Watch Breathless For Free

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

...and not a review, actually. That's been done to death for 60 some-odd. Come on, bozo. What's not to love? Actually, just wondering if anybody has already weighed in on the name of the American movie playing in the theatre Jean Seberg ducks into to escape the cops. I think that voice is gotta be Grace Kelly, the movie: Hitchcock's 'Dial M for Murder.' Am I right or am I right? If somebody already figured it out 5 years ago then never mind.

I was filled with anxiety before beginning Breathless. As someone who is firmly entrenched in the Truffaut camp, #TruffautisLife after all, I was terrified that I would see what is often regarded as the director with whom Truffaut shared an open and intense parting of ways with and see the masterpiece I've always been told it was. Obviously, I know that appreciating a Godard film will do nothing to diminish my love for all things Truffaut, I'm just a loyalist and was worried how I'd feel enjoying a Godard film. Little did I know, I had nothing to worry about. I actively disliked Breathless, I may have even hated it. Jean-Luc Godard's 1960 film was important, I suppose, to the burgeoning French New Wave. I'm sure to subject myself to more Godard films in the future as my journey through cinema goes on, but Breathless did not live up to its reputation, for me.This is where the plot would go if there was one. Just kidding, sort of, there are happenings in Breathless but it is clear that there were not many rehearsals with a script taking place. I've read that Godard was rewriting the script each day, removing nearly all of the influence of Truffaut, who had given the film's story to Godard. Godard would then feed the lines to the actors from offset resulting in very little familiarity between the words of the script and the actors speaking them. Michel Poiccard (Jean-Paul Belmondo) a self-absorbed narcissistic sociopath, surely modeled after Jean-Luc Godard, steals a car then murders the police officer who chases after him. Needing a distraction and a place to hide out, Michel renews his relationship with Patricia Franchini (Jean Seberg) an American in Paris studying journalism whom he met a few weeks prior. Despite their relationship being new and unestablished, Michel expects Patricia to accompany him on his getaway to Italy. Like a true narcissist, Michel is oblivious to the fact that his face is in all the papers and the police are closing in on him as he goes about his way collecting his money and planning his getaway. Focusing his attention on the American films that interest him and his American love interest, Michel ignores the fact that his very life is at stake.During the opening minutes of the film, Jean-Paul Belmondo breaks the fourth wall by looking at and speaking directly to the camera which is a device that almost always works for me. I thought that meant that I may be in for something good, but almost immediately after this scene ended, I nearly ran out of things to enjoy. The jump cuts were amazing and served the story well. I don't give Godard credit for inventing those cuts, as many do, however. An idol, Sergei Eisenstein used jump cuts in film--most memorably in depicting an explosion in The Battleship Potemkin. Georges Melies, whose work I have memorialized on my body also used jump cuts through most of his career in silent cinema. Despite the fact that Godard often gets credit for inventing the jump cut which he surely did not, I can't argue the fact that he used the technique effectively cementing certain aspects of The French New Wave. The music was phenomenal, so kudos to Godard for that. From his first film, however, one can see my biggest criticism of Godard. Godard has no problem excluding his audience. Just listening to Godard speak in interviews, it's clear to discern that he only expects the highest brow of intellectuals to enjoy his films. If an audience member doesn't fit into that category, he doesn't really care. He created terribly unlikeable characters engaging in a plot and a romance that no one could possibly care about, all the while carrying on pseudo-intellectual conversations grating on the last bit of patience I could muster. Obviously, Breathless works for almost everyone except me, but after seeing his debut feature, there's not much encouraging me to try more Godard films.

It's an absolute criticism like Godard's himself. It's unique and impressive. However, it's not a masterpiece. Just because it's different and experimental in some ways, doesn't make it a really good movie. The dialogues are natural, that's alright. But do they get you? Get you into the movie? Unfortunately, for me they are not working at this way. Jump-Cuts are revolutionary, admiring by many people. For me, it just looks it a bit amateur. Alright, may be that was the idea (it helps to make it unique) and it works in that way. However, it could be done in a more professionally way. I like the sarcasm in that movie. "You are the audience and it's a motion picture" is clearly defined. What about emotions? I have to say that, it's sentimental, the background music just make it better. The theme is great. All these powerful jazz instrumentals make me want to cry. Especially, New York Herald Tribune scene is just so deep and powerful. It gets you; actually the only scene gets me in that movie. As a personal statement by myself, A bout de soufflé will always have a sad way for me. It's because of the person who recommended to me. Unfortunately, there are no connections between us anymore. I didn't want to, it just happens sometimes. Like the relationship between Patricia and Michel. "But l can't do without you. Yes, you can. Maybe. But l don't want to"

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.}}