Films often celebrate significant achievements across various fields, including those in filmmaking itself. These tributes usually carry a tone of respect for the subject matter. However, Richard Linklater’s latest film presents a curious case, as it incorporates a considerable amount of ambiguity that might confuse viewers, despite the movie's inherent quality. The story centers on 1959, when the French New Wave movement was emerging through directors like François Truffaut (Adrien Rouyard) and Claude Chabrol (Antoine Besson). Jean-Luc Godard (Guillaume Marbeck), a long-standing film critic at Cahiers du Cinéma, began work on his first movie, “Breathless,” which follows a thief evading capture while developing a relationship with an American woman in Paris. The cast included Jean-Paul Belmondo (Aubry Dullin), Godard’s friend and newcomer to acting, and Jean Seberg (Zoey Deutch), a rising Hollywood star. Like other New Wave films, the production utilized innovative techniques, new storytelling methods, and content that was unconventional compared to traditional French cinema. However, Godard pushed these principles to an extreme by working without a script, not informing his actors of their roles, minimizing rehearsal time, and disregarding established filmmaking practices. This approach understandably frustrated both his stars and producer Georges de Beauregard (Bruno Dreyfürst), who worried about losing his investment amidst the chaotic production. Yet, when offered suggestions or instructions, Godard remained steadfast, insisting that his improvisations and spontaneity were crucial to the film’s creation. Linklater effectively captures this disorder, portraying the filmmaking process as a disastrous chain of events, often accompanied by Godard's rambling, stream-of-consciousness explanations for what was happening. Despite this, “Breathless” became a landmark work of French New Wave cinema, inspiring innovations that continue to influence filmmaking today. However, viewing this film might raise questions—is it intended as a tribute or a satire? A case could be made for either interpretation. (Full disclosure: I’m not particularly fond of "Breathless"; while groundbreaking at the time, it now feels dated and perhaps even pretentious, despite its impact on subsequent New Wave films.) Regardless of one's ultimate impression, the film is undeniably impressive, beautifully shot in black and white, featuring strong performances from the cast, meticulous period detail, stylish costumes (including Godard’s signature sunglasses), a sophisticated jazz score, and genuinely funny writing. It likely won’t appeal to anyone outside of dedicated cinephiles familiar with “Breathless” and its creators, but those who are will find it one of the best films of 2025 and arguably Linklater's most significant work. Consider it a loving tribute with a wry sense of humor, and you’ll have a good idea of what this film is about. This Netflix release might not take your breath away, but it should entertain viewers considerably.

Source on TMDB