Ehirerapp Waste of time

Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Delight Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

reasonablyniceperson Besides the fact that you will save $100,000 another reason to skip Film School is that you won't be required to sit through a screening of "Breathless" - a class that should be titled "How to Make a Self-Indulgent Home Movie Posing As Art" that examines what is essentially an exercise in cinematic masturbation.Okay, Godard did things differently. He not only ignored The Rules of filmmaking; he thumbed his nose at them. This may be enough to endear him to immature film students because of the rebellious nature of youth. This sentiment is usually reinforced when they learn that he is a life-long Communist, which is like, so cool! (No traditional bourgeois filmmaking principles like "Telling a Story" for Godard. How liberating!) Unfortunately, it is also the folly of youth to believe that New & Different is somehow synonymous with Innovative & Better - a notion has clouded the judgement of many seemingly rational people old enough to know better when it comes to their assessment of what constitutes Art. Watching early works of Godard like "À Bout de Soufflé" and "Pierrot le Fou" reminds me of a child exclaiming, Mommy, Daddy - look at me! Look at what I'm doing." Nonetheless there are actually two good reasons why you should bite the bullet (or take a stiff drink) and watch "Breathless." The first is the very 50s-ish jazzy score by Martial Solal, which totally fits the film and captures the atmosphere in the disjointed and somewhat crazy scenario (such as it is.) The second reason is the incomparable Jean Seberg. You will become captivated by her as soon as she appears on the screen, but then you will fall hopelessly in love with this utterly charming gamin Américaine when you see her slowly walking on the Champs-Elysees calling out, "New York Herald Tribune" with newspapers that she is trying to sell bundled in her arm.Godard famously said, "All that you need to make a good film is a girl and a gun." At least he was half right.

Brian Berta When this film was originally released, it was very revolutionary. It is also, arguably the film which started the "French New Wave" movement. It is very influential, and it has had a huge impact on cinema. I had a couple issues with it, but overall, it was a pretty impressive film, and I'm glad I watched it.After a small time car thief named Michel Poiccard shoots and kills a policeman, he reunites with a love interest named Patricia Franchini as he attempts to convince her to run away with him to Italy, all while trying to avoid the cops.This is arguably one of, if not the most influential movie of all time. It has made many contributions to cinema that have been used again and again in other movies. When it was originally shot, the filmmakers attempted to film it differently than how most films were shot. They used real locations instead of man-made sets and it was filmed in mostly natural lighting. Raoul Coutard, the cinematographer of the film, said "When we were shooting Breathless, we tried to film it the way news reports were shot, i.e., with a hand-held camera and natural lighting. In other words, for me it was very much like filming in the heat of battle." Also, since the cameras they used were very loud, Jean-Luc said the lines to them as he filmed it, and he edited their voices into the film later. These differences made it stand out from other films.However, what this film is perhaps mostly known for is its use of jump-cuts or discontinuity editing. Jean-Luc got the idea for this in director Jean Rouch's 1958 film: "Moi, un Noir". Jean-Luc was a huge fan of that film, and it's credited as a major influence for this film. However, Jean-Luc gave his own interesting twist to this concept. Instead of jumping from one scene to another, he would cut short clips out of the middle of scenes to shorten the films running time to 90 minutes instead of just removing entire scenes altogether. This caused some of the scenes to skip from moment to moment. This gave some of the scenes in the film a jagged and fast-paced feel. Essentially, what Godard did was take an already existing cinematic technique and add his own, unique style to it to spice it up or to change it around in an appealing way.Also, since Jean-Luc didn't have that big of a budget, being that this was his first film, he had to make use of what he had and try to find clever ways to cut down on cost. Godard had to film in locations that he already had access to, use cameras that he already had access to (the entire film was shot by using hand-held cameras), and he hired people he knew to help work on the film. Often, he would film on the streets of Paris without any permits. At some parts, cinematographer Raoul Coutard would film scenes while sitting in a wheelchair as he was pushed along by crew members.I've spent a lot of time discussing its influence, but now I'm going to talk a bit about what I think of its story.I thought that it was really interesting how Michel was slowly able to gain Patricia's trust as the film went on. At the same time, Patricia had to decide whether or not she should stay with him or inform the cops that she knows where they can find him. As the 2 made their way through Paris, there was always a slight amount of tension since Michel's face is everywhere in papers. Also, people often happened to be reading them when he would be going by. There are also a few scenes in which people recognized him, and he had to escape the area quickly.However, there are 2 flaws (mostly minor ones) that I had with its story.The first one is a minor complaint towards its intro. I felt like it rushed the entire intro scene when he steals the car, murders the policeman, and meets up with Patricia. It seemed very fast-paced to a point where I could hardly keep up with it. I wished for it to slow down a bit to an enjoyable pace. I was a bit worried that the entire film would be like that. Fortunately, it wasn't, but my complaint here does not vanish despite this.My second issue with the film is not as minor as the first one, but it bugged me a little bit more. This complaint is about the predictability of the films ending. After Patricia informed Michel that she did tell the cops where he lived, and that they were coming for him, it became clear to me what was going to happen next, and I was instantly able to figure out how it would end. It became obvious which direction the movie was going to head in next. I wished that they revealed it in a less obvious way than that. For example, they could've revealed it right when they were about to drive away, and the cops could show up right after that revelation. My issue might still exist in a few remnants, but it wouldn't be nearly as glaring.In conclusion, I really liked this film, and I can respect it for its huge influence on cinema history. It did many things different from most other films, and it showed that you don't have to follow any rules when writing films. I did have a couple issues with its intro and outro, but other than that, I liked everything else about the film. I can understand why it would be brought up on "best movies ever made" lists and I'd probably add it too if I made one. It has had a huge impact on cinema history, and I can respect it for what it's done.

JoeKulik Frankly, I think Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless (1960) is VERY overrated. This is just a very amateurish first attempt at filmmaking for Goddard.That Jean-Paul Belmondo's character would murder a cop and then stick around Paris to get nabbed is unreal. Not even a DUMB criminal is DUMB enough to do that, especially since this guy has the means to flee the country and he is portrayed as a career criminal type with street savvy.Jean Seberg's character is portrayed as an upscale, educated aspiring American journalist who is trying to make it in Paris, yet hooks up with an obvious low life like Jean-Paul's character? SORRY, but I just don't buy it. That she sticks around with Jean-Paul's character even after discovering his criminal nature is even more unbelievable.OK, Jean's character finally smartens up at the end and turns in Jean-Paul's character to the cops. But then what does she do? She goes back to this low life thug and tells him what she did !!!! Either this gal has a latent suicidal wish or she is unbelievably STUPID. Why would any rational person go back to tell a fugitive on the run from a cop killer charge that she just ratted him out? Especially, since it puts her alone in in an apartment with this guy. UNREAL !!!! Then there's the final scene where jean's character is running down the street toward Jean-Paul's character's bullet riddled body is lying face down in the street. I mean, she actually still cares for this cold blooded cop killer even after he's righteously dead? GIVE ME A BREAK !!!! This film is just a love story from outer space, in my opinion. This film isn't about romance, it's about two DUMB people, just acting DUMB.I mean I've seen a number of Absurdist / Avant Garde films that I thought were great because the unreal / absurd elements in the film had some sort of symbolic or interpretive meaning in the context of the whole film. Breathless, however, is a film with a basically unbelievable, not well thought out storyline that just has no symbolic or interpretive meaning at all, at least for me.Although Goddard went on to make many great films, his initial effort here was a BIG FLOP as far as I'm concerned and the acclaim that Breathless got in its time was due to Goddard's already gotten fame as a film critic for a very influential Parisian film review and nothing more. That's the only sense that I can make of why such a MEDIOCRE film would get such high ratings.{{{This review is also posted at "Forum For Film Reviews And Discussions" at groups.google.com.}}

Hitchcoc Since there have been a great many conventional reviews of this movie (far more positive than negative), I will address a criticism, that we often praise things that are groundbreaking, even when they are not that good. What, of course, is "that good"? This is by all accounts a simple story. A sociopathic young man kills a cop and feels nothing. This film pretty much made Jean-Paul Belmondo, who muscles his way through life, finding pleasure, while he is being pursued. His bad boy charm attracts the young female and she becomes embroiled in his impulsiveness. There is a love story here but there can be nothing but pain. Live fast, die young, leave a beautiful memory was created here. One could say that D. W. Griffith films are not as good as modern films on the same themes because they were silent and not in color. Even though the jump cuts and other fundamentals of filmmaking were introduced (or at least enhanced) in the French New Wave, there are those who criticize this film for being uninspired and repetitive. While it's hard to have sympathy with the two principles in this film, it does present a dizzying ride.