Good story, Not enough for a whole film

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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.

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.

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.