Breathless

I had read the comments about this film's greatness but was disappointed with its thin story and mostly-aimless dialogue. Like many other nouveau "classics" it hasn't stood the test of time.

I don't get the "greatness" out of this thin soup. Only one thing stuck with me, the ambition of the famous writer. "Å bli udødelig, for så å dø"

Had a good nap watching this.

Every time I watch Breathless I see something different. The movie doesn't change; I do. The last time I saw it, maybe seven or eight years ago, I couldn't understand what I'd liked so much about it; it seemed empty and overrated. Today, after completing my most recent viewing, it's certainly right up there with the very best movies I've ever seen. It has the economy of plot and action of great art, an unusual intensity of characterization, a Parisian bonhomie and an intrepid cinema verite style that marries form with idea, one that fits ideally the subject matter. I didn't recall how suspenseful the movie actually is until I rewatched it; the dramatic tension and stepwise build-up to an impressive climax is striking. Belmondo, Seberg, cinema verite and this plot seem to come together in a unique fusion that may not be repeatable in a slower plot with different theme. It's unique. If you squint hard enough you can see the influence of this film on Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction and many others.

Picture this: a paper-thin plot meandering at a snail's pace, and in walks Michel Poiccard, a poster boy for cringe-worthy sexism! But wait, it gets even better – The perfect Patricia Franchini inexplicably falls head over heels for this guy! (How?!) If you're into romanticizing toxic relationships, then "Breathless" is the right film for you! But if you'd rather watch paint dry, go ahead and give it a whirl. One-star for patricia!

One of Goddard's best. More sophisticated than previous work of him, but with the same essence that marked the filmmaker's career

Director Jean-Luc Godard's classic film, written by François Truffaut, is just as cool and rock and roll as it was when it first came out. BREATHLESS broke all the rules of cinema at the time and still has an energy to it you still don't see in many films. Jean-Paul Belmondo plays a small-time con man and thief who ends up wanted by the police following the murder of a motorcycle cop. Even cooler than Belmondo is his American journalist girlfriend, Jean Seberg. I'm a sucker for 1960s French New Wave cool, and this movie epitomized that sensibility. It's not an aesthetic that will appeal to all audiences, but for cinephiles who love this sort of thing, BREATHLESS is a cinematic high point.

I belong to the generation of viewers who didn't know French cinema before Godard. I am brave enough to write that after watching the film "Breathless" I didn't understand why this movie is considered an iconic movie and Godard a great director. I had to research information on the internet. I browsed not so many sites, but I found an article that illuminated the reasons for my lukewarm reaction. I don't want to immerse myself deeply in Godard's artistic techniques. I'll note some of them below in this text. Godard's style was provoked by the development of technologies, especially by the handheld camera, which was a significant innovation because it allowed diroctors to affordably record videos imbued with urban dynamism and the immediacy of ofganic speech. It makes the audience to percieve the movie as being on the verge between fiction and documentary. As for me, I was not impressed by this feature. I suppose modern viewers are used to such things. Now when watching videos on youtube, we often can't be completely sure if we are seeing a staged recording or if we are witnesses of the real events. I didn' see the french movies before the so-called "new wave" in filmmaking. They didn't enter into my personal information flow. If we believe professional critics, the old French movies before the sixties were static with big pictures of characters' faces covered by frozen emotions. In general the main personages were highly spiritual. They were filled with goodness and had many virtues. They were excellent examples of admirable human beings. As a result of the lofty and honourable feelings they expressed, viewers' minds were plunged into the quixotic beauty of fairy tales. By contrast, the personalities of Godard's two central characters consist of numerous flaws and their love story could hardly become the dream of a teenage girl. Nobody on the screen delivers monologues about undying devotion and love that lasts to the grave. On the contrary , we see that explicit betrayal is accepted lightly by all partisipants in this drama. The movie leaves an aftertaste of lightness. It doesn't provide any edification or life's lesson. It is without any philosophical reflections, it is not a puzzle or a riddle, it is simply for a mood. It is the reason why I can't say this movie is an art house movie, because for me art house movies are something more than a love intrigue. I like the musical accompaniment to this film. The music sets the tone. I think it is worth watching if you want to immerse yourself in the intellectual atmosphere of the sixties.

[In French with subtitles] Boring dated movie, with too much chat, now looking clichéd. Probably considered great in its own time but this is now.

Slow and pointless. May be okay for the art student, but for us regular folks, it meanders on too much.