WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Christopher Culver Jean-Luc Godard's 1964 film "Bandè a part" (sometimes titled "Band of Outsiders") is an adaptation of an American crime novel that transcends its pulp origins through Godard's cinematic invention. The young lady Odile (Anna Karina), who isn't very bright, meets lowlife Franz (Sami Frey) in an English course and makes the mistake of telling him that the home in which she lives with her aunt holds a large amount of cash. Franz and fellow criminal Arthur (Claude Brasseur) plan a heist while at the same time vying for Odile's love, or at least her body. As is common in the French New Wave, the auteur only uses a crime caper as a skeleton for his own storytelling. A narrator (Godard himself) occasionally reads descriptive passages from the original novel, which are horribly purple prose, as if Godard is poking fun at his own source of inspiration."Bande à part" has occasionally been treated as a departure from this director's work, as "Godard for people who don't like Godard". However, anyone who has seen Godard's films to date will immediately recognize elements typical of his work at the time. For example, someone reads aloud a classic work of literature, this time an English teacher in a parody of modern language-learning methods. There is leftist social commentary, as the two criminals kill time by reading aloud tragic passages from Parisian newspapers. There is also dancing, as in the film's most famous scene Odile, Franz and Arthur interrupt their plotting for an amusing line dance in a café, over which the narrator tells us their unspoken thoughts.And then there is Godard's many references to the film canon. "Bande à part" is deeply imbued with the spirit of American noir films, which fits with the crime caper plot, but it also nods to classic slapstick and romance, which gives it a levity and charm I wouldn't have expected from a film with these particular characters. "Bande à part" may not be among the most awesome masterpieces of cinema, but it is memorable and funny, and very much worth seeing for fans of mid-century French films.

museumofdave For anyone interested in the history of film, this is a must-see, in the same way Birth Of A Nation or GWTW are must-sees; One can see the brilliance D.W. Griffith brought to early cinema in his epic recreation of his own Southern version of the American Civil War without admiring the sketchy politics that lie at it's roots, without rooting for the Ku Klux Klan to rescue Lillian Gish from the freed slaves. In the same way, I give Godard's film a high historical rating although I personally find the characters a drag, and their aimless lives less than fascinating. Regardless of the brilliant avant-garde cinematic techniques that pepper the Band of Outsiders, one is also stuck with the characters, an aimless lot without a lot of talent, charm or magnetism, rootless folks who ignore others completely as long as they can run about and steal and make noise and act like unruly children. Late in life they have discovered they can be naughty--but without talent or insight or much else than self-indulgence, after a while watching them get's to be a drag. So you can run screaming through the Louvre and feel free and make noise and annoy the other patrons and guards? If you missed your adolescent years, it's a shame, but rootless behavior in and of itself doesn't create much of anything save a picture of self-indulgence. One can appreciate the new vision of cinematography that frees the narrative from ancient strictures--but one also gets tired of a supposedly "free spirit," Arthur, setting up Odile for failure, using her body for his own instant gratification without any eye for consequences; simply put, he's a loser, and why do I want to spend two hours with him? I recognize Godard's contribution to the New Wave, but also find his characters tiresome in their attitudinal posing and aimless vapidity.

manendra-lodhi When the film started I didn't had a clue as to what was going on, but gradually they conveyed the story, and it became clear only after 20-25 minutes. Those 20 minutes I was entirely restless. Well the best part of the film was the character that the girl who portrayed it. She acted very nicely. Whoever has written the character has my regards. I believe that it is not necessary to change locations, characters or have actions to make the film interesting. There are films which are driven only by their plot (which pulls the audience in from the start) and through dialogs. So another weak link I found here was that the dialogs were either too complex to understand or simply not worked properly, because they were not enough to make me bond with the characters. However their roaming around the city and doing stuffs was kind of refreshing and the only thing that kept me watching the film. It also invoked interest when we reach towards the end. In all, the film is a little dull at some points but has cute, complex and funny moments that you may remember for a long time.Message: "Plan properly." Verdict: "Watch for sure if you understand Godard."

ametaphysicalshark "For latecomers arriving now, we offer a few words chosen at random... Three Weeks Earlier. A pile of money. An English class. A house by the river. A romantic girl."The recipe for the most effortlessly cool movie ever made. It's the sort of thing Tarantino has been trying to make for what seems like an eternity, what "Pulp Fiction", in occasional bursts, comes close to being. But that movie is too self-conscious, tries too hard. That's not to suggest that Godard wasn't conscious of what he was doing when writing this film- all writers are, we have to be. But I don't think Godard was trying too be cool, I think he just was. It's a cheap crime flick, according to some nothing too interesting at all, a rehash of "Breathless", and even some of the other New Wave giant Truffaut's movies... "Jules and Jim" and "Shoot the Piano Player" have been mentioned.But that's all part of this film's charm. Godard, a favorite of mine, can be awfully pretentious and HAS been awfully pretentious. If you're consistently making experimental movies you think are challenging, if you are always changing your mind on what constitutes good cinema, if you're obsessed with quotes and references and philosophy and philosophers, you're bound to be pretentious on occasion. "Band of Outsiders" is a pulpy crime flick with great wit, fun characters, good performances and a well-told story, and that's all it is. It's a great film because it's great at being what it is.The screenplay is glorious. The dialogue is gold, the narrative momentum never slows down, we know all we need to know about these people and their goals, and the movie's irreverent, hip air is a thing to behold. Or experience, rather. Great photography by Raoul Coutard. Everyone knows the best bits: the minute of silence, the dance scene, the visit to the Louvre. Depth is not needed in this sort of movie, it's a romp, plain and simple (though one with some amount of complexity- you can read it as Godard examining the need for escapism, specifically in the form of cinema, among other things). A glorious delight from start to finish and one of my favorite films. Unforgettable, still Godard's best film.