Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Alicia I love this movie so much

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

axapvov First of all, this film includes the best definition of cinema I´ve ever heard: "Film is like a battleground. Love, hate, action, violence and death, in one word: emotions". Then, "Pierrot le fou" is the best realization I´ve seen of Godard´s ideas. Until now, I had enjoyed his interviews more than his films. His filmography seems to be reaching for an ideal he doesn´t quite ever fulfill. As Pierrot, sorry, Ferdinand says, "Film shouldn ´t be about the lives of people, it should be about life itself". Therefore, he tries to get rid of a traditional plot to focus only on space and movements; and emotions. Of course, that´s just too abstract and he constantly needs to come up with some kind of vague plot, even if it´s just a mere excuse. He isn´t attached to it, though, and changes it or completely forgets about it anytime he´s able to, which drives so many people mad.The pointless plot always has to do with crime because that´s what americans do. Fellini said "I come from a country and a generation to which America and movies are almost the same thing". That is probably hard to imagine for an american but it´s true and back then it was even more true. From there comes the fascination with gangsters and outlaws present in so many french movies. It´s just an idea, like everything else in Godard´s films. That´s why there´s no need to take it too seriously and you should be ok with scenes like the one at the gas station (that is also why Godard kicks Melville´s ass any day). His films can be seen as a series of episodes rather than a whole. He goes from one thing to the next in a playful sequence of ideas. Despising structure allows him total freedom of expression. That´s a hit-or-miss risk and it obviously doesn´t work all the time but when it does it´s really special, not to mention how inspiring it can be."Pierrot le fou" starts a bit off and kind of lost me in the last act (with the exception of the "est-ce que vous m´aimez" monologue, which is absolute genius). I´m not a big fan of the ending either but everything in the middle might be the closest he ever got to his ideal of free cinema. It´s a masterful celebration of life, love, freedom and movies.

christopher-underwood I have just watched this for the first time in a very long time and just possibly for the first time ever, although that seems unlikely considering what a fan of Goddard's I was in the 60s. As with many of the great director's films it is far better to enjoy and experience them than to try and follow them. The central gangster plot, where man is seduced by bad lady gets involved with case of money and after shootings, torture and death an ambiguous ending, is very much subservient to the whole film of which it is merely the core narrative and of no real consequence to us any more than it seems to be to the characters. So, I say, sit back and enjoy, the verbal interplay, the wondrous and painterly imagery and the wry humour that allows Goddard to nudge us into considering, the troubles of North Africa, the Middle East and of course Vietnam. Jean-Paul Belmondo and Anna Karina are wonderful, both on their own and together - Belmondo must have had it in his contract that he would have a cigarette in his mouth throughout (admittedly Karina does take it out momentarily to give him a kiss, but puts it straight back afterwards). And at the start, even before the two have joined forces, we see Belmondo suffering colour coded party sequences where the guests spout advertising copy as if their own. Later the film will be splattered with wonderful images concocted from partial advertising holdings and bits of neon signs. Beautiful film that absolutely glows on my Blu-ray print.

chaswe-28402 If you've nothing to say, why say it ? Without a few hints about the pointless story hidden in this mess, I would not have understood anything. I didn't understand anything anyway. I stuck it for about an hour, then I switched off. Endless totally disconnected jump-cuts in garish colours, it was only bearable for an hour because the actors made quite an attractive couple. I did take a look at the ending. Somebody shot her, because there was some fake red blood running all over her face. Then he painted his face blue, and blew himself up. The answer is, it was made in order to win a prize at some film festival. Godard did make "Breathless" which is a great film, which I enjoyed a great deal. I have seen some of his other films. I didn't enjoy any of them.

Hoagy27 A quarter of the way through this film it becomes clear that only about half of what is being said has been translated into captions. Half way through it's apparent that it doesn't matter a whit. Three quarters in you realize that your just watching because Belmondo & Karina are so dang cute and the French language is so very, very musical. If you make it to the end you've learned an important lesson about yourself. Don't ask me what that is, that's your problem.Repeat to make the 10 line quota:A quarter of the way through this film it becomes clear that only about half of what is being said has been translated into captions. Half way through it's apparent that it doesn't matter a whit. Three quarters in you realize that your just watching because Belmondo & Karina are so dang cute and the French language is so very, very musical. If you make it to the end you've learned an important lesson about yourself. Don't ask me what that is, that's your problem.