I am not an expert in movie techniques or cinema history, I couldn't even give a definition of new wave. I am not even a big fan of Godard, except for "a bout de soufflz". This movie deserves to be in the top 10. But if you look at ratings, it's basically either 10 or 1. I am not going to describe why this movie is so good, I wouldn't be able to anyway. But I think the effect of it lies in Michel's character (kind of crazy, cynical, with an incredible distant and happy attitude and self confidence that gives him some particular charm. Belmondo's performance to act this especially complex and subtle character is outstanding), and the overall realization that gets you like some abstract paintings sometimes do. Surely lots of people wrote tons of technical stuffs to explain all this. Now why so many of so-called movie enthusiast in the IMDb hated it? I understood from reading the reviews that many of them are from students who "had" to watch it for their class. I guess it's not the best way to appreciate it. As there is no way anyone could appreciate the Mona Lisa in the Louvre museum, looking at it at 10 m in a crowd. A word that comes a lot is "boring". I guess some people don't see in movies anything else than a technique used as a support for a storyline. It's like saying food is just fuel to walk. I guess they're the same who put all these blockbusters in the top 250. Not that I don't like Hollywood big productions but they don't go at all beyond entertainment, which is good but not enough. And finally, there might be some cultural misunderstanding. A reviewer wrote that he hated Michel because he kept stealing cars...I was just puzzled by such stupidity. This is definitely not a movie to be watched if you have been formatted by TV and Hollywood blockbusters since you were born, like apparently a growing majority of IMDb members.
Review of Breathless
