...of all the Godard films I've seen, and I've seen practically all of them. I don't care much about the plot: who Jim Fox Warner is, and why he takes such a casual approach to what must be a big fight, who Tiger Jones is either, and why the two girls are hanging around the hotel suite; I don't care much about the old Mafioso who seems to have his finger in every pie (played marvelously by Alain Cuny, with that splendidly seamed face). The 40 million Francs that Chenal owes are just a detail; the cheating that his wife Francoise is doing doesn't move me much... no, all these details are but a backdrop for the wonderful lesson in cinema that Godard gives us here. I've never seen him take such care over rooms and corridors, kitchens and storerooms as he does here. It's lovely--what he does with this Parisian hotel makes this a great experience. Narrative has never interested him much, but it doesn't matter: visuals and music are used very well throughout.Nathalie Baye has never been more beautiful on screen: Godard's camera is in love with her. Claude Brasseur gives a good performance as the pilot whose airline is coming apart.

Détective (1985), directed by Jean-Luc Godard, is a mess from beginning to end. How could a gifted director like Godard waste the talents of Jean-Pierre Léaud, Nathalie Baye, Claude Brasseur and Alain Cuny? It couldn't have been easy. It's a bad miracle.The plot is ridiculous. (Well, I think it's ridiculous--it didn't make any sense so it's hard to judge.) The actors' skills are lost in inane dialog, so, for want of anything better to do, they smoke cigarettes. (All but one young woman, who spends the time uncovering and covering her breasts.)I've reviewed almost 400 films for IMDb, and this is the first one for which I gave a rating of 1. I didn't even bother to rewind the cassette--I just threw it away. Fair warning--you really don't want to see this movie.

Half an hour in, I was thinking of leaving. An hour in, I was completely taken. Godard breaks all the rules the way a child breaks birthday toys, to see how they work. Sometimes utterly pointless, and sloppy, sometimes brilliant. The ending is laughable, not funny.

The films in Godard's late (and not yet over) period present some of the greatest challenges to cineasts. Detective is no exception. It is extraordinarily complex in narrative (or, more precisely, anti-narrative), visual composition, and editing structure. Unfortunately, I don't think it's worth it. It's kind of a parody of a detective film (the one in this film is a hotel dick), but it's nearly impossible to figure out what's going on. It can be quite beautiful in its visuals and editing patterns, but never beautiful enough to make it worth seeing. It's not terrible, but, then again, it's not good, either. 6/10P.S. First off, yes, the little girl IS Julie Delpy, in case you were wondering.P.P.S. Remember when Martin Scorsese made his version of Cape Fear for MGM because they allowed him to make the highly personal The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ? Well, he may have gotten that idea from Godard. Detective was made as a straight commercial offering to the studio that produced his highly controversial Hail Mary. It's strange to think of Detective as a commercial venture, though!