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.

She's the only one that takes heart to a man that says "hello, handsome; hello beautiful" to every person he comes into contact with.

She meets an acquaintance on the street as she's looking to steal a car. He obliges to help her, and together they go for a random all-night drive to Boston. It's about 20 minutes into the escapade before he says, "So, how have you been? I haven't seen you in a while."

She sees a man walking a purse as if it's a dog.

At the film's climax, she's caught. Except, she doesn't try to run away (which she easily could have done). She says, "I just want to look through it" over and over again. That simple dialogue alone reveals her motivations for what she does but still leaving tons of mystery. She is not a sociopath. A sociopath has no interest in how others feel. She goes as far as to rob other people to know them.

And I don't understand the hate that some of these reviews convey. If anything, I would think that some of them have to be jokes. To criticize this movie for having no plot or character development is absurd. It's the moments of this random woman's life (a character you've never seen before... she's seemingly thoughtless, passionate, vivacious) This is such a moving film, with too many beautiful moments to name (I hate that I can't name them all). If these images and moments fail to affect most viewers (and by other reviews, it seems to have done so), then I feel sorry for those people for missing out on so much.

Last example: at one point a man is shown filming his son at the playground. The father tells him to fill up his pale with sand and run it down the slide. The son says it's "dumb and weird." The father says it "No, it will be cool for our movie."

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.

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.

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.

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 think that this unusual film is beautifully made but has some glaring faults. The film is basically a portrait (and this is why there is no clearly defined plot)of a young woman trying to fill her empty life with consumer goods or whatever they represent to her and voyeurism and this is something that many if not most of us do on a daily basis. Eleonore is different in that she seeks these things at the bottom of a strangers handbag. She is clearly not stealing for money as is obvious from the scene in the bar. The candid style places us in the position of voyeuristically observing her and this is interesting up to a point but clearly and editing process must have been employed and what was left out could have been more interesting than what was left in. For example, what happened to the kittens? Did she just leave them to fend for themselves when she went off to Boston or did she arrange for their safekeeping? Or did she just flush them down the toilet? I feel that it might have more interesting to have spent some time on this rather than watching her learn how to drive which many people can do quickly enough. I enjoyed the polar bear scene but I'm still not sure it belonged in the film. And so on. Her rummaging around in a strangers handbag as the owner looks on clearly represents a deterioration in her psychological condition (hence my summary) and I was left worrying about her future as a result, and there are few films that can engage me that personally when most films are so obviously signposted that they end up more as fairground rides than works of art.

I caught the Polar Bear sequence of this movie while flipping through channels when it ran recently on Sundance and was intrigued enough to catch the entire film on a repeat screening the next day.

From the opening sequence, I hunkered down for what was going to be a wild ride. I loved how this movie develops, not knowing where it's going with Eleonore randomly (yet expertly) picking off her victims. Each score opens up a new story. It's how life is in NYC, a random encounter on the street can completely change your life. You may find love, you may find heartache, you may find the most disgusting horror or the most sublime bliss. It was a perfect, slice-of-life movie about Manhattan. Others in this section have complained about Eleonore being unsympathetic or the lack of explanation for her motivation. She's not meant to be likable or admirable. If you've ever been the victim of robbery or theft (There is a circle in hell for whoever who stole my wallet from my car almost 30 years ago) there is nothing that will compel you to like her.

Yet -- You are intrigued by her, even when she's being annoying (table tennis anyone?). To know what motivates the thievery would be to reduce it to a Lifetime movie. To observe her in action is to witness her process --how is she going to pull each score off? The "why" does not matter. I can understand why the filmmakers did not give the audience clues in the Q&A. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.

I was very impressed with many aspects of the movie. Casting and performances were spot on, every character made you curious for more details and more info. There is a movie waiting to be made for every person in this film. Those two cops! Hilarious. The doorman, the father and the daughter! Loved them. The man with the kid at the playground! More! The couple throwing around money at the bar! MORE! The man telling everyone "You're beautiful/handsome!" Yes, more please! With each score, the details of the booty became intriguing in backstory. I would love to know the connection between the book about Sarkozy and the woman in the bar. Where did her money come from? Why does the dad have four kittens in a puppy in the same bag?

The use of locations in Manhattan felt very real, without being the touristy version that you get in most movies about NYC. This is the everyday Manhattan that feels lived-in and loved in. The glossy fake universe of SATC and other big-budget movies is absent (although I would love to live in Carrie/Big's apartment in SATC1).

My only critique is in the ending. While I'm glad that Eleonore is eventually caught, the sequence in Virgin Megastore threw me off 1) Because that store is out of business (yes, I know the movie was shot in 2007/8) and 2) as someone else pointed out, she steals a DVD to place in the CD player. Perhaps that was a comment about how disorienting being busted was to Eleonore. But for me, it just felt like a "meh." The Polar Bear sequence at the zoo opened up an intriguing possibility about her reality (or lack of) that could have taken the film further.

I am thrilled to learn that this movie is on DVD and will get it to experience the commentary track and short film extras. This film has made me very curious about the work of Joshua Safdie and the Red Bucket Brigade. I will seek out more of their work.

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.

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.

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.

This film was so bad I went to the trouble of registering on this site to warn others away and hoping I could at least save someone from wasting the time. The main character (Eleonore) steals a car with the help of some guy. You get to guess at the relationship because there is no discernible plot. They go to his place. She leaves. She goes to a park and sticks her hand in someone's purse. She gets arrested. Somehow without the film letting you know how, she is back on the street. I don't know what her qualifications are or how she ever got to do anything related to a film. I actually would be ashamed if I had any part in a movie this bad. A totally disjointed pointless film with lousy camera work thrown in. Nothing funny happens,no drama,no excitement.No rhyme or reason to anything in the film. A total waste of 71 minutes of my time.

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.

And I loved that movie, and then I saw the latest one, which I said was an incredible ride despite the emetic for characters!

This one was no different but not quite as intense , for the plot but the same way as the former , at some point in the script I felt like puking the characters were so , so , so , umm... I don't know I'm not a psychotherapist but the line when she says: 'I just want to look inside' considering a mommy stranger's purse, made me puke but with excitement, cause I'm like hell yeah, this is a really abnormal character, much can be done with characters like these , they broach madness and breach our social conventions which can sometimes, for a while, escape marginalization for they are intrinsically given more latitude due to their foibles - here the protagonist's foibles are funny and sweet but at times, when she loses interest in her newfound object, its maddening to experience this twacked out bi******

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....

I want the 70 minutes of my life back from having watched this film. THis film has no point, no plot, no answers NOTHING. I never did find out who or where those dang pets came from or what happened to them after. There was so much randomness that had nothing to do with anything else in the film and scenes that really made no sense.... Like why would cops let a girl loose in a zoo after arresting her for shoplifting? What the heck was the point of her imagining herself frolicking in ice water with a giant stuffed polar bear... mind you there are no other scenes where we see her having blatant hallucinations or a big imagination in other parts of the film. The film was just long and pointless and I really don't see how anyone can sit and pretend they "got" the film when there was nothing to get in the first place. I love indie films and artistic films. Even some of those indie, artistic, hipster films.... but this was just sheer garbage.