MovieChat Forums > The Bling Ring (2013) Discussion > It's not bad actually, but nothing stell...

It's not bad actually, but nothing stellar either

posted 10 years ago by Archeoterrex
3 replies | jump to latest

When I first watched this movie, I couldn't stand it. I thought it was downright awful along with awful acting and awful characters. But as the movie went on, the whole breaking and entering thing became more and more compelling, there was a omnipresent fear that they could get caught which made things more interesting.

Of course the only reason why anyone watched this flick was to see Emma Watson in short shorts. Suffice to say, Emma Watson has proven two things. She is drop dead gorgeous, and she can not do very many roles. I suppose she pulled off the valley girl stereotype well enough, but the whole movie was so vapid that her character never even had any opportunity to be delved into. She was overacting, but the role was so easy to do, it's like pretended to be a retard in I Am Sam, anyone can do it, and overacting isn't a problem.

I just kept wishing there would be SOME development between characters. The boy in particular, the movie pretty much is told from his perspective, but we get little to no interaction with his character and the other characters. I kept wondering what's wrong with this guy, he's surrounded by hot girls, but yet never develops any romantic feelings with anyone, including his best friend. There was no nuance to any of these characters, we never learn much of anything about them other than they steal. Ok, is that all there is to these people? We know they steal, show us more about their lives, and the problems they are having that are causing them to do what they are doing. The movie never attempts that.

[–] bhang-812-928667 10 years ago

I kept wondering what's wrong with this guy, he's surrounded by hot girls, but yet never develops any romantic feelings with anyone, including his best friend.

That's because he was gay. And it was so great that he wasn't introduced as the - I don't know how to express it - typical gay character in a film or there was no big fuzz about the fact that he was gay. Perfect.

And regarding acting in her films in general:

It's as if there is no acting. And that's great. I cannot imagine a strong method-acting performance (from whoever) with all those typcial method-acting mannerisms in her films. It wouldn't fit. That doesn't mean that it's not good. The acting required in her films is as if there isn't acting at all.

And for all who say the films look simple or easy or whatever: it's like when people looking at a Picasso painting and saying, "that's something I CAN DO!"

It looks easy or simple in a way... but I guess it isn't, at all.

For example, check out her video of "Chloroform" (song by Phoenix) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc5VCu0ECSI. Sooo simple and yet so effective. Minimalism at it's absolute best. Genius. As I said, it looks as if everybody can do that... but, in fact, only a few or almost nobody can do that.

Her films doesn't look like typical films, at all. Of course, they are not documentaries either. It's just almost another way of shooting films.

[–] Archeoterrex 10 years ago

I considered that he might have been gay, but that's also no excuse for zero character development on his character. Even if he's gay, he developed close human relations with the other characters, this was never explored.

I'm assuming you are talking about Emma Watson, I stand behind my remarks about her acting. When I say it was an easy role, that has squat to do with the nonsense you implied, it was to explain how overacting can get muddled in that role.

[–] holly61 (907) 2 years ago

Emma Watson acting was actually horrendous in this film. Alexis Neiers did not actually sound or look like her. Alexis was dumb, had some ''valley girl'' speech inflection patterns but nothing like what was being portrayed by Emma Watson. Emma's portrayal was strange. Emma was actually the weakest actress in the bunch.