Pretty Good

Overrated and overhyped

Memorable, crazy movie

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

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 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.

I thought this was one of the worst movies I've ever seen, in my entire life. Comparing it to such great literary works as Jindabyne (LOL). There is no plot, no character development, no point to the entire "movie" (I use the word movie very liberally here). It's basically someone filming a woman for a day, and they throw in a couple actors to go along with it. The movie is only 70 mins long, but as soon as they got into the car scene in the first about 1/4 of the movie, I could tell the movie was going to be completely pointless, void of any art/film qualities, and basically be a waste of time. I felt like less of a person after watching this movie, and that's almost impossible no matter how bad a movie is. Can't believe anyone liked this at all. Amazing.Overall this movie sucks complete ass, and even most movies I dislike, I would still rate 4-5.

Seemingly unaware of itself, The Pleasure of Being Robbed, floats along each frame in a similar fashion that Eleonore does. Not for a second is the film pretentious as one may think after reading a brief description; there is no judgment on Eleonore. We follow and watch her as she goes through her day, stealing smiles, hugs, and kittens from strangers. It is intriguing and (seemingly) unconscious in the same ways Richard Linklater's Slacker is, and with this said, it is likely those who did not find Slacker appealing would not be interested in The Pleasure of Being Robbed. (This review is coming from someone who is in love with Slacker so...) But it is more intimate than Slacker is; in Slacker, we only get a couple of minutes with each character; with The Pleasure of Being Robbed, we get 71 minutes. With this said, it is not a continuation of Slacker; it stands on its' own as a piece of art. Eleonore is essentially a child. She tip-toes around (literally, in some instances), looking as though she is singing something in her head and giggles and smiles to herself. She has little inhibition and thus, feels the right to steal from people in order to peak into their lives and create another self. In the spirit of Arthur Rimbaud, "I is someone else," for her. And just the way people love children for not restraining themselves with certain actions, they know it is also selfish. Her character is both beautiful and sad; both distant and relate-able.I saw this film at the IFC in New York City and the director and the woman who played Eleonore were there after (along with the other makers of the film) answering questions. I was pleasantly surprised at how honest Josh Safdie (the director) was in his answers. He was completely genuine and modest, and seemed excited, going on digressions. It was a nice change in a place that is often overwhelmed by pretentious, arrogant, aspiring filmmakers.