Breathless (1960) Reviews

If you want to see a standard, action upon action Hollywood film, then avoid this one. If you want to see an intimate study of people and their surroundings, then watch this film. The cinematography in this movie is stunning. It isn't trite, like so many of the films that copy it. It is appropriate and beautiful. The acting is very strong. It isn't the American style of acting, though. It is very honest and raw. I appreciated the way Goddard spent much time on his characters. The center conversation scene is very long, about 20 minutes. However, I did not find it boring. I found the way Michel and Patricia interacted to be fascinating. This is a very good film. If you like meaningful and alternative cinema, then you should watch this film.
Close this Review

I can see how this would draw extreme like/dislike reactions. The camera work is jerky, and some of the dialogue seems conceited. But I still find Breathless intriguing two viewings later (try watching it with commentary once), and Jean Seberg's style here is timeless.
Close this Review

This is a wonderful film for so many reasons, but that does not mean it is easy to watch. One reason is because Godard trivializes the sensational and exhaults the mundane to make his comment. Murder in a flash but 5 minutes to walk in Paris. Belmondo and Seberg are beautiful and vivacious, but at times the film follows them through the minutia of everyday life that they seem to be walking underwater. The film spends a long time in the seduction and then their love is consummated in a flash of her angelic face. Godard was making such innovations throughout this film that the only time the commentary is quiet is when the real action happens. I liked watching it with the very astute commentary so that the different cinematographic techniques he is using become obvious, it helps with the 'ah-ha! That is why he did that.' factor. I sometimes thought of the film as being hacked by a dull knife and put back together, in order to reflect the raw sociopathic that Belmondo plays.
Close this Review

The shots of the actors talking to the camera, the quick camera shots, and the cryptic story are amazing to see, but you can sincerely tell that he was experimenting with this film. The actors talking into the camera you can tell are reading their lines, forcing French words out of their mouth, while trying to bring the audience into the picture, into the world that these two main characters are trying to create. Then there was the quick camera shots which made me feel as if Godard was having a heart attack instead of bring artwork to the silver screen. Finally, there was the cryptic story. I felt that sometimes their interactions were too minimal, while others were too long and in-depth. This film WAS interesting to watch because you can see traces of Scorsese, Tarrantino, and even Stone in this film, and where these 21st century directors learned their techniques. I actually hated this movie. I hated the characters the most. Overall, I do not suggest watching this film.
Close this Review

from this one! What a mistake. Aside from any cinematic breakthroughs this may or may not have showcased, this is simply boring. We do not watch movies to study technique, but rather for the end result of good filmaking--to be entertained. We kept waiting for something to happen --action, love, characters with depth, a plausible storyline -- and it never did. At least it hadn't by the middle of the movie when we decided to bail out. Save yourself a wasted night.
Close this Review