Ameriatch One of the best films i have seen

ScoobyMint Disappointment for a huge fan!

Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

oOoBarracuda 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.

elvinzhang A character study about Michel ( Jean-Paul Belmondo ), a young criminal who acts tough and tries to be like Bogart, and Patricia (Jean Seberg), an American who sells the New York Herald- Tribune. Patricia's involvement with him seems to be purely because of her curiosity towards his affection and his strange, comical behavior almost identical to the one which is shown again in "Pierrot le Fou". Jean Seberg's acting is ridiculously dull and her expressions throughout the film are almost as uneventful as the plot of the film itself. Jean- Paul Belmondo's acting on the other hand, although full of style is still unconvincing. You cant really blame him though, his character's persona is just not in any way believable. The level of detachment and obliviousness is simply too extreme. The Film's music is also absolutely horrendous, I doubt I could recall a movie that has a genuinely worse soundtrack.However, the truly disgusting thing about this movie, is the amount of jump cuts Godard forcibly tries to stuff down our throat, it makes me wonder whether the films last lines were really referring to Godard himself.Out of boredom ( due to the films basically non-existent plot ) I couldn't help but resort to wondering whether these extremely disturbing 'jumpcuts' were necessary. The answer, which is also the answer to most French New Wave films is yes and no. If the film did not contain these 'jump cuts', many of them purposely used in the most unconventional way possible, the film would not have its historical importance and status of being revolutionary. The jumps cuts in this Film have no real purpose other than to rebel against cinema norms at the time and attract attention as a result. In other words there was no 'message', 'deeper meaning' or even aesthetic purpose behind them. Its only purpose was to distinguish this film, which without all its pretentious bull would be no more than a boring, poorly written and poorly acted character study, from all the other boring, poorly written and poorly acted character studies. The Film instead is a NEW, DIFFERENT and MODERN boring, poorly written and poorly acted character study. These days the film is met with enthusiasm, mainly because without objective standards, style is valued over substance and originality is valued over genuine merit. Although you cannot deny the historical importance of this film as a cinematic landmark, you can definitely question it. There's no harm in rebelling against norms to create effect but never at the expense of overall enjoyment. Breathless however, simply rebels for shock value and to standout as something new, different and as most New Wave fans would put it 'Bold.'

seymourblack-1 Jean-Luc Godard is one of the French New Wave directors who, as critics in the 1950s, had been regular contributors to the influential publication "Cahiers Du Cinema". As a group, they were disenchanted with the output of the French film industry at that time and believed that by putting the director at the centre of the creative process and dispensing with traditional narrative conventions, a far more imaginative style of filmmaking could be achieved. In his first film, Godard sought to achieve this by a variety of means which included, borrowing from some earlier cinematic styles that he admired.In "Breathless" ("A Bout De Soufflé"), a simple film noir plot is presented in a style that owes much to the influence of the Italian Neo-Realists (e.g. filming on location, use of hand-held cameras and improvised dialogue). Additionally, by using unorthodox techniques such as "jump cuts" and getting characters to look directly into the camera and then injecting the action with great pace, the result is a movie that looks vibrant, spontaneous and highly energetic.At the time of its release, few could have imagined the impact that "Breathless" would have on filmmaking in general or the profound influence it would subsequently have on numerous directors such as John Cassavetes, Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino.Michel Poiccard (Jean-Paul Belmondo) is a small-time criminal who after stealing a car in Marseilles and killing a motorcycle cop, makes his way to Paris to collect some money that he's owed and reunite with one of his girlfriends called Patricia Franchini (Jean Seberg). Patricia's an American student who has aspirations to become a journalist and earns some money by selling the "New York Herald-Tribune" on the Champs Elysees. Michel wants to escape to Italy as soon as he can collect his money and wants Patricia to go with him but she tells him that she can't leave Paris for financial reasons.Michel spends his time in Paris sharing Patricia's hotel room and the couple talk a great deal about life and love whilst Michel also tries relentlessly to seduce her. Despite the seriousness of his crimes, Michel seems very unconcerned about the situation he's in and if he does feel desperate, certainly hides it well beneath a façade of being super-cool. He's totally amoral and an inveterate thief but is also very preoccupied with trying to emulate the mannerisms of his hero, Humphrey Bogart.Patricia is a cold character who's fascinated by Michel's lifestyle but always remains emotionally detached even when they seem to be at their closest. Things get increasingly complicated for Michel as the police manhunt intensifies but eventually matters are brought to a head by a simple action that's incredibly casual, uncaring and self-serving.French New Wave directors Francois Truffaut, Claude Chabrol and Jean-Pierre Melville all contributed in different ways to the making of this movie and Alain Resnais' "Hiroshima Mon Amour" (1959) is just one of a whole collection of other films and filmmakers that are referenced. Amusingly, Michel's alias in the movie is Laszlo Kovacs and he also uses some of Humphrey Bogart's photos outside a cinema that's showing "The Harder They Fall" (1956) to perfect his attempt to look and act as much like Bogey as possible.In retrospect, it's no exaggeration to describe "Breathless" as a masterpiece because its exhilarating combination of originality, freshness and sheer enthusiasm was genuinely revolutionary when it was made and it became an incredibly rich source of inspiration to other filmmakers in the years that followed.

nadineacoury ridiculous, false (not a single emotion is sensed), repetition of cliché senseless sentences, stupid plot, the only average scene is the last one; the only reason it got a success in the 1960s is a sheepish tendency to follow blindly the intellectual fashion of that time; i just saw it 40 years after the 1st time and had a very hard time to stay until the end; the French Nouvelle Vague does not match any of the contemporaneous high quality movies made by the other people; any Japanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Swedish or British (not to mention Hitch and American classics) great movie of the fifties is worth 1.000 Godards