Care to elaborate on that? After all, it's just one of the most acclaimed films of all time, among directors as well as cinephiles. I would personally choose this over the bubonic plague.
"It's sad to fall asleep. It separates people. Even when you're sleeping together, you're all alone" this pretty much sums up the whole film.
The cinematography is on par with a paparazzo shooting video on their iPhone. Godard can't frame his characters to save his smelly French hide. The conversations between the characters are dull and turgid, which helps to make them highly implausible. The guy who thinks he's Humphrey Bogart has almost no personality, and the little that he did have made me hate his guts and made me happy to see him die in the end. The actors aren't even acting. They're just reading their lines. I kept forgetting while watching the film that it's supposed to be a thriller, it was so dull. Suffice to say, it's one of the worst films I've ever seen, and definitely the worst of the French New Wave, which is saying a lot for me since every French New Wave film I've ever seen, I've loathed.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I can say that we view this film quite differently. I guess your not much into Godard's films. For instance, the characters are supposed to be highly implausible, Godard was hardly aiming for realism. Also, I don't know why you think it's supposed to be a thriller. The New Wave didn't really make genre films, they deconstructed them. What you see as dull I see as fresh and full of life. Guess that's a matter of taste.
I'm fine with implausible. Hitchcock is quite implausible, but Godard's characters are shallow stick figures. Even if it's not a conventional thriller, it's still not very "thrilling" since much of the film is him circumventing the police. I think the emperor has no clothes. Heaven knows I'm not the first to criticise Godard in this way.
I beg to differ. He is most definitely an emperor with no clothes. Assuming he isn't because he is praised is an appeal to authority fallacy. In fact, how can you even negate that statement with an appeal to authority? That very parable retroactively refutes your point. He still has his share of director detractors likewise, Herzog, Bergman, and Welles to name a few.
Well, Bergman called Welles' Citizen Kane "a bore" too, and judging from your list of favorite films, you don't seem to agree with Bergman, in fact the most praised movie of all time seems to be your personal favorite as well (talk about authority). By saying that he is praised by critics and directors is an appeal to authority, I guess, but in this case it's quite a lot of authority (considering how many critics and directors we're talking about). I believe more than 30 Godard films were mentioned in the individual top 10 lists in the Sight & Sound poll 2012. He has lots of fans on mubi too. I'm not trying to say, that because a lot of people (mubians, critics, directors you name it) like the film, it's supposed to be an absolute masterpiece, but one of the worst films ever made? Come on.
Yeah, and I dislike Bergman too. But that's irrelevant. And I take no cues from anyone in determining my favourite films. Yes, Citizen Kane is my favourite. No, it has nothing to do with its reverence by others. You don't need to tell me how much adulation Godard receives; I already know. Isn't it ironic that you admonish me for my favourite film being likewise lauded by the cinematic literati, yet reiterate Godard's praise as recourse to indict me for hating his work? It should just occur to you that I have my own opinion, and I still think Breathless is one of the worst films ever made.
A small film that went a long way. If there ever was a perfect title for a film, it is "À bout de souffle". For the first time, the spectator becomes the camera, as it tilts, runs, pans, cuts and chases, searching for a story and settling with the tale of Patricia & Michel. The restraints of cinema are finally are broken. The story is now free to glide and crawl through Paris, France and the world.A true masterpiece.
Worthless as Picasso's " Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" A clumsy mess! But it has the same value as an example of a new way of doing things, and is a seminal work. It is Morally, and artistically repugnant IMHO. The image, made using sensitive still camera film, a hand held camera, and little lighting is perfect: a GREAT Bluray. But for what purpose: BORING! That is what you get when you write the script as you film.
This movie's energy is infectious. I'm not surprised at all it's influenced Wong Kar-wai, as this film's and Wong's entire filmography perfectly set a mood and leave you wonderfully drunk off of it. How great a film is when you can feel guilty at the pleasure you experience while watching it. I was cold to this film at first, but have grown to love and appreciate it. (Adds extra star)
- Qual'è la più grande ambizione della sua Vita? - Divenire immortale e poi, morire.
Famed for ushering in the French New Wave and spurring as many references as it cites, Breathless is a masterwork of cinematic form. This, Godard's debut, redefines expectations of filmic language through exercises of narrative and temporal expectations, while also exploring the burgeoning existentialist theories and sexual politics of the time. Above all, and perhaps at all, the film exudes an indescribable charm.
A film that appeals to a narcissism, and I don't mean that negatively. It is a pleasure to watch two beautiful people parade in and out of the city of lights, as they talk about life, love and sex without any realistic consequence. Such, of course is the fantasy of us all when were are young.
My first Godard and it's been quite an experience. I'm not sure I actually got it though, maybe a second viewing could help. I was very impressed with the soundtrack
"Breathless" is not a film to watch for character or plot, the least important aspects of Godard's work. It's a postmodern film (perhaps the first) in which the filmmaker makes it clear to the viewer "We both know this is a film. Nobody's trying to fool anyone here." There's not a frame in the whole movie where I'm not conscious of the filmmaker. That's what made it so innovative in 1960 and yet so fresh today.
Godard's (60s) films are so cool, and so jazzy, that I wonder why I don't love them as opposed to just 'really liking' them. Maybe I should watch this again, but even upon first viewing it comes across as one of the coolest movies ever made.
Captivating, intelligent, electric, sexy-- this is the only film that was made so brilliantly that it makes me forget what the plot is.
Once again Godard has blown me away, I just thought this was the coolest film full of great dialogue (pulled off nicely by the two leads) and a great story. Godard's film's have a sense of timelessness to them, I mean this came out in 1960 but it sure didn't really feel like it. He has such a unique style of direction too.Can't give enough love for this film.