Diverse hard boiled characters roam a nondescript cinemascape playing their parts but being from different plots, action and reaction seldom mesh and yet at the same time, strangely they do creating something completely new and completely outside of them. "Filled with cinematic and literary references, populated by existential refinements of various generic types" A mystery that is not a mystery but still fascinates
A real lowpoint for Godard. I found the plot to be cumbersome and dull and the film lacking any real focus. I had read that this is one of his better later career works, but after watching it I either find that hard to believe, or disheartening, as it makes me not want to check out others. Maybe I should stick with his classics. 2 stars
Unlike many of the bright lights in Godards filmography, this film lacks touch and wit in a way that sets Godard apart from others. The plot is confused and winds around with little progression or subtlety. There is not at much metaplay with film as a piece of art, this one point is the greatest hurdle for the film and what holds it back. The film feels heavy and lacking a clear idea of what genre it wishes to be.
One of JLG's key films. A movie that creates movies within movies. This film offers the POV of the 'detective': JLG himself. As characters and plot fragments from Cinema's past glide through and between characters/scenes, disrupting, yet affecting the narrative streams that become 'Cinema' in the viewer's (JLG's) mind. Brilliant, but best consumed with fragmented viewings for non-cinephiles. Watching TCM helps, btw.
This movie has a lot of great scenes but they are cut together to tell a bigger story that doesn't equal up to the greatness of the individual moments. Godard never seems really interested in telling conventional stories, of course. But he does seem really interested in fucking around with the nuances of cinematic narrative. His visuals reflect that at every turn. Quite interesting, if not confusing at times.