Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine is relatively informed because having grown up in France I am well aware of Godard's rep and influence (even in the States). I've also probably seen most Belmondo films. But cinema history aside, today, judged on its own merits and from objective viewers with fresh eyes like most here... the film comes off as cheap, disjointed, unoriginal, and badly acted. Oh, it IS a classic. But it is ALSO difficult for modern American audiences to see why, and it's not just because they have been brainwashed by Hollywood and TV tripe. As a product of the sixties, a 'bras d'honneur' (the French finger salute) to conventions and establishment, the impact is mostly lost today. Godard and Belmondo have long since been annointed artists, if not geniuses, but let's not forget that Bebel was kicked out of acting shool (famously giving them a bras d'honneur upon exit). You can see what you want in anything, but he was not a good actor back then, and was probably cast because of his unconventional style and irreverence more than his chops. So it's difficult to cry "chef d'oeuvre" today without a certain dose of disingenuity. Anti-heros have long become a staple of world cinema and, while this was ground-breaking at the time, have been portrayed with more depth and intensity since. I'm sure that film students just discovering this today may get overly aroused, but as I've said before, foreign and obscure doesn't necessarily mean good and artistic. The average Hulu viewer should probably be advised to pass on this gem - it lost much of its luster and is not much more thanm a curio now. The movie business is considered and art form in France, and is therefore government-subsidized. This may promote 'art', but also supports many poseurs, by the way.