Rating: 
Summary: Amazon, Add a Sixth Star!
Review: This is hands-down one of the best movies ever made. Just the opening seconds of Jean-Paul Belmondo smoking announces a whole new attitude towards youth and life that hits with the freshness of the Beatles. "Breathless" creates a world of love and motion and danger and art that's single-handedly responsible for at least half the clichés you have in your head this second about Paris. Truffaut's script is excellent, nearly every shot is original and revelatory, but what I loved most about the movie was the apparently random, documentary feel Godard gave to so many of the scenes: Belmondo with one lens missing from his glasses, the faces he and Jean Seberg make in the mirror, the Air France clerk sticking her tongue out at her boss, etc. How did Godard manage to be so stylish and truthful at the same time? This is a movie that never lets you forget it's a movie, telling a story in a way no novel or play ever could. "Citizen Kane" is the only other film I can think of that does so much with the medium. One for the ages.
Rating:
Summary: We still haven't caught our breath.
Review: *Breathless* is a cornerstone for any cineaste's video library. It's also MANDATORY for students of film. Don't argue. Live with it. And spare me the arguments like the ones I've read here about the movie being "dated". (PuhLEEZE.) I take out my red pen and write "prove?" in the margin. Just because everyone uses jump-cuts today doesn't mean *Breathless*, as an autonomous work of art, is dated. I've seen many new movies this year, and none of them have challenged me half as much as this old New Wave warhorse continues to do. Godard's putative "homage" to American gangster pictures challenges you right from the first frames, with the get-to-the-point editing and especially with the protagonist, Michel Poiccard (Jean-Paul Belmondo), who within the first 5 minutes steals a car and kills a cop. Godard gives us a "hero" who is amoral, and, worst of all, not particularly bright. Quentin Tarantino, who borrowed mightily from this film, couldn't resist giving his criminals witty things to say about Pop Culture . . . but Belmondo's Poiccard has almost nothing to say, witty or otherwise, although he does jabber on at length about cars and pretty girls. There IS one telling moment wherein he proclaims that he prefers "nothing" to "grief", but despite that statement's basic affinity with the movie's overall existentialist mood, it's also just macho posturing. The triumph of the film, however, is not Belmondo or even the ground-breaking narrative style but Jean Seberg as Belmondo's American girlfriend. At first we're thinking that she's a pixie-like Audrey Hepburn type, what with her radically short haircut and insouciance. But she ain't no Sabrina: she's instead an all-too-familiar type of danger-cruising b---h blessed with that uncanny instinct of knowing when to jump ship when the going gets rough. Godard dares to be interested in these two, even spending an absurd half-hour with them as they loll around in bed, chatting about fornication and Faulkner (Belmondo: "Did you sleep with [Faulkner]?" Seberg: "Of course not!" Belmondo: "Then I'm not interested in him") during the film's middle section. This scene is the essence of Godard's accomplishment, and -- in cinematic terms -- remains very daring. But perhaps "daring" is a dated concept for today's movie-watchers. Perhaps they feel they've moved beyond films like this, and can thus be condescending about *Breathless* and other art-films from its era. I suspect these films are simply out of fashion, and today's audiences are not so much "jaded" as "complacent". [The DVD features commentary that contains nothing new for the veteran New Waver, but it may be of use for newbies.]
Rating:
Summary: An Entertaining and Clever Landmark
Review: Breathless, or A Bout de Souffle, is arguably one of the ten most important films of the last fifty years because it demonstrates a new, and eye-popping editing style that has now become common-place among Indie and European cinema.Francois Truffaut, who is responsible for the script, once said all that you needed to make a movie was 'a girl and a gun.' Breathless appears to be Truffaut putting his theory into action, but there's a little more going on than that suggests. It is a film that transports classic era Hollywood to the Paris of the late 50's. Jean-Paul Belmondo's character is obsessed with Humphrey Bogart. He is also on the run from the police, and off to visit his girl, Jean Seberg in Paris. So far, so blah. But what director Godard does with this simple 40's noir plotline is to treat it in a way that feels intuitively wrong. He promotes the relationship between Belmondo and Seberg to centre stage and leaves the man-on-the-run-from-the-police story as a virtual subplot. To this end there is a lengthy scene of the couple talking in a bedroom - it must last twelve minutes. You practically forget that there's a Hollywood B-movie plot somewhere in the background. It is testament to the performances, and particularly to Truffaut's script that you really don't mind. You just sort of get carried along by the thing. It's important not only because it's dead, dead good and genuinely entertaining rather than just clever for the sake of it, but also because it plays so loose with genre and structure, it gave subsequent directors the right to experiment as well. No Breathless, no Pulp Fiction - despite Tarantino's claim to prefer the (much inferior) American remake with Richard Gere. Jean-Luc Godard subsequently disowned the movie, considering it to be far too conventional. Perhaps he also disliked Truffaut's humanism, which shines through as it does in everything he was involved in. Godard went on to make more challengingly, more confrontational pictures but never really recaptured the youthful exuberance of Breathless. Think of a movie like Citizen Kane. If you've seen Kane you'll recall that the viewer feels Welles's joyful iconaclysm, even sixty years or so on. Same deal with Breathless. Even though the jump cut and gleeful genre-bending have both become standard you can still feel the exhiliration from everyone concerned in doing something genuinely new. A must own.
Rating: 
Summary: The first of the New Wave, but not the best...
Review: All right - Breathless is an important film and I can see why. This is the film that gave birth to the French New Wave. Before this, films look like they were shot in a studio. This film made the gritty look of seventies filmmaking - and indeed, today's independent filmmaking - possible. This film has a guerrilla feel to it, which makes it seem very modern. Goddard films on actual locations with handheld cameras. The most obvious innovation is the deliberate use of "jump cuts", which goes against the traditional theory of "invisible edits." The story itself (by Francois Truffaut) is innovative - it foreshadows Quentin Tarantino with its non-moralistic account of a cold-blooded, Bogart-worshipping killer (wonderfully played by Jean-Paul Belmondo) and his crazy/beautiful American girlfriend. That having been said, the style of this film is really what is important. Looked at today, when its innovations have been absorbed into mainstream film, TV, and commercials, some of the flaws are more apparent. Especially towards the end of the film, when the story gets wackier and the style gets over-the-top, it became hard to restrain my Mystery Science Theater comments. That is the problem with being the first in anything - you go too far and you date yourself. Although Goddard started the Nouvelle Vague, I think that Truffaut - as evidenced by his script here - is the more important artist. This is the film that paves the way for better films like The 400 Blows. However, Breathless is still a good film and a must for any serious student of cinema. Although there are few extras on this DVD, the film looks great. For all its flaws, Breathless still has an air of authenticity that few films today can dream of.
Rating:
Summary: NOUVELLE NOT SO VAGUE
Review: Not exactly a thriller in the purest sense, film critic Jean-Luc Godard's first film "A Bout de Souffle" or "BREATHLESS" [...], originally released in 1961, not only ushered in the French New Wave (Nouvelle Vague) movement, but assured the director of a career and made an international star of Jean Paul Belmondo. Seeing this clean, full-frame digital transfer today, one is jolted with the timeless quality of this assured filmed experiment that daringly broke the rules and locked in a new cinematic language, or at least a new dialect. A hand-held camera more often than not on the move, a black and white documentary feel of realism and natural lighting and locations (not sets), jump cuts, improvisational shots and long, loose, naturalistic conversations (about things other than the so-called plot) between Belmondo and co-star Jean Seberg as amoral lovers on the run."Breathless" suffered an anemic remake in 1983 with Richard Gere as a kind of amphetamine-crazed nut case in the Belmondo role. The original title more accurately translates as "Out of Breath." And it is an exhilarating film to re-experience, In form and theme, this is an existential, anti-film film with numerous, sly film references within the movie frame, in images, props and in the sometimes intentionally "big movie music" moments to punch up the irony of a scene. This is a great film.
Rating:
Summary: Superb, influential French New Wave thriller
Review: Godard's "Breathless" (or "Out of Breath," the correct translation fo the title) still feels fresh and alive, especially when viewed in the dreary context of contemporary Hollywood cinema. It offers a sparklingly original alternative at every turn, from the pacing of its story to the engine that drives its loopy, intentionally sloppy plot. This is a picture that is alive on screen as you watch it, forcing you to draw yourself into the action rather than lay back and passively absorb it. The film is one of the finest examples of New Wave cinema, from its jump cuts, its depiction of Parisian life, its incredibly sustained sequences of pure converstaion and dialogue, all of which dominate what is essentially a simple chase picture. Jean-Paul Belmondo and Jean Seberg are a perfect mix of classic and contemporary, both remaining timeless. Their relationship really unfolds in the film's central sequence, a near 25-minute conversation in Seberg's bedroom, in which such subjects as Faulkner and fornication are explored aptly. And that is what the film is known for----when was the last time a thriller contained the audacity to feel free to explore areas residing outside the genre? Like "Pulp Fiction," one of its distant relatives, this is a film where plot and story are present but removed far into the background, while character, dialogue and visual texture are placed in the foreground. In its pristine black-and-white cinematography, its innovative use of camera movement and position, its raw, defined performances, and its tireless style and visual invention, "Breathless" is a great film and belongs in any serious film lover's video library.
Rating: 
Summary: Slow moving crap
Review: This movie is full of a bunch of slow moving character developments. There's a bunch of long dialogues between men and women that are very drab and superficial. People tell me to watch this film for the amazing jump cut edits...well I did and big deal. Let's face it this guy is no Scorcese when it comes to doing innovative stuff with the camera, writing compelling scripts, and getting a likable cast up on the screen. Personally I think this guy just writes films for film school types and completely ignore us the audience.
Rating: 
Summary: Of Historical Interest Only?
Review: The reaction of someone who is not a film historian: This is obviously not intended as a work of surrealism or Dada. Godard has a story to tell, and two characters to introduce to us. I suggest that the film techniques be measured by whether they contribute to these goals. The use of handheld camera, long shots, candid shots of Paris do. They give the film a sense of energy and reality, and have perhaps been adopted by others because of this. The "jump cuts" (which I take to mean the abrupt cuts in the middle of scenes, with no attempt to maintain continuity) do not. They are distracting and remind you, with a jolt, and indeed never permit you to forget, that you are watching a film. This is not like noticing that a great painting is made up of the artist's individual brushstrokes; more like brushstrokes that keep you from seeing the overall picture. It just comes off as amateurish, and interfers with plot and character development. Seborg didn't seem to me to work in this role. I think Godard means to tell us that she is not vulnerable but in fact the same sort of animal as Belmondo, but the toughness was not persuasive (esp. the obvious self consciousness of the closing shot). If this is not what was meant, then she failed to communicate to this viewer what exactly it was that motivated her character. Does that mean she is "deep"?
Rating:
Summary: Godard's first shot
Review: Breathless has the improvisational style of jazz. The movie opens up and seems to take on a life of its own, lurching left, right, forward with fits and starts. It's also multi-layered, a story of a smalltime hood wrapped around a romance wrapped around hollywood movie myths. In a way, it's like a very small version of Scorsese's Goodfellas--which too examines the warped relationship between popular art and real life--infected with the worldweary mood of the Beatniks.
Jean Seberg is cute and Belmondo plays the most charming lout ever.
Rating:
Summary: Breathless
Review: Older movies are like Shakespeare. They are to be appreciated by all and enjoyed by few. BREATHLESS, while cutting-edge at the time, plays in today's world like any student film one is likely to see. This reviewer found the flick very charming and very interesting in a historical context. I understand, however, how others may find it tedious, boring, and ultimately unfulfilling. I recommend BREATHLESS to anyone interested in film history and/or anyone interested in old film noirs. The later group will find the european version of the old American crime movies rather interesting. Additionally, if you happen to be a Tarantino fan, check this film out as the grandfather of RESEVOIR and PULP FICTION; it certainly is that.
|
