This movie is a hoot, but I gotta say, in the audience I was with, I was the only one getting it. At the first (and ultimately best) humorous part, the first time (of 8) they went into Paris Hilton's house, I bust out laughing at the temple she'd built to herself (I assume that's a true part of the true story), but then had to stifle myself when it turned out I was the only one laughing. W T F ??? The humor throughout this docu-re-creation was at the expense of these shallow, celebrity worshiping, bulletproof twits who had a mega-surplus of brass and stupidity. You can't make this stuff up.
I can't help but wonder if the portrayal of the parents wasn't slanted though, they being ultimately the villains in this little story. The only parent they really focused on was the mother of Emma Watson's character (the shallowest of the shallow) who was a holy roller. The rest didn't get much coverage, including the ringleader's mother who was Asian. ?:roll:? And if the story is presented accurately, there's plenty of stupidity to go around. They apparently never had to break into any of the houses.
There was definitely style to be had, thanks to Sofia Coppola's touch, mashing cool up against corruption to see what would happen. And I couldn't help but wonder if she wasn't drawing on firsthand experience in this area.
I assume the guy is gay. There was never any sexual tension, and he was the most cautious one, but it was never made clear. (More ambiguity for PC considerations?) I came close to giving it a nine but, 8/10.
That slip-top Carrera demo was magnificent and I'm sure it could tempt Jesus hissef--but only, of course, if it tempted Emma Stone into the right seat as well. (Where's a knuckle chewing emoticon when you need one.)
I just read this representative summation of the critical consensus of the movie on R/T: "failure to delve beneath the surface of its shallow protagonists' real-life crimes". WTF does he think "shallow" means? AGGGGGH?!?!