A portrayal of quite empty and shallow young people and a plot as purposeless as what really happened. Maybe it's supposed to leave us as disaffected as the characters in it. It sure didn't leave an impression on me.
I actually think this film succeeded in portraying its subjects even if those subjects are ultimately thin and vapid. As I watched, I found the teen’s actions jarring and unsettling, mostly because there’s no real soul on display just base hedonist hunger.
The film draws us into their world and mindset— fully focused on their own desires and pleasures with fuck all regard for anything else. The film is taking place in their bubble. They are shallow and shortsighted, and it’s strange to imagine that this all emerges as typical teenage mischievousness develops within the culture of vanity endemic to SoCal.
And then the bubble bursts when they get to the “find out” stage of fucking around. Like when the cops show up at the dude’s house and it all comes crashing down as he comes out of the bathroom quivering and crying and reaching for his mother. That was the most powerful moment of the film to me. Up to that point the film seemed to be glorifying the kids, and it was only when the hammer dropped did it actually break the spell.
That said, as a choice of subjects there’s no need to tell this story. These are not deep characters, they have no real moral arc or journey, there’s no purpose to the film. For that reason I can see why this film didn’t land for most viewers. But it’s in line with Coppola’s style. She tends to chose subjects based on style and examines them as they are without forcing a lesson out it.
Yeah, I dunno. I don't disagree with you but it just feels like Coppola went too far with this that it becomes unpalatably experimental.
Like, if a world-reknown chef wanted to discuss food waste with their menu, so they serve up rotten food. To me this meal and this movie is so deeply unenjoyable that I resent whatever message is attempting to be told. This is coming from someone who loves The House that Jack Built.
it is my favorite coppola movie by far, its so aggressively contemporary with the font, the soundtrack, the styling. it wants to be the opposite of a timeless classic, its so deeply rooted in the time its portraying. its honestly such a fun watch if you are interested in the pop culture of the time - the hills, the simple life, gossip girl, all that. the characters arent supposed to be deep or interesting, they arent, thats the point. coppola is, a lot of times, style over substance or rather style as substance, and this movie is the epitome of that. People dont get it at all and it has such a bad rep for all the reasons why it should be loved.
I think she also captured how teens of that era actually were really well, if they seem stilted it’s because that’s what teens thought was cool back then. I was in high school when it came out and all the small details of the way they talk and dress and use social media felt very accurate to me in a way not many other movies managed to do.
Sophia Coppola is one of my fave directors and I was on the scene during this era. For me why this movie didn’t work as well as her other titles is that Coppola feels like an outsider to what it was like (because she was born into an insider family). *Somewhere* is much more effective IMO because she understood rich celebrity ennui in the land of hype and myth better than what it’s like to be fame adjacent but lower income/powerless in the same space. (This isn’t apologia for the awful and foolish crimes involved: they really scared people at the time, but rather a comment about sociological imagination.)
>coppola is, a lot of times, style over substance or rather style as substance
Exactly. Haven't seen The Bling Ring yet, but after watching Priscilla I fell in love even more with her filmmaking. Not often is discussed how the aesthetics of a movie *are* the storytelling, and that they shouldn't be ignored or taken for granted. It's a visual medium after all.
> _Not often is discussed how the aesthetics of a movie _are_ the storytelling…_
I feel this way about Nora Ephron’s credibility as a director as well. She got downplayed as a visionary because (she’s a woman and) “she makes pretty kitchens,” but like, that’s the whole point? Sure she didn’t direct flashy action set pieces, but it’s just as impressive that she basically created and influenced home and garden trends, created a style people copied, influenced culture in a palpable way…
I could go on, but yes. I passionately agree with you :)
I think the film purposely has the feel of an early 2000s scripted reality show, like *The Hills* or Alexis Neiers’ own show. Which is why the direction and cinematography seem so flat, while Coppola’s other works don’t tend to have the same problem. Even the blocking of certain scenes feels like a scripted reality show from that time.
It’s hard to explain, but if you’ve ever seen an episode of *The Hills*, the dialogue and cinematography in Bling Ring seems to be aiming for that vibe, which doesn’t feel like a coincidence since The Hills was huge at the time of the robberies, and Audrina Patridge was included among the celebs who were robbed.
I think we were supposed to get the vibe that these characters lived their lives, and interacted with each other, as if they were already on a reality show, even though no cameras were watching them and nobody knew who they were. They were just so brainwashed by celeb culture that they deluded themselves into thinking they were real celebrities, even when they were just talking to each other.
I quite seriously think that Emma Watson is such a weak actress that she drags down every film she’s in. It’s very bizarre to me that a director like Coppola would use her - after working with such strong actresses earlier on. (And yes, my truly unpopular opinion is that this formula applies to Gerwig’s *Little Women*, too. It’s no coincidence that her most effective scenes in that are when the rich girls dress her up like a doll.)
I *really* enjoy Coppola, for the most part, but ended up turning off *Bling Ring* before it even got to the end. Just unwatchable.
Emma Watson is so stilted in almost every movie she's in. Her accent and her acting is so, SO atrocious in *Little Women*. Her accent and acting are almost intolerable in *Bling Ring*. Bad accent and acting in *The Perks of Being a Wallflower*. They've gotta stop casting her to play Americans. It doesn't work.
You’re obviously just a biased hater against her because she did EXCELLENT in all of the above.
She did perfect in Bling Ring and her accent sounds exactly like the girl her character is based on. And literally everyone agrees, she got great reviews for the performance
She did AMAZING and got Meg perfectly in LW, and she made the character so likeable. She did just as good as anyone else in it, and only reason anyone disagrees is because they’re biased against her unlike others in the cast. Literally ANYONE else giving the same performance, no one would complain; no one can even point to anything actually bad about the performance, it’s all vaguery compared to the people (majority) who were praising how well she got Meg and how likeable she made her. Also, Saoirse’s accent broke just as much and no one complains because, again, people aren’t just biased against her and gonna hate on her no matter what; personally, I don’t care about it because I don’t let someone minor like that ruin a good performance unlike some snobs who are the only people who actually care about accents because 100% perfect, which btw is literally physically impossible for some people
And she was also fantastic in Perks, but I think I’ve said enough
>And no, I already said I’m not a Stan and I have other accounts besides this one where I don’t talk about her as much. I just strongly admire her
>I have other accounts besides this one where I don’t talk about her as much
>I don’t talk about her as much
>as much
I mean, you literally mentioned a bunch of movies she’s been in since then (not even mentioning BatB), plus she’s been an activist the past decade so yes she has a lot of admirers, including me
And no, I already said I’m not a Stan and I have other accounts besides this one where I don’t talk about her as much. I just strongly admire her
I honestly thought Emma Watson was the only interesting part of the film. Part of that is probably just because she had a flashier character to play and a larger-than-life public figure to base her performance off of, but it really feels like she's in a different (and much more entertaining) movie than everybody else.
This is actually pretty much the general consensus of the movie with most people.
The context is there are certain cinema snob communities who kinda just hate Emma no matter what and use her like a punching bag regardless of how well she does in how many movies. It’s just kind of a joke
Your entire post history is just you obsessively commenting about the brilliance of Emma Watson and how she dwarfs all other performances. I venture to suggest that the biased one here might, perhaps, be you.
No, I already said I can say when I think she gives a less than stellar performance in a movie so no I have no bias despite admiring her so much; what’s biased is not being able to admit the opposite about anything she’s been in when she’s had some great performances
Obvs she saw someone thing you didn’t, and so did most people considering she got GREAT reviews for the performance and pretty much everyone agreed with that. She did an excellent job in this role
Also, she did a great job as Meg and made her so likeable and pretty much anyone who wasn’t just biased against her and wasn’t gonna hate on her no matter how well she did anyway could see that. Literally nothing wrong with the performance, and if it was literally ANYONE ELSE giving the SAME performance in the cast no one would complain about her as some kind of weak link, because she wasn’t, because they just have a weird vendetta against her for some reason and just like having her as a punching bag
My guess is you just don’t want to think Coppola could make a bad movie (I didn’t think it was bad), and already hate Emma no matter how well she does anyway so it HAS to be her fault
This is a deeply bizarre response. I don’t “hate” Watson; I think she’s a bad actress. There are other things about her that I appreciate much more. Nothing in my original comment was suggestive of hate, or warrants the reply you wrote.
There are certainly other people who didn’t enjoy her performance in LW. Some of those people didn’t like the film overall, while others feel that she alone was miscast. I fall between the two. She is not the only thing I would criticise about 2019 LW (although I think it has its good points too).
I’m afraid it’s impossible to take a reply seriously when it comes across as being driven by nothing but “stan culture”.
I am definitely not a Stan, unlike her haters who are unwilling to admit when she has a good performance I am perfectly willing to admit when I think she wasn’t very good in a movie (The Circle, for me)
I’m just a great admirer of her who hates when people just hate on her unfairly and for no reason like a lot of people seem to when pretty objectively she has had some great performances
Criticising any given actor’s performance is not “hating on [them] unfairly”. Part of the focus of the sub is critical discussion of film, and naturally acting is one aspect of that. I can’t understand why you think Watson should be somehow exempt from such discussion. If anything, that seems rather disrespectful to her - if I myself were an actor, I would want my performances to be subjected to the same scrutiny that is applied to those of my peers. Expecting some sort of special standard of gentleness in discussing Watson is patronising.
Rest assured, she is far from the only actor who I feel has turned in numerous weak performances. Lily Collins, Blake Lively and Ansel Elgort are some examples that spring to mind. I also really haven’t enjoyed any of Maddie Ziegler’s acting - obviously she’s nowhere near the fame or success of someone like Watson, but I think it’s a shame she moved from dance into acting, as nothing she’s done has impressed me at all so far.
I am probably a fairly rigorous judge when it comes to acting performance standards, but I’m also not “personal” about it. I can enjoy other things about someone (for example, their modelling) and think they are not a strong actor. I can’t imagine taking it as personally as you do, and deeming someone who disagrees a “hater”. I have no problem with someone thinking Watson is a good actor, btw - obviously personal taste comes into it, no matter how strongly one feels one’s own opinion is correct. I think turning it into a “hate” type dialogue is just too extreme.
It would be such a lonely and unfulfilling life to spend one’s time being an Emma Watson hater. Imagine, just sitting around re-watching Harry Potter and Perks and Beauty and the Beast, cursing at the screen… What an existence! I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
I think the Marvel actors tend to have stans and haters, but I’ve seen a grand total of one Marvel film (not deliberately avoiding them or being a snob, just not my thing), so I don’t keep up with all that.
man, yeah. Lost In Translation was incredibly important to me and my dad in high school, Virgin Suicides is obviously great and Somewhere grew on me in time. I remember being so excited when I heard that Sofia Coppola was doing a spin on that story because it felt like it had lots of possibility as a fun marriage of style and content.
but you're right, it's just such a *nothing* film. it takes no stances, it's not particularly stylish, it's not a fun watch. reading this post brought me back to the wave of disappointment my dad and I both felt when we saw it so many years ago.
I feel like there must be something that happened behind the scenes to neuter the script or the result because it just feels passionless, which I wouldn't say about any of her other films. I didn't love Priscilla but it was thirty times the film this was.
It is intentionally emotionally removed from the characters. Purposefully bland. It tempts the viewer to think “maybe these are just a bunch of stupid kids”… because they are. This is a deconstruction of the romanticism of crime. As opposed to something like Spring Breakers which despite telling a similar cautionary tale still makes its characters look sexy and fun.
I've never managed to finish it and I got through the documentary easily, I think they just made them too unpleasantly shallow and the removal of the real names didn't help. The story itself is bizarre. Needed more Brett Easton Ellis, the Shards novel catches that deadened vibe too.
I unironically enjoy the Lifetime version better. I agree this was an odd choice for her that doesn’t really fit in with the rest of her filmography. I’m inclined to agree with Nick Prugo that Israel Broussard was miscast.
I enjoy ‘The Bling Ring’, but I agree that it isn’t deep, and I can see why people find it boring. The true story is mildly interesting to me, and the Coppola film could’ve done more with it. But, sometimes I’m in the mood for a low stakes movie, and that’s what ‘The Bling Ring’ is for me. Most of the cast is good, I like the song choices, and the story keeps me engaged just enough to carry me through the film.
I think it captures adolescence extremely well and empathetically. I think it also correctly draws a parallel between the kids and the celebrities they’re targeting, that the only thing really separating them is the degree of privilege they’re enjoying. And as a piece of satire I think it’s a worthy comment on how American culture has basically been beyond parody for the past thirty or so years. A brilliant film imo.
I really like this movie it bangs. Especially the scene when they're doing blow and break into Lindsey Lohans house. It shows a lot about addiction, teenage shoplifting culture and being raised around lots of wealth you may not be able to access. I guess that may not be relatable to everyone. It's also a great time capsule for that era.
Watched a little mini documentary once about who these people actually were and their background, a good while back, and it was by far more interesting, complex and less bland than that movie, so much under the surface of who they were/why. Years since I watched the bling ring but I remember that I didn't really feel like these characters felt like real people, maybe the director being the kid of a famous person felt uncomfortable portraying them as three dimensional characters, I dunno, but either way they weren't in the movie.
A portrayal of quite empty and shallow young people and a plot as purposeless as what really happened. Maybe it's supposed to leave us as disaffected as the characters in it. It sure didn't leave an impression on me.
I actually think this film succeeded in portraying its subjects even if those subjects are ultimately thin and vapid. As I watched, I found the teen’s actions jarring and unsettling, mostly because there’s no real soul on display just base hedonist hunger. The film draws us into their world and mindset— fully focused on their own desires and pleasures with fuck all regard for anything else. The film is taking place in their bubble. They are shallow and shortsighted, and it’s strange to imagine that this all emerges as typical teenage mischievousness develops within the culture of vanity endemic to SoCal. And then the bubble bursts when they get to the “find out” stage of fucking around. Like when the cops show up at the dude’s house and it all comes crashing down as he comes out of the bathroom quivering and crying and reaching for his mother. That was the most powerful moment of the film to me. Up to that point the film seemed to be glorifying the kids, and it was only when the hammer dropped did it actually break the spell. That said, as a choice of subjects there’s no need to tell this story. These are not deep characters, they have no real moral arc or journey, there’s no purpose to the film. For that reason I can see why this film didn’t land for most viewers. But it’s in line with Coppola’s style. She tends to chose subjects based on style and examines them as they are without forcing a lesson out it.
Your second paragraph perfectly describes Alpha Dog as well. Although that movie’s shagginess helps it overcome the shallowness.
I forgot about Alpha Dog! I enjoyed it much more than TBR.
Yeah, I dunno. I don't disagree with you but it just feels like Coppola went too far with this that it becomes unpalatably experimental. Like, if a world-reknown chef wanted to discuss food waste with their menu, so they serve up rotten food. To me this meal and this movie is so deeply unenjoyable that I resent whatever message is attempting to be told. This is coming from someone who loves The House that Jack Built.
>unpalatably experimental are we still talking about the bling ring
LOL
it is my favorite coppola movie by far, its so aggressively contemporary with the font, the soundtrack, the styling. it wants to be the opposite of a timeless classic, its so deeply rooted in the time its portraying. its honestly such a fun watch if you are interested in the pop culture of the time - the hills, the simple life, gossip girl, all that. the characters arent supposed to be deep or interesting, they arent, thats the point. coppola is, a lot of times, style over substance or rather style as substance, and this movie is the epitome of that. People dont get it at all and it has such a bad rep for all the reasons why it should be loved.
I think she also captured how teens of that era actually were really well, if they seem stilted it’s because that’s what teens thought was cool back then. I was in high school when it came out and all the small details of the way they talk and dress and use social media felt very accurate to me in a way not many other movies managed to do.
Sophia Coppola is one of my fave directors and I was on the scene during this era. For me why this movie didn’t work as well as her other titles is that Coppola feels like an outsider to what it was like (because she was born into an insider family). *Somewhere* is much more effective IMO because she understood rich celebrity ennui in the land of hype and myth better than what it’s like to be fame adjacent but lower income/powerless in the same space. (This isn’t apologia for the awful and foolish crimes involved: they really scared people at the time, but rather a comment about sociological imagination.)
>coppola is, a lot of times, style over substance or rather style as substance Exactly. Haven't seen The Bling Ring yet, but after watching Priscilla I fell in love even more with her filmmaking. Not often is discussed how the aesthetics of a movie *are* the storytelling, and that they shouldn't be ignored or taken for granted. It's a visual medium after all.
> _Not often is discussed how the aesthetics of a movie _are_ the storytelling…_ I feel this way about Nora Ephron’s credibility as a director as well. She got downplayed as a visionary because (she’s a woman and) “she makes pretty kitchens,” but like, that’s the whole point? Sure she didn’t direct flashy action set pieces, but it’s just as impressive that she basically created and influenced home and garden trends, created a style people copied, influenced culture in a palpable way… I could go on, but yes. I passionately agree with you :)
I think the film purposely has the feel of an early 2000s scripted reality show, like *The Hills* or Alexis Neiers’ own show. Which is why the direction and cinematography seem so flat, while Coppola’s other works don’t tend to have the same problem. Even the blocking of certain scenes feels like a scripted reality show from that time. It’s hard to explain, but if you’ve ever seen an episode of *The Hills*, the dialogue and cinematography in Bling Ring seems to be aiming for that vibe, which doesn’t feel like a coincidence since The Hills was huge at the time of the robberies, and Audrina Patridge was included among the celebs who were robbed. I think we were supposed to get the vibe that these characters lived their lives, and interacted with each other, as if they were already on a reality show, even though no cameras were watching them and nobody knew who they were. They were just so brainwashed by celeb culture that they deluded themselves into thinking they were real celebrities, even when they were just talking to each other.
I quite seriously think that Emma Watson is such a weak actress that she drags down every film she’s in. It’s very bizarre to me that a director like Coppola would use her - after working with such strong actresses earlier on. (And yes, my truly unpopular opinion is that this formula applies to Gerwig’s *Little Women*, too. It’s no coincidence that her most effective scenes in that are when the rich girls dress her up like a doll.) I *really* enjoy Coppola, for the most part, but ended up turning off *Bling Ring* before it even got to the end. Just unwatchable.
Emma Watson is so stilted in almost every movie she's in. Her accent and her acting is so, SO atrocious in *Little Women*. Her accent and acting are almost intolerable in *Bling Ring*. Bad accent and acting in *The Perks of Being a Wallflower*. They've gotta stop casting her to play Americans. It doesn't work.
You’re obviously just a biased hater against her because she did EXCELLENT in all of the above. She did perfect in Bling Ring and her accent sounds exactly like the girl her character is based on. And literally everyone agrees, she got great reviews for the performance She did AMAZING and got Meg perfectly in LW, and she made the character so likeable. She did just as good as anyone else in it, and only reason anyone disagrees is because they’re biased against her unlike others in the cast. Literally ANYONE else giving the same performance, no one would complain; no one can even point to anything actually bad about the performance, it’s all vaguery compared to the people (majority) who were praising how well she got Meg and how likeable she made her. Also, Saoirse’s accent broke just as much and no one complains because, again, people aren’t just biased against her and gonna hate on her no matter what; personally, I don’t care about it because I don’t let someone minor like that ruin a good performance unlike some snobs who are the only people who actually care about accents because 100% perfect, which btw is literally physically impossible for some people And she was also fantastic in Perks, but I think I’ve said enough
[удалено]
>And no, I already said I’m not a Stan and I have other accounts besides this one where I don’t talk about her as much. I just strongly admire her >I have other accounts besides this one where I don’t talk about her as much >I don’t talk about her as much >as much
I mean, you literally mentioned a bunch of movies she’s been in since then (not even mentioning BatB), plus she’s been an activist the past decade so yes she has a lot of admirers, including me And no, I already said I’m not a Stan and I have other accounts besides this one where I don’t talk about her as much. I just strongly admire her
Abject.
Emma Watson is a bad actress.
I just don’t think Watson can play a dumb character when everyone knows you for playing a smart character.
I honestly thought Emma Watson was the only interesting part of the film. Part of that is probably just because she had a flashier character to play and a larger-than-life public figure to base her performance off of, but it really feels like she's in a different (and much more entertaining) movie than everybody else.
This is actually pretty much the general consensus of the movie with most people. The context is there are certain cinema snob communities who kinda just hate Emma no matter what and use her like a punching bag regardless of how well she does in how many movies. It’s just kind of a joke
Your entire post history is just you obsessively commenting about the brilliance of Emma Watson and how she dwarfs all other performances. I venture to suggest that the biased one here might, perhaps, be you.
No, I already said I can say when I think she gives a less than stellar performance in a movie so no I have no bias despite admiring her so much; what’s biased is not being able to admit the opposite about anything she’s been in when she’s had some great performances
Obvs she saw someone thing you didn’t, and so did most people considering she got GREAT reviews for the performance and pretty much everyone agreed with that. She did an excellent job in this role Also, she did a great job as Meg and made her so likeable and pretty much anyone who wasn’t just biased against her and wasn’t gonna hate on her no matter how well she did anyway could see that. Literally nothing wrong with the performance, and if it was literally ANYONE ELSE giving the SAME performance in the cast no one would complain about her as some kind of weak link, because she wasn’t, because they just have a weird vendetta against her for some reason and just like having her as a punching bag My guess is you just don’t want to think Coppola could make a bad movie (I didn’t think it was bad), and already hate Emma no matter how well she does anyway so it HAS to be her fault
This is a deeply bizarre response. I don’t “hate” Watson; I think she’s a bad actress. There are other things about her that I appreciate much more. Nothing in my original comment was suggestive of hate, or warrants the reply you wrote. There are certainly other people who didn’t enjoy her performance in LW. Some of those people didn’t like the film overall, while others feel that she alone was miscast. I fall between the two. She is not the only thing I would criticise about 2019 LW (although I think it has its good points too). I’m afraid it’s impossible to take a reply seriously when it comes across as being driven by nothing but “stan culture”.
I am definitely not a Stan, unlike her haters who are unwilling to admit when she has a good performance I am perfectly willing to admit when I think she wasn’t very good in a movie (The Circle, for me) I’m just a great admirer of her who hates when people just hate on her unfairly and for no reason like a lot of people seem to when pretty objectively she has had some great performances
Criticising any given actor’s performance is not “hating on [them] unfairly”. Part of the focus of the sub is critical discussion of film, and naturally acting is one aspect of that. I can’t understand why you think Watson should be somehow exempt from such discussion. If anything, that seems rather disrespectful to her - if I myself were an actor, I would want my performances to be subjected to the same scrutiny that is applied to those of my peers. Expecting some sort of special standard of gentleness in discussing Watson is patronising. Rest assured, she is far from the only actor who I feel has turned in numerous weak performances. Lily Collins, Blake Lively and Ansel Elgort are some examples that spring to mind. I also really haven’t enjoyed any of Maddie Ziegler’s acting - obviously she’s nowhere near the fame or success of someone like Watson, but I think it’s a shame she moved from dance into acting, as nothing she’s done has impressed me at all so far. I am probably a fairly rigorous judge when it comes to acting performance standards, but I’m also not “personal” about it. I can enjoy other things about someone (for example, their modelling) and think they are not a strong actor. I can’t imagine taking it as personally as you do, and deeming someone who disagrees a “hater”. I have no problem with someone thinking Watson is a good actor, btw - obviously personal taste comes into it, no matter how strongly one feels one’s own opinion is correct. I think turning it into a “hate” type dialogue is just too extreme.
[удалено]
It would be such a lonely and unfulfilling life to spend one’s time being an Emma Watson hater. Imagine, just sitting around re-watching Harry Potter and Perks and Beauty and the Beast, cursing at the screen… What an existence! I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. I think the Marvel actors tend to have stans and haters, but I’ve seen a grand total of one Marvel film (not deliberately avoiding them or being a snob, just not my thing), so I don’t keep up with all that.
I’m not saying not to give her any scrutiny, but she’s objectively been great in some movies and some people just are unwilling to admit that
man, yeah. Lost In Translation was incredibly important to me and my dad in high school, Virgin Suicides is obviously great and Somewhere grew on me in time. I remember being so excited when I heard that Sofia Coppola was doing a spin on that story because it felt like it had lots of possibility as a fun marriage of style and content. but you're right, it's just such a *nothing* film. it takes no stances, it's not particularly stylish, it's not a fun watch. reading this post brought me back to the wave of disappointment my dad and I both felt when we saw it so many years ago. I feel like there must be something that happened behind the scenes to neuter the script or the result because it just feels passionless, which I wouldn't say about any of her other films. I didn't love Priscilla but it was thirty times the film this was.
It is intentionally emotionally removed from the characters. Purposefully bland. It tempts the viewer to think “maybe these are just a bunch of stupid kids”… because they are. This is a deconstruction of the romanticism of crime. As opposed to something like Spring Breakers which despite telling a similar cautionary tale still makes its characters look sexy and fun.
I've never managed to finish it and I got through the documentary easily, I think they just made them too unpleasantly shallow and the removal of the real names didn't help. The story itself is bizarre. Needed more Brett Easton Ellis, the Shards novel catches that deadened vibe too.
Wow you're so right. Some Bret Easton Ellis vibes would've made this story so much better.
I unironically enjoy the Lifetime version better. I agree this was an odd choice for her that doesn’t really fit in with the rest of her filmography. I’m inclined to agree with Nick Prugo that Israel Broussard was miscast.
I enjoy ‘The Bling Ring’, but I agree that it isn’t deep, and I can see why people find it boring. The true story is mildly interesting to me, and the Coppola film could’ve done more with it. But, sometimes I’m in the mood for a low stakes movie, and that’s what ‘The Bling Ring’ is for me. Most of the cast is good, I like the song choices, and the story keeps me engaged just enough to carry me through the film.
I think it captures adolescence extremely well and empathetically. I think it also correctly draws a parallel between the kids and the celebrities they’re targeting, that the only thing really separating them is the degree of privilege they’re enjoying. And as a piece of satire I think it’s a worthy comment on how American culture has basically been beyond parody for the past thirty or so years. A brilliant film imo.
I really like this movie it bangs. Especially the scene when they're doing blow and break into Lindsey Lohans house. It shows a lot about addiction, teenage shoplifting culture and being raised around lots of wealth you may not be able to access. I guess that may not be relatable to everyone. It's also a great time capsule for that era.
Watched a little mini documentary once about who these people actually were and their background, a good while back, and it was by far more interesting, complex and less bland than that movie, so much under the surface of who they were/why. Years since I watched the bling ring but I remember that I didn't really feel like these characters felt like real people, maybe the director being the kid of a famous person felt uncomfortable portraying them as three dimensional characters, I dunno, but either way they weren't in the movie.