The Bling Ring

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.

For someone who knows a bit the true story on which it is based, the movie absolutely puts no new perspective on the facts themselves or the members of the Bling Ring. The script consists of an extremely redundant succession of burglaries, punctuated by a few excerpts from interviews which unsubtly try to explain the motivations of those teenagers. The plot lacks substance, there is almost no dramatic tension, and even the atmosphere, one of Coppola's work's most appealing aspect, has here trouble establishing itself and carrying away the viewer. The movie gets boring quite quickly and after an hour, it seems two have passed. In the end, it is not sure that this story deserved a feature.

Only one word can describe this movie: boring. I imagine there are plenty of indie-loving, artsy types that loved it but I found it very dull. There were a lot of nonsensical scenes that had no point and didn't add to the story at all. One in particular saw the male lead dancing and smoking weed in front of a night visioned camera by himself for a good 2 minutes. Don't ask me what the purpose of that was; I just don't know. The movie was sloppily cut and jarring in it's transitions at times. Not to mention repetitive. How many times can you watch this group of kids break in to Paris Hilton's house and try on hats? The only saving grace was Emma Watson. She played her character's self-centered, shallow, vapid nature with subtle believability. Other than that, I'd say avoid this movie at all costs. The level of boredom it conjures is mind-numbing at best.

The Bling Ring (2013)

First, what this is: a re-creation of a series of actual robberies by spoiled rich high school girls of spoiled adult celebrities in the L.A. area. They do the crimes, they get caught. This is evident from the beginning with some interviews after the fact.

Second, what this is: nothing more than the above. That's the big big problem here. This feature length movie re-creates and re-creates.

We see these indifferent, superficial girls in house after house (and in Paris Hilton's house a lot), trying on clothes and jewelry and taking home whatever they want by the purse-load. And we see all the parties between, party after party. Some with drugs, some without, all with music and dancing and utter detachment from consequences and culpability.

I guess that's the point, to make visible this world and make clear how really repulsive such prettified, well dressed, fashion imitation girls can be. This is the territory of Lauren Greenfield's photographic essay in the book "Fast Forward," but with a very specific focus on this group of half a dozen girls (and one boy who is sort of sucked in by his willingness to fawn and give attention).

There is zero attention to really what makes these girls tick. A very slim attempt is made at showing they have no true education, and no acculturation beyond fashion magazines. But really, what are these girls about? Where are there jealousies, their aspirations, their sex lives, their doubts? The movie is as superficial as the subject, and for Sofia Coppola that's a real shame and inexcusable, as if she just got lazy. Not that making a movie like this is easy, but someone somewhere should have said, hey, look, this amounts to nothing at all.

Where are there comparables beyond Greenfield (whose book has its own flaw of making glorious what she apparently means to critique)? Larry Clark's "Kids" is one place to consider (or his other films, which deal with youth more disturbingly). Or maybe the even more horrible "Murder in Greenwich" which dealt with the East Coast version of spoiled kids losing their bearings (and at least created a plot you could follow with some curiosity).

Coppola has gone this direction before in "The Virgin Suicides" and there she created a semblance of depth. Not this time. And the spoiled title character in "Marie Antoinette" gave her at least a fascinating subject, which she layered up in really compelling ways. And to be sure this isn't "Lost in Translation" (her masterpiece) in any manner. These are all written and directed by Coppola.

If you are the type of person who recoils at the Paris Hilton antics, skip this movie. This is a bunch of wannabe Hiltons and you don't feel sorry for anyone, perpetrator or victim. You just hope it ends fast.

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.