I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Why so much hype?

Don't listen to the negative reviews

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Much of the time, if you profess to not like Breathless, a few New Wave devotees kind of sniff and intimate that, obviously, you didn't understand it.The hell I didn't. I was a teenager when the New Wave (Godard, Truffaut, Chabrol, Resnais, et. al) erupted. I saw ALL the key films when they came out. I tried very hard to be impressed, to string along with the huge number of critics who oohed with delight about cinema verité, hand-held cameras and improvised dialogue. But I couldn't do it then, and I still can't.I've watched Breathless twice completely and half a dozen times incompletely, over the past 50+ years. Yes, I understand it's a milestone. Yes, the film was a radical departure from standard studio-produced fare. Yes, it broke many so-called 'rules' of feature film-making.But sorry. All that doesn't make for a movie that's good. It bores. It rambles. It irritates by its ineptness. The images are very uneven in quality. The sound is pretty bad. In truth, one is expected, even urged, to admire it for its defects.Jean-Luc Godard (who is Swiss, though considered one of the pillars of the French New Wave) still makes movies today in 2018, at 87 years of age. Still does the festival circuit. And his movies are much improved technically. Almost all have a few pretty good scenes. But by and large, they're not meant to entertain. They're supposed to make you think. To react and reflect on the images and ideas he's throwing out at you.Now, back to Breathless (which a poor translation of the original French title 'A bout de souffle' that really means 'out of steam, out of energy, near the end of the line'.)If you've never seen it, by all means do so, simply for its reputation. And if like me, you were lucky enough to visit Paris in the 1950s and early 1960s, you'll be rewarded by once again seeing the city as it really was. Complete with a girl (the late, beloved Jean Seberg) on foot, hawking the late, beloved International Herald Tribune to American tourists. Just for those delights, my rating is 4/10 - about two points higher than it might otherwise receive from soft-hearted me.PS: If you find New Wave really hard to get through, stick with Truffaut. He rarely bores the way Godard and Resnais do. And how he evolved, year by year, into a master film craftsman is a story in itself.

For starters - I certainly am quite clueless as to why this film earned the title of "Breathless" for itself. The events that took place in its story were certainly far from being an exhilarating (breathless??) movie-experience.If this b&w, 1960 film is actually considered to be the one that initiated the whole French New Wave movement in cinema - It's really got me wondering what French cinema was like prior to this (apparently) revolutionary transformation in film-making.All-in-all - Even though I wouldn't say that "Breathless" was great movie-making - It certainly turned out to be considerably better than I had expected it to be.And - Last, but not least - I sure do wish that this film's protagonist, Michel Pioccard, hadn't been portrayed as being such a lousy, despicable, and untrustworthy bastard that he was. For me - This guy's rotten-to-the-core character really marred the story, big-time.

Still fresh as ever four viewings later, this debut feature from Jean- Luc Godard shows the acclaimed French director at his most experimental while still spinning a half decent story (the same cannot be said of all of his subsequent efforts). A key piece of dialogue crops up around halfway through as lead actress Jean Seberg tells the car thief protagonist played by Jean-Paul Belmondo that she cannot see anything beneath his face, no matter how hard she looks. Belmondo is a man who has modeled himself on the heroes of film noir (twisting his face to match Bogart's face in a photo at one point) and has lost his true identity in a near fantasy existence; Godard's inclusion of gun sound effects as Belmondo imagines firing his gun from his moving car hint at an overactive imagination. Godard's use of jump cuts is also indicative of fragmented thinking. Fascinating as this all may be, 'À Bout de Soufflé' misses the mark for a top tier Godard effort. It is not even of his five best films as it does not spin as tight a narrative as something such as 'Contempt'. The scenes in Seberg's hotel room run too long and as appealing as Belmondo's non-urgency in fleeing the country may be, the film misses the opportunity for thrills and suspense. It also debatable how much sense Seberg's decision near the end makes. There is, however, no flawing the film's music, a mix of different moody styles for a mixed up world in which Belmondo feels many different emotions, and the way we get inside the mind of the film noir-influenced protagonist is superb. Godard's cameo is lots of fun too.

Frankly, I think Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless (1960) is VERY overrated. This is just a very amateurish first attempt at filmmaking for Goddard.That Jean-Paul Belmondo's character would murder a cop and then stick around Paris to get nabbed is unreal. Not even a DUMB criminal is DUMB enough to do that, especially since this guy has the means to flee the country and he is portrayed as a career criminal type with street savvy.Jean Seberg's character is portrayed as an upscale, educated aspiring American journalist who is trying to make it in Paris, yet hooks up with an obvious low life like Jean-Paul's character? SORRY, but I just don't buy it. That she sticks around with Jean-Paul's character even after discovering his criminal nature is even more unbelievable.OK, Jean's character finally smartens up at the end and turns in Jean-Paul's character to the cops. But then what does she do? She goes back to this low life thug and tells him what she did !!!! Either this gal has a latent suicidal wish or she is unbelievably STUPID. Why would any rational person go back to tell a fugitive on the run from a cop killer charge that she just ratted him out? Especially, since it puts her alone in in an apartment with this guy. UNREAL !!!! Then there's the final scene where jean's character is running down the street toward Jean-Paul's character's bullet riddled body is lying face down in the street. I mean, she actually still cares for this cold blooded cop killer even after he's righteously dead? GIVE ME A BREAK !!!! This film is just a love story from outer space, in my opinion. This film isn't about romance, it's about two DUMB people, just acting DUMB.I mean I've seen a number of Absurdist / Avant Garde films that I thought were great because the unreal / absurd elements in the film had some sort of symbolic or interpretive meaning in the context of the whole film. Breathless, however, is a film with a basically unbelievable, not well thought out storyline that just has no symbolic or interpretive meaning at all, at least for me.Although Goddard went on to make many great films, his initial effort here was a BIG FLOP as far as I'm concerned and the acclaim that Breathless got in its time was due to Goddard's already gotten fame as a film critic for a very influential Parisian film review and nothing more. That's the only sense that I can make of why such a MEDIOCRE film would get such high ratings.{{{This review is also posted at "Forum For Film Reviews And Discussions" at groups.google.com.}}