User reviews

Warning: three hour movie incoming!

No worries, split this sprawl in two, and away we go. First half is a bank caper, the second an existential quest for idyllic existence. Nice.

Moran is a frumpy, bald bank teller, stuck in a nine to five glum who decides to shake up his life with an inside heist. His anagram Roman is an lanky bank teller who becomes an odd accomplice. Their anagram Norma is an effervescent hippie and the object of their desires. Their anagram is Namor and that has nothing to do with this film.

Moran is a man of simple means, who calculates exactly how much he needs to swipe to match his cumulative pay upon retirement, allowing escape from the rat race. Seems fair. His other calculation is three and a half years, which is the time spent in jail upon surrender with good behavior. Again, what could go wrong? Roman is reluctantly roped into the audacious plan, which surprisingly seems plausible, save a couple of hiccups.

Part two: the major hiccup: Norma. A dark-haired, free spirit prancing about the countryside with her film-maker friends, collecting eggs, riding horses, splashing in a swimming hole. Sweet. Moran and Roman fall for her in separate story lines, and it looks like we are headed for an anagram triangle confrontation. Also the bank starts to close in, and the tension begins, but when the movie should start to ramp up, it instead meanders and lingers on mundane passages instead. Sigh.

Lots of filmy things going on here, starting with the beautiful expanse of the Argentine countryside, and the savouring of life's simple pleasures. An actor plays two characters and it somehow makes sense. Split screen shots feature Roman and Moran pondering their individual fate over cigarettes in different time lines.

For a heist and love triangle film, there's a dearth of action, and not much return on your buck. This is a very small film with a very lengthy running time. Three hours may be a tall ask, but there is something weirdly captivating to savour, not just the characters, but the whole experience. "Delinquents" is quite captivating in an offbeat way.

• hipCRANK.

Filmmaker Rodrigo Moreno creates a three-hour long heist drama with some interesting dynamics and concepts explored within the setting of the narrative and while Moreno does provide some strong elements, it isn't strong enough to withhold the entire movie.

Throughout, the camerawork, production and the sound design is pretty good as it helps capture the environment and tone. Many of the performances from the cast members are pretty good with some interesting dialogue and concepts explored. Moreno's direction is pretty solid as well. The narrative is a slow-burn heist drama movie that explores different themes including bank robbery, capitalism, freedom and so forth and the narrative does explore some of these concepts well but at the same time, not so well. Because the structure of the narrative feels uneven as if the narrative is a bit lost on what it is trying to be or wanting to tell.

Due to the uneven structure, it causes the story to feel a bit messy as it the first 1-hour is amazing but the rest feels a little convoluted or a bit lost. Which causes the run-time to feel a little exhausting and unfulfilling. There are some good soundtrack choices, some of the characters are interesting but some could have been explored a bit more.

Overall, Moreno definitely has a vision with this movie and it's a decent achievement from him and Argentinian cinema. But it could be stronger.

"Morán" (Daniel Elías) concludes that his dreary drudge at the bank over the next 25 years is only going to earn him $325k so rather than slug it out, he decides to pinch double that then ask his unwitting colleague "Román" (Esteban Bigliardi) to hide the cash whilst he does his prison sentence. That way, they can both enjoy a pleasant early retirement. The theft all goes remarkably easily and before he turns himself in, our thief goes for a bit of a road trip then goes to the police to confess all and receive the anticipated jail term. After a bit of a rocky start, and the transfer of some "protection" money, his incarceration settles down into something fairly uneventful for "Morán". The same can't be said for his friend on the outside. Though he had a cast iron alibi for the time of the robbery, his bank bosses gradually begin to think he is in some way involved - and they start to make his life a bit miserable. Despondent, he travels to a remote town to hide the loot under a boulder - and that's where he meets "Norma" (Margarita Molfino). With things not going too well at home with wife, children and his anxiety, well you can guess what happens... Now we have an interval - a rather pace-sapping exercise before part two fills us in on just what happened when "Morán" went on his journey. Small world? I wondered if there might be a clue here in the names all being anagrams of each other? We have a "Morna" too! Otherwise, this is a rather nondescript drama that takes far, far too long to get anywhere - and even when it does, it sees to have no desire to conclude with anything meaningful. Right from the beginning, it takes a swipe at all things routine and regimented, and seems be offering both men an opportunity for (eventual) freedom, but the substance to the plot is just really lacking as we rather meander through an observational and not really very interesting story that just never catches fire.

Saw this at the 2023 filmfestival Ghent (Belgium). Upfront, before seeing the film, I saw harsh words in the IMDB user reviews and positive reviews from professionals. Such contradictions never fail to attract me. Usually, the users are right when I compare it with my own preferences. The professionals, on the other hand, tend to discuss aspects that may be relevant for the state-of-the-art, but fail to interest me as a rule. This film is the exception: users are wrong, and professionals are right.

In this case, all the user reviews focused on the length and the lacking contents to warrant the indeed generous running time over 3 hours. Though I must admit I missed the last hour due other priorities, I had no problems sitting out the first 2 hours. It was an original plot to rob a bank this way. There are logical consequences to be expected, like mistakes in the execution of the heist, or wrongly trusting a colleague with the loot. But it all went in a different direction. I'm glad that it deviated from the expected downtrodden path (e.g., trusted colleague takes the loot and leaves for a country far away). I regret that I did not complete the full journey, contrary to aforementioned naysayers.

Maybe above text is against the rules, having not completed the full three hours, but I could not refrain from a bit of compensation against the three users who reviewed before me. Try the dive and judge for yourselves.

This movie is so good, just a long, sweet mediation. The actors are great, the scenery is lovely, the story has a neat twist - I just can't say enough about what refreshing change of pace it was, a very 70's-late hippie sensibility to the film, like Easy Rider, say, laid back but with meaningful social commentary with a very respectful portrayal bordering on documentary of a sweet, simple land and life, none of which had to be explained or described or tediously walked through in a simplistic narrative fashion as is the case with most movies. It was a very satisfying aesthetic experience. The poem of the Great Salt Flats was new to me and I look forward to reading it again, I hope sales go through the roof thanks to the movie.

This is an incredibly original piece of cinema. It mixes philosophical tale with a bank heist which really is not the centre part of this movie. The centre part of this movie is a reflection on modern living and the insanity of the race to do things faster the pointlessness of the modern lifestyle, or something akin

The slow deliberate rhythm of this film seems to be a stumbling block for many personally I wish it carried on for a couple more hours ; it leaves us at the end with a lot of unfinished business a lot of untied loose ends

And maybe that is exactly what is needed but it could've gone so many other ways

The director and the scriptwriter (one and the same) made some choices here and they will please some and leave others guessing

It can take a while to see that something is happening that is worth watching if you stick at it you will be rewarded with a very unusual tale .... touch of Rohmer (the highest accolade possible) touch of Antonioni (also the highest accolade possible) 🙂🙃😉

A movie for thinkers romantics and dreamers ...... others will not like this i would surmise ....

For me a solid nine. Oh yes and this is definitely a comedy not hahaha but subtle and simmering ....

PS and then the penny dropped the face of Esteban Bigliardi kept reminding me of another actor and it was French-Italian Yves Montand ... so an Italian face then.

Let me begin by noting that I am not a big fan of fast moving films. I can handle slow pace and thoughtful scenic shots. But I signed in to this site primarily to give a thumbs up to the review by eviltrav above. That review precisely gets at what is wrong with this film. I suppose that movie critics have 3 hours to spend on a film like this, but I do not. Lots of subplots that go nowhere, lots of lengthy scenes of minor characters doing useless things which do nothing to develop their character, and long slow panning shots to nowhere. Too bad, because the plot device is a clever one, the characters are well developed at the beginning of the film, and the acting is good. The writing is pretty good for the first half and then it just falls apart. The director clearly fell in love with some of his footage and just couldn't bear to edit it.

Interesting story with notes of humor and under an atmosphere of tension of two bank co-workers who agree to a pact between themselves, tired of the routine of their jobs. How part of the pact they travel to Cordoba and get involved with 3 people who are making a film. A Chilean and two sisters. Excellent music accompanying the tension. Photography with long shots. Enjoy the length of the movie. I see a lot of negative reviews in that regard. Personally, I think that the Director decided that time was part of the film, because it even takes place in approximately 4 years in the lives of the characters. The film is very well set, very good photography. Very good use of transitions in the editing of the film. I loved it. I recommend it without hesitation.

4 stars is a very generous rating from me, I only give such a high rating to such a boring film because the story even tries to discuss some interesting themes, albeit very prosaically.

I also like the cinematography and some of the locations a little, but that's it, the film is tremendously boring and has serious pacing problems, it's over three hours long and could very simply be shortened to around 90 minutes without losing much of the substance. Narrative that isn't much.

In this way, this review acts as a bit of a warning so that you don't waste too much time of your life watching such an insipid narrative. I don't want to use the word pretentious, but I think it's useful here.

The film simply does not respect the viewer's time, it has a very basic and rudimentary script, disguised in such a way as to make the inattentive viewer think they are watching something of substance.

Come to think of it, considering the total lack of respect in taking so much time without having much to say, 4 stars is perhaps too condescending a rating.

In short, the film is tremendously boring because it is unnecessarily long, perhaps if it weren't so long it would expose what is truly true, a film of little substance.

So it goes without saying, the movie is over 3 hours so it helps to be prepared for that.

That said, it is well paced. In some cases where scenes feel long, they seem to be thoughtfully prolonged in a way that ultimately requires time.

Questions about what makes a life good, how we should spend our time and what to prioritise, all remain prodded yet unanswered.

It seems to be a new approach to story telling to have stories which do not fulfil what is expected of them. These types of movies are maybe more uncomfortable to watch since the viewer is not left with a sense of satisfaction but a yearning for more. You might find yourself asking "and then what?" which on the surface might sound disappointing. That said it is worth highlighting this film has a satisfying end and the intention of this method to of story telling is presumably to implore the viewer to seek out the answers for themselves.

Split between scenes of inane corporate work environments, messy urban life, and boundless intimate nature combined with it's uncommon length and patient depictions of a wilderness so often glossed over, The Delinquents gives viewers what, by the end of it, feels like a brief, and precious view into a life still uncertain and therefore free.

Equal parts bank heist and love triangle, this 'video' serves as a film that gives an impression of different archetypes of movies, keeping much of the story telling familiar, as tense, dramatic and romantic, and still manages to abstract the viewer from the basis of story telling entirely.

In many ways this film takes an adequate amount of time to give us a reality check and perspective shift, to reconsider so much about our own lives.

Saw this film at the Melbourne International Film Festival and was deeply deeply diappointed.

The film runs for three hours and it absolutely does not require the massive run time, as so little of consequence actually happens in the film. The bank robbery angle is an intriguing place to start the story and the banality of the workplace provides some moments of amusement and intrigue.

However the director soon gets bored with the central premise of the story and gets distracted by meandering through a variety of inconsequential subplots. These subplots end up contributing little to the film's plot overall. By the end it was really making me angry at how slow the plot was and how little the director cared about my time.

I have rarely been so bored during a film, honestly would have walked out if I hadn't been with a bunch of people who wanted to stay.

I'd ignore the inexplicably positive reviews by the high and mighty artsy film critics, save three hours and skip this one.

I am smarter than your average bear, really, but I am amazed at how much I truly disliked this very well reviewed film. I think the director is horrendous. The acting was good. The main story had some good elements. It may have played pretty well with a more mainstream style and at about half the runtime, but what weird choices this director made. He loves using awkward split screens that have little to no relevance. "Oh look it is a split screen, both those characters are being reflective and smoking a cigarette in the dark at the same time. How creative!"

I really despised the soundtrack. It never evoked a relevant feeling or enhanced any scenes. It reminded me of the music in a 1970s Western TV show. Boring and forgettable.

I suppose some people are going to get a lot from the long seemingly strange uneventful scenes that make up more than half the runtime. Many critics did at least. I sure did not though.

Predictably one of those slow burns with a blah ending. The first quarter was actually intriguing and had me glued to my screen, but the pacing gradually disappoints throughout the film's progression. I understand that it's supposed to have a deeper commentary about life, but they didn't need to spend 30 seconds per shot to show how profound and thought-provoking of a film it is. Literally the two people I was watching with fell asleep, and what made it more excruciating was seeing "End of Part One" and "Part Two" on screen. It was such a struggle to finish it. We had to eventually start fast forwarding scenes because we learned that a whole chunk of the dialogue was not crucial to the plot. If you like slow burns, go for it. I don't like Transformers for those who think I'm just hating, I just didn't enjoy this particular bedtime story.

Eviltrav wrote...........................

" The film runs for three hours and it absolutely does not require the massive run time, as so little of consequence actually happens in the film. The bank robbery angle is an intriguing place to start the story and the banality of the workplace provides some moments of amusement and intrigue.

However the director soon gets bored with the central premise of the story and gets distracted by meandering through a variety of inconsequential subplots. "

Totally agree with eviltrav. Have just seen this in London. A brave distributor who picks this one up.

I love films. I have over 2000 of them many of which I have seen multiple times, and many of which are foreign.

So I looked forward to watching this one, based on the glowing reviews. What a waste of three hours.

The premise is good and the many potential plot lines promise so much. But just as they are developing nicely they are abandoned in favour of either someone starting wistfully into space or some absolutely inconsequential bit of rubbish. Worst of all the central plot, which you have given three hours of your life to, leads absolutely nowhere and you are left with a feeling of being robbed.

I suppose I'm supposed to feel some kind of existential angst or something, or wonder in awe at the mystical poetic beauty of it all but, really, it's a lot of pretentious nonsense which leaves one simply annoyed.

I buy 99.9% of the films I see. This one I wouldn't keep if someone gave it to me.

I can't believe I wasted 3 hours of my time in the theater with this piece of you know what. Learn to tell a story and learn to edit a film you horrible horrible director. I think you were a genius for hiring a publicist and a producer that some how got you into Cannes and Tiff, but you should feel so much shame for wasting my time, my girlfriend's time and everyone who paid money at the Laemmle Royale tonight. I literally hope you never get a chance to make another film for having wasted 3 hours of my time. For the love of god steer clear of this self indulgent 3 hour debacle. It really is the worst movie of the year.

What's most annoying about this movie are not the average actors (they try to act to their best capabilities, which are mediocre). What's most annoying is not the below average quality of all the technical details (photography, sound) which are below average as well.

What's REALLY annoying is that some directors think they actually can get away with making a DREADFULLY TEDIOUS movie like this last for OVER 3 hours! What the what.

Who is not gonna fall asleep while watching this WITHIN the very first hour? I couldnt believe how incredibly uneventful this story turned out to be. What disappointment!

I (for the most part) will watch any movie with an IMDB rating of seven or higher and this has worked for me in the vast majority of films I have picked using this criteria. But, in this instance this "system" failed me. This has to be THE slowest moving film I have ever watched in my 62 years. I have to admit that I did not even finish watching this movie. I had to shut it off after about the 1:15 mark. This was just so incredibly boring. I just was waiting for something, anything to happen but it just kept getting more tedious and boring. On the plus side it was very well shot, the cinematography was excellent. Perhaps I only noticed this because there was so little else to see in this film. If ever a movie needed editing it was this one.

This is plain horrible!!

One of the worst movies I have ever seen and I've seen a lot!

Three+ wasted hours on this so called movie, or whatever this was..... tragic!

I want those 3 hours back to my life!

Boring, clueless, no plan, no idea, no point...... Really, is this even possible??

Even with only one hour long (out of 3!!), this would be wasted time.

I love Argentinian cinematography.

But what was this?

Acting so-so, everything else - to cry for!

Like the director had too much tape and had to spend as much as possible.

Embarrassing.

I give it 2 out of 10 and I am being really generous!

Not only the bank is being robbed but also the viewer. Unfortunately, I will never get these three hours of my time back.

Part one of the film is watchable yet mediocre at best. Part two is actually even worse. Over an hour and a half in which hardly anything happens. As a reward for my patience (true heroism if you ask me!) the story concludes with an open ending.

A train wreck of a film that will only appeal to a select group of pseudo-intellectuals. Luckily I won (the term 'winning' is an unfortunate choice of words in this case) my movie ticket in a contest and therefore only my time was stolen.

Movies, cinema is an art of storeytelling. And the best way to do that is mostly through keeping it short, plain and simple and it is also the hardest way as well. But here we see a story that could be told in an hour or 80 minutes streched to 3 hours. If i am watching a movie that is going to last 3 hours, i would really appreciate it to be captivating with each scene. However if you give two minutes to untie a horse, four minutes to daily commutes six minutes for people swiming in a pond , i get the sense that it is a waste of my time. And let me make it clear that these wasted times do not serve the storyline, a storyline with a lot of plotholes. So as a final warning do something else instead and thank me for saving you 3 hrs of your time.