Going in, I knew very little about The Kid With a Bike—in fact, the only reason I had heard of this little French film at all beforehand was because I went to see the Oscar-Nominated Short Films at IFC Center in Manhattan, where they had some posters and a short, soundless preview for the film playing on some of the publicity screens in the lobby. It looked intriguing enough, so I decided to take the screening when it was offered. Not without a sense of irony, I biked to the screening. While we waited for it to start, a few other reviewers were talking up the film, one coming back for a second screening, he loved it so much.

I’m really not sure why. The Kid With a Bike is not a fun film. It is not an exquisite film. It fails to fall into any category, shambling through its own plot with an air of disinterest and boredom. The 87-minute-long runtime feels almost twice that. I’ve never checked my watch or phone that much during a movie. Some of the people in the theater were shocked it wasn’t nominated for an Oscar. I wasn’t.

I mean, on its own, the story is at least an interesting concept—a boy, Cyril Catoul (Thomas Doret), who lives in an adoption home, has been abandoned by his father (Jérémie Renier) and tries desperately to get his bike back from him (I think the bike is supposed to represent his unwillingness to move on, or something…it’s really unclear and I didn’t care enough). He meets a woman, Samantha (Cécile De France) during his search who takes him in, and the vast majority of the film is about the relationship between the two, and how it evolves. I mean, it sounds pretty good, right? Lots of opportunity for character development, heartfelt scenes, etc? Wrong.

See, the problem is you can’t develop a character until you’ve established one. The audience has to like the characters enough to learn more about them. The thing is, you never like them, really. A film like this rides in its entirety on the presentation and portrayal of the titular kid, and that, in my opinion, is where the film is botched. You don’t like him. Like, at all. He’s frustrating, he’s angry, he’s incredibly violent to everyone around them, he lies, he steals, and worst of all, doesn’t seem to feel any remorse about it. Yes, yes, people will say, “But he’s been abandoned! Of course he’s emotionally unstable!” And my response is that I don’t particularly care if it’s accurate. It’s not interesting or pleasant to watch. I’ll take pretty falsities in cinema over annoying truths.

And the worst part is that everybody around him just lives with his insanity! They’re always trying to keep in control, but there are no consequences for any of his actions! The

worst is Samantha, who absolutely gets the brunt of his evil, and yet, time and time again, expects no apology and, with small exception, receives none, continuing the cycle of his horrendous behavior. It’s not a logical choice. Disbelief can only be suspended so far, and the movie definitely crosses that line.

There are also some really weird technical choices made. The camera is all handheld, which I get, for the style of movie, but it doesn’t add much. Even weirder is the score, which, if I’m not mistaken, is utterly nonexistent with the exception of 3 places, where the epic, orchestral arrangements are so grandiose and Wagnerian, I almost started laughing. This is a film about a troubled kid. It’s not Melancholia. It’s not about the end of the world. You can’t do that. It doesn’t fit.

Very simply, this film starts with an interesting, albeit commonplace storyline and proceeds to make a staggeringly large number of bad decisions. If it’s any consolation, the last 20 minutes or so are the best in the film, but sitting through the first hour just really isn’t worth it. Don’t bother.