User reviews

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.

THE PLEASURE OF BEING ROBBED (dir. Joshua Safdie) A brash example of LoFi Mumblecore that presents an unapologetic look at a whimsical sociopath who believes that anything that strikes her fancy is hers for the taking. Elenore swipes everything from kittens to Volvos, and the film's uncomfortable message seems to be that her victims are only being blessed by her wonderfulness. Needless to say, it's nearly impossible for a rational viewer to rally round a character with such an extreme egocentric focus, yet the film might only be a sly cinematic valentine by director Joshua Safdie to articulate his feelings for the star of the film, Eleonore Hendricks.

The worst film I've seen in years. From the first minute to the last, nothing happens! Our (hugely unlikable) hero, Eleonore, who we follow through the film steals from people for unknown reasons. She is the same person from beginning to end thereby leaving the audience with absolutely no satisfaction. There is no character development, no arc, nothing. This film is as bland as puddy.

It's quite obvious the filmmakers were going for a John Cassavetes story-telling, rawness" but didn't even come close to reaching that bar. Instead they succeeded in showing off their immature, New York, self-indulgent "I'm too deep as an artist" arrogant ability producing this 70 minute film that felt like 3 hours. Everything comes down to idea, idea, idea. Concept, concept, concept. Character, character, character.

My favorite of the worst scenes in the film was the "driver's education film" stuck in the middle of this non-existent plot. I understand people in large cities don't drive & maybe have never driven, but come on: Eleonore, are you 3 years old? Are you mentally-impaired? I mean, you've seen cars, right? You live in NY city, they're all around you. You do get the basic idea of what a car does? How it works?? Ever taken a cab anywhere??? Watching the driver's-ed course which seemed like 45 minutes was pure torture! Seriously, is this really story-telling? C'mon, do you look at your own film & say, "WOW, it's so wonderful & deep."

Having screened at the L.A. Film Festival, when asked about certain character/story questions from the audience, the filmmakers had no clue how to answer these basic questions like, "why does Eleonore steal?", or "what's the meaning behind the title?". They just confirmed to the majority of the audience that they are just a bunch of white-kids with a lot of money, making films in which they have no business doing. I wouldn't have such a problem but knowing they think the world of themselves just because they went to NYU & live in some trendy area, living off mommy & daddy's allowance but play it down like "I'm a struggling artist just like you" is completely insulting.

I felt robbed after having seen this film. Can you give me back my time? How 'bout my money. There is NO pleasure in being robbed.

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.

Unfortunately I had the displeasure of watching this schlock last night. My girl and I like indy movies, so after reading a blurb describing it we decided to order it on demand. It said that this "movie" got rave reviews at Cannes. After this I will never trust Cannes critics again as they must write their reviews between crack cocaine parties.

The other bad reviews written here perfectly describe what this movie is. In the first 5 minutes I got a very bad feeling and told my girl, "This better get a whole lot better soon". It never did. The film has no plot whatsoever and is completely pointless "mumblecore". "Mumblecore" is a perfect term for it and I wasn't aware of such a term until reading reviews of it last night (unfortunately, after I spent $6.99 and killed 70 minute of my life on it). Apparently, mumblecore is a trendy term used to justify supposed artistic value of totally pointless, talentless garbage.

This movie has moved into #2 spot in the worst movie I've ever seen list. The only one worse was a movie called "Black Dahlia" by a German scam artist who shoots crap on video, tags it with a title of a well known Hollywood film, hires a graphic designer to make a nice cover for it and somehow gets it into Blockbuster so that people rent it by mistake.

"Freddy Got Fingered", an atrociously gross, completely unfunny "comedy" by Tom Green has been downgraded to the #3 worst movie I've ever seen, as this one has taken over the #2 spot. That is some achievement.

Is this what passes for movie making among the artsy fartsy teens these days? I hope that the director who also "starred" in it at least got laid with the main character. I'm pretty sure that was the main goal of making this.

I feel robbed of $6.99 it cost me to order this waste of film on demand, but like the victims of petty theft in the movie I didn't experience any pleasure of being robbed. The only good thing about this film is that it's only 70 minutes long. The bad part is that you can show everything that takes place in it in a 10-minute short.

I can make a more entertaining film by walking around NYC with my camcorder for a couple of days.

Unless you're on crack like the guy who wrote the positive review of it on here (possibly the director himself or one of his buddies) save yourself 70 minutes of your life. If you spend the same 70 minutes popping bubble wrap bubbles you'll get more entertainment out of your time.

As the picture begins, our heroine steals a bag containing a small dog from an out-of-towner. When she gets the parcel home and discovers the little critter, for which she has no use, she just casts it out into the hallway of her tenement to fend for itself. She has no feeling for the welfare of the animal, not to mention the grief of its owner. That was enough for me. I couldn't care less what happens to this cruel, selfish young woman, except to the extent that I hope it hurts. Had the plot been billed as animal rights vigilantes giving her what she has coming, I might have continued watching. One understands that not every protagonist can be exemplary, and that even those who are bear human imperfections. In "Gardens of the Night," Tom Arnold gives an Oscar-worthy performance as an even worse human being, who abducts children and "turns them out" as prostitutes salable to pimps. But there are complexities in the portrayal, limits to his excesses, and he displays a horrifying, yet fascinating ability to relate to his victims. In contrast, the unfeeling Eleonore just makes me angry, without being interesting.

I saw this film at Cannes twice and I can't seem to either get away from it or get it out of my mind. I keep thinking about the surface nature of the main character Eleonore in the beginning and throughout. But what is crazy is she knows it.

It is not that she is annoying. I Think it is sad to see someone hide their true emotions. She smiles and you wonder why is she smiling, It is uncomfortable to be in the room. These are negative qualities and that is why they are on film (and yes beautiful 16 mm, finally!). They are just an exaggerated type of personality that forces us to see what we all sometimes fall victim too, too big a self-conscience.

She is a great thief, but she is not really stealing. She just wants to learn more about people because she is afraid, or unwilling, to say hello in a genuine way.

At times I didn't like her but so what? Film is not about feeling comfortable, it is about thinking about how you can change parts of yourself. When I didn't like her or what she is doing, I asked myself why? And that is what I liked. I liked also seeing the other people in New york who don't have her problem. Heck, there is a guy walking around saying how beautiful everything is. And wait, here we see her wonder what that life might be like. Also, when she listens to the trumpet playing, I Thought how sad, she realizes her faults. Sometimes you can't change them (Having been in therapy I should know, haha).

Thanks for showing me the pains of holding back, and the beauty of letting it out.

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.

this movie was honestly the worst movie ever! it was a flat liner big time. it didn't even come across as trendy or artistic - it was more like a 18 yr. old asshole spying on his crush, obsessing over the lamest events of her days. her driving scenes were so unrealistic - there was no way this dummy didn't at least scratch the car. the "misadventures" were pathetic, she was pathetic and whom ever gave this movie an 8 was equally as delusional as the main character.... if i could have giving this movie a zero i would have. the main characters were not attractive or likable at all. it would have been one thing if she was cute or even funny....

The main actress is terrible and unappealing. There's no lure to the character as the director is suggesting and the timing of the film is boring and plodding because of her acting in my opinion. I wouldn't recommend this or any of the films by these guys, they're all an aesthetic I think is exploitative and dumb.

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.

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..

I stumbled upon this used DVD in a thrift store and knew nothing about it. It just caught my eye and something told me to buy it. I'm so very glad I did. Sometimes the stars align and miracles happen, and that's what it took for me to find out about this excellent little movie.

I was expecting it to be a micro-budget indie film with bad acting, and hoping for a few redeeming moments and a whole lot of charm, which is about the best you can ask for from that type of film (I thought). But I was blown away. Five minutes into the movie I realized I was watching something else entirely. I've never seen anything like it. I didn't know indie films could be made this well.

Everything about it is just perfect and far better than any attempt I have seen before. The cinematography is beautiful and the editing is very good, as it the acting, which surprised me the most. The actors here are all ones I'd never seen before, so no big stars, but they all did an excellent job (aside from a few moments of mediocre acting in some of the smaller roles).

Now let's get to the story. It's about a young woman in her twenties who lives in New York. We've seen it a hundred times, right? Nah, this woman happens to be a pickpocket. And for the first time ever, we get to watch a pickpocket going about her day. Some have argued that there's no plot, but wouldn't a plot just make it so boring? That's been done before! It's better just to watch the characters sometimes. This one is fascinating!

Everything was very well done for such a low-budget film, although I later found out that multimillionaires Andy and Kate Spade had something to do with this production. I believe that most of that money went to acquiring film stock, however, as this film was shot on good old film rather than digital, the latter being the preferred medium for films like this. But the film look really makes this all that much better, and really adds to the style and makes it look more legitimate while still maintaining wonderful raw and gritty feel.