Rating: 
Summary: Great movie, mediocre transfer.
Review: You can read the other reviews to hear what a great classic of French New Wave cinema this is. My only complaint with the DVD is the narrow-screen "pan and scan" format, and the sound quality. The picture quality is very nice but they made this DVD from a VHS restoration, so the sound quality is only so so, with a low hiss permeating the sound track. I wish they had a letterbox edition!
Rating: 
Summary: Truly Great DVD Worth Owning, Despite Awful Commentary
Review: This is one of my favorite movies with two of my favorite actor and actress(Seberg and Belmondo) But if you decide to buy this on DVD do not listen to the commentary. That [person] makes the whole movie look like Godard's homage to "the hollywood movie" sometimes he even mixes up their names and very little is focused on the movie itself.
-Regan Luke
Rating: 
Summary: I never got what Picasso's paintings meant either.
Review: What is french for dribble??? The editing of this film must have been done by either a blind man or a chimpanzee suffering from attention deficite disorder. The difference between "art" and a movie, art is for the critics to give arwards to and movies are for "common people" like me to enjoy.....
Rating:
Summary: Belmondo is like the French Steve McQueen
Review: This is a great movie. See this movie
Rating:
Summary: Important for your knowledge of film history
Review: If you don't see this with the proper context, it can be a bit of a headscratcher as to why this movie is important. It's a bit like watching "Birth of a Nation"; it's hard to get that sense of "D.W. Griffith was there FIRST", especially since the film's content is, to say the least, appalling.
So, in a nutshell: French film between the 40s and the 60s was largely focused on big, lavish literary adaptations. It was staid, it was pretty vapid in some respects artistically (although there are some very beautiful films from that time such as "Children of Paradise", available from the Criterion Collection), and it was safe for the unwashed masses, despite the artistic world surrounding it. You also have to remember that at the time, films weren't considered art by the academics of the day, they were "mere" entertainment.
A group of filmmakers decided to try and change this, and the country got swept up. "Breathless" was something totally new and different and furthermore, it made a mint at the box office (not a commonly mentioned fact, but part of the reason the New Wave took off was that the early films made money) If you followed the American indie scene in the mid-90s, it was much the same way; ANYBODY could get a movie made, and there were stunning surprise hits. So that's why "Breathless" is so important and why so many people love it. That said, as an actual movie, it's dated, both from the fact that its techniques have been ripped off so many times and the fact that in a simple technical straightforward sense, it wasn't that good a movie in the first place.
Visually, it is excellent. All those using DV camcorders now would do well to imitate Godard's use of handheld camerawork; it's obvious he meticulously planned every shot and didn't just improvise like a lot of them. He knows how to frame his shots and how to use camera motion. Actingwise, especially considering the script, it's also quite enjoyable.
If you don't want to read criticism of this film, stop reading; I give this three stars on the above merits plus one star for historical value. In other respects, it's horrendous. "Breathless" never develops a point; the plot is ill considered and more often than not feels like an inept parody of American B-movies, not a tribute. Unlike the movies he's imitating, "Breathless" has no sense of urgency and offers us no reason to care about the characters, especially the lead, who's basically just another jerk. I'm unimpressed by Godard's constant film referencing or the placement of some of his jump cuts; they add nothing.
Part of this is, as I said, the fact that the film has been ripped off so many times that its techniques are no longer new. But just sit down with some work from Welles, Powell and Pressburger, Yasujiro Ozu, Bunuel, or Alfred Hitchock, watch that and then "Breathless", and you realize that they have something Godard doesn't; a care for the story in addition to the care for the images.
Rating:
Summary: Reference
Review: This 1960 film involves "existence" and is always actual. In its vein does not suffer from any type of religiousness or humanisms that plague otherwise interesting films. It is in my opinion the greatest film of all time (superior to Fellini's Dolce Vita and 8 1/2, to Antonnioni's Blow Up, to Bergman's Wild Strawberries, and some few others). Transfer is good, digitally restored recently by BBC , and the film looks better than we saw at theaters back then. English commentary is a bit "outsid-ish" and stating the obvious, but overall is OK.
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: A 5-star Film Historically; A 4-star Film in 2001
Review: When it was made, this was clearly a 5 star film that broke new ground for films of the future. Accordingly, everyone will tell you that you must see this film, that it is absolutely superb. I can't go that far. Filmmakers after Godard have taken everything they learned from this film and others that followed in the French New Wave and gone beyond it. I do think any serious film fan should see it though. You will love seeing the young Belmondo and Seberg as the amoral lovers in the late '50s-early '60s who are fatally flawed with a penchant for crime. There are also wonderful street scenes of Paris from that era. The film was remade in America in 1983 starring Richard Gere, roundly panned as unworthy of the original, and ignored by the public. I recommend that you see both films together. I think many will be startled to discover how really good the 1983 version is and that it more than holds up to the original.
Rating:
Summary: DVD edition will be available soon!
Review: This is a great movie,and it was one of the movies which heralded the arrival of "NOUVELLE VAGUE" which used "jump cuts"(Godard used the skill in "A bout de souffle"),"location shooting", "improvised dialogue". Moreover,he used "long shots",so the movie was experimental,and it is still enjoyable now. The story of the movie is still interesting,and see the final scene. I hope DVD edition which will be released on Oct 9 by a notorious studio "Fox Lorber" will be a great edition.
Rating:
Summary: Sizzle
Review: Jean-Paul Belmondo and Jean Seberg sizzle. The movie is best remembered for its role in the French New Wave, but the film stands on its own as a document of the alientation of youth. Jean Seberg is particularly captivating, and it's a shame that her career never really took off. She was utterly beguiling.
|
