are too similar before their arrest anyways. They all talk the same and act the same. They need a jolt in their system to bring out something deeper.

The collective level of vapidity on display in the Bling Ring might (like totally) reach epic proportions.

Award-winning, insightful director, Sofia Coppola, has once again made a film that is highly successful in portraying fame and celebrity ... only this time she has turned the cameras onto those who obsess over and covet the fame and celebrity others have.

The Bling Ring is a character study/meditation of a group of people -- based on real life individuals in SoCal -- with NO character whatsoever. They are all beautiful bling on the outside with no inner core of morality. They are shells of a mass emptiness who worship others for merely having stuff they want ... or being on their TVs.

Coppola's story is based on real-life events of a group of five vacuous and insipid teenagers (one boy and four girls) who used the internet to track the whereabouts of their "celebrity" idols -- some were merely "reality stars" -- so that when the stars were out of town the five could play. The five would break into celeb houses and play with beautiful things that belonged to Paris Hilton, Rachel Bilson, Orlando Bloom, Audrina Patridge or ... their ultimate idol, Lindsay Lohan. They also ended up pocketing and stealing a lot of designer goods and merchandise (you know, like to wear and be cool with). They had fun and bragged about their shenanigans at parties and on social media all the while believing that they had done nothing wrong. One even believes this happened in order for her to become more charitable -- her comment on "karma" must be heard to be believed. Coppola wisely lifted this line word-for-word as it is tragic comic gold.

Emma Watson (Harry Potter, Perks of Being a Wallflower) is the most-recognizable face in the cast and she totally has the film's bestest lines! Watson is a genius comedienne ... who knew? Her line delivery and depiction of oblivious shame are perfect.

Coppola understands the world of fame and she has proved she also understand the world of those who dream of it. This isn't a movie in which characters learn life lessons and change ... this is a depiction of people who believe they do no wrong (like never ever). It is eye-opening because these people walk amongst us. The film is full of face palm, jaw drop and eye rolling moments. Like ... a lot. Totally.