The Pleasure of Being Robbed

Perhaps I've watched too many 2000s Williamsburg hipster flicks lately, but this one was a real tedious experience. There's certainly something intriguing about the feeling of dull desolation that characters like her, Francis Ha, and the girl in Eternal Sunshine invoke. It's a sort of, life's not that bad, but it's not that good either - a feeling that many people can relate to, especially the Passion Pit stans of the aughts. That said, it's difficult to feel sympathy or even irritation with the characters in this movie. They're aloof, they're flighty, they're criminals in the most pedestrian sense. You don't feel a connection with the characters, and maybe that's the point: they're dull mundane version of living on the fringe is a greater story about the boring dystopia that is America and youth culture. Maybe. Though, like with Frances Ha, it reads a bit more like at some point in history this mentality was cool or edgy. Sort of a last celebration of shoplifting graphic tees from Zumiez and sneaking into the mall movie theatre: it seems like a big deal while you're doing it, doesn't really matter to anybody else..

You people just cant see the inner beauty of this film. Humanity can sometimes be a lonely thing. Eleanor (however you spell her name) appreciated everything she "stole". You could see the appreciation and connection she felt from the objects that she stole from other peoples lives. Hence the title of the film. Which is beautiful. And the cinematography was wonderful. The grain, the tightness of the shots, the cuts. I loved it. There really was no plot. It was mainly the character analysis that kept me watching. Just the spontaneity of her was so inspiring and I truly admire that. She was living and not just breathing. She was innocent as a child. Yes the things she did were not so innocent, but she had an innocence about her. There wasn't even any sex in the film just to further prove her innocence.

I just saw this at a university screening. After reading the reviews here, I wanted to add my response, too.

I thought this film was really moving. I think it goes a little way toward helping a viewer recognize the wild grip he or she places on things or expectations, and what's more amazing is that the logic of the film allows it to do this almost solely through humor and with a light touch. Many moments in the film are not that far from Gogol's Dead Souls or Tati's Hulot in their liveliness and scope.

At the very least, I'd recommend it to a friend--a thoughtful and surprising film.

Not much happens in this movie. It's merely a glimpse into the life of a young woman living in New York, walking around somewhat aimlessly and stealing people's purses and car keys, out of boredom if for no other reason.

I like the idea of a film giving us a close-up view of an unfamiliar character's life in that kind of manner. It's different from the same old high-concept stories we're used to seeing. And here it is done in such a great way and wonderfully edited to the point that I thoroughly enjoyed it and never found it boring. However, it's not for everyone. I know a lot of people will hate this film for the exact reasons that I loved it, because not much happens.

The acting, in particular, is very good. It feels like these are professional actors with years of experience, despite the film's obviously tiny budget. I would say that it is the most well-acted film of such a low budget. It doesn't even feel like they're acting. It feels like they're real people, perhaps in a documentary but unaware that they're being filmed or followed.

At one point in the movie, the lead character visits a zoo and gets close to a polar bear. When she's near the bear, it is clearly fake, as safety concerns would not allow her to be unprotected within feet of a dangerous animal. The fake bear is not at all well-done. I got the idea that they were trying to make it look real, but eventually gave up and accepted the fact that it was clearly a puppet and didn't even try to fix it. They just went with it. It felt like they should have cut that scene but perhaps decided that it was more charming. In any case, it certainly doesn't ruin the movie, especially considering that it is kind of a dreamlike scene that wasn't supposed to be real life.

Another thing I liked about the film was its length at just over an hour. I felt like that was perfect for the story it was telling and I feel like a lot more films would be better if they had similar running times, as opposed to trying to squeeze an extra twenty minutes into a movie for the mere sake of making it longer because someone decided a long time ago that all feature films, regardless of their story, should be between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half hours long.

I liked this movie quite a bit, but I know many will disagree with my assessment. But if you want to risk it and find out if it's the film for you, it's a pretty safe wager, because even if you hate it, you will have wasted just a little more than an hour of your time.

I've seen a lot of terrible reviews about this movie, and I don't really understand why. It's not a terrible movie for the masses, it fits a select few tastes.

If you like Sofia Coppola type films, realistic feel without begin reality or a fake documentary, than you will probably like this one. Don't go into it expecting an amazing plot line, and a twist ending, because than you will be disappointed.

I think the cinematography was done beautifully. They got the right, and the wrong angles, in all the right ways. You almost feel as you are following her around and getting a real time look into someone else's life.

I don't want to give too much away, but I would give the movie a chance before you decided to hate it. Watch the trailer - so you get the basic idea of what kind of film it is.