User Reviews

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.

In 2008, filmmaker Josh Safdie released his directorial debut. In a year that marked the start of superhero blockbuster "cinematic universe"'s, also came the start of one of the finest filmmaker pairs of this generation, albeit with a much smaller 'bang'. Despite not having the luxuries of the 140 million dollar budget of Iron Man, Josh Safdie was still able to create a nice and satisfying movie for what limited supplies he had.

That said, the budget definitely shows, but doesn't detract. It's no secret that making movies is expensive, even just the act of shooting on film costs money. So, to save on cash most indie directors shoot as little footage as possible and as simplistic a setup as possible. This film is no exception, with most scenes usually only being made up of 2 or 3 shots, and the lighting not being altered at all, i.e: it's all natural to its environment. While in bigger budget movies that would be a horrible drawback, it fits this film's realistic homey nature very well. So, while it may limit the director somewhat in conveying certain emotions, it ends up capturing something that no million-dollar setup in any superhero movie could ever truly imitate: a pure, raw environment. No matter how much a crew can try to mess up a room enough to make it seem lived in, the effect will never be as good as just filming a room that is lived in. And that's something that this thousand-dollar budget film captures perfectly.

While most of the visual aspects are all well and good, there are some things that can't be fixed without a lot of money. So while Safdie can definitely circumvent some other limitations, there still remains elements of the film that do detract from the believability. Perhaps the most obvious example occurs during the zoo scene. In it, Eleonore climbs over the railing into the zoo habitat to get a closer look. The obvious fact that they didn't actually film inside the habitat is not what detracts from the scene, it is the fact that the actress didn't pet or swim with a real polar bear. I know, I know, no movie would have an actor swim with a real-life polar bear. Most movies can, however, make a fake polar bear realistic enough to allow the audience to continue their suspension of disbelief, that is not this movie. This movie uses a stuffed animal. Another example can be found in, well, every scene. I have frequently noticed that, for what reason we may never know, good actors only want to work on good movies with good pay, and not cheap, indie, directorial debuts. So, the stars of this movie are not Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, they are director Josh Safdie, and co-writer Eleonore Hendricks. Surprisingly, these performances are not always the most believable.

Now that we've gotten through with most of the surface problems, let's finish by talking about writing. Simply put, this movie could not afford to have a plot about a multi-billionaire escaping from Iraqui terrorists in a flying super-suit equipped with homing missiles. So, the writers logically went with a very simplistic, low-key plot starring relatable, middle-class Americans. That's not really a problem though, the issue with the writing is in regard to the theme. This film wasn't made to be a masterpiece, it was made to be an experiment, to see if making feature films was possible for Josh Safdie. So there is no sophisticated connection between the theme and the plot, in fact, there is a rather loose one. The theme is best described during the end credits: "For... anyone who's experienced the pleasure of being robbed." It's trying to convey the fact that when one of your possessions are stolen, the thief would be having a good time, and you should feel good about that. This has a very optimistic outlook for life (something that can be found frequently in his earlier short films), but it is very obviously a false hope. Eleonore's ignorance is hard to forget when we have experienced what the other side of the story is going through. Despite all the effort the movie makes to bring their characters to life, we cannot help ourselves from feeling wronged by each of Elonore's crimes. So, perhaps this movie fails to tell a fully truthful story, but it sure as hell tells an interesting one.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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******