Breathe

Breathe is a valentine, but it's a valentine that is quite moving.

It’s a gorgeous, romantic drama that earns its emotional resonance without venturing beyond the most familiar beats.

Marking the directorial debut of Andy Serkis, it’s competently made but not exceptional.

The story by screenwriter William Nicholson (“Everest”) jumps from one major episode in Robin’s life to another, but with none of those episodes delving into his interior life, Breathe remains a superficial tear-jerker.

A tame, vanilla whimper of a period drama begging for a better treatment in more assured hands.

The lack of emotional distance between the filmmakers and the subject – producer Jonathan Cavendish is the son of Robin and Diana – might account for the bracingly celebratory approach. This is understandable, perhaps, but it results in a lack of dramatic light and shade, and an absence of texture in the characterisation.

It’s important to note that Breathe was produced by the Cavendishes’ son Jonathan, who co-owns a production company with Serkis. I suppose not everyone sees their parents for the flawed humans that they are, but in this case, things would be a lot more interesting if they did.

I have been furious since last night that this is not getting ANY Oscar attention. It was a heartwarming biopic. I don't see why it has all the poor reviews because it "sticks to the biopic formula"; since when has the Oscar's cared about that? I think my rating reflects this, had it gotten more acclaim, I'd doubt I'd give it a 9. I also will say it seems like people didn't like how "chipper" it was but I really didn't see it that way. This movie pulls out all the stops in the beginning to bring us back to old hollywood which is something I'm a fan of but could scare some people off though the initial Hepburnesque feeling comes to a halt when the polio strikes and the more serious performance of Foy commences. I sometimes thought the orchestral pieces were a bit too busy for my taste but were always effective in achieving the emotion they were trying to convey. The sound of the respirator also was used extremely well in a way that sneaks up on you. In terms of acting I think Foy and Garfield had fine performances. Again, I'm upset at how it's not even being considered for an Oscar nomination because I feel like this should be a movie that gets into categories such as best actor/actress and not necessarily win but AT LEAST be nominated. The real star in terms of showcasing acting ability in my mind was without a doubt Chapman who able to convey so much emotion in the very little amount of scenes he was in. Even if this was getting Oscar buzz, he wouldn't be getting a supporting actor nominee, but he gets a best supporting actor in my book. A very small note I wasn't even going to comment on but then I read another review that had the same thought as me, this movie starts in the fifties and ends in the eighties and their wardrobes NEVER change. If it didn't have the years I would've still thought they were in the imperial age by the end of the film. I would not recommend it for everyone because if you're not into Oscar-bait, you will be bored but I had had a busy day and wanted to decompress and this movie was absolutely perfect for that.

I saw this movie - not really sure what to expect. I was surprised at how well done it was. Based on a true story - it had a bit of everything. The actors/actresses were amazing. I haven't seen such a good movie in years. I would be very surprised if it didn't take home some **** it should. No profanity, sex or violence which was a nice change. I highly recommend this movie.

The sentimentality and emotional manipulation almost knock it down, it's a pity, because although I would not go so far as to say that the good work of Andrew Garfield is wasted, but without a doubt the film is too forgettable to go any further.

While certainly inspiring, noble and sincere, this slightly overlong fact-based romance/drama falls prey to the traps of schmaltz, manipulation and formula (at times bordering on cliche, especially in its soundtrack and cinematography). Admittedly, the film does tend to get better as it goes along (save for its drawn-out concluding segment) and features capable performances by Andrew Garfield and Claire Foy, who make the material look better than it really is. However, despite these strengths, much of the film seems all too familiar and plays more like a made-for-TV movie than a theatrical release. You'll come away from this one feeling inspired and uplifted, but you're unlikely to feel cinematically fulfilled.

This movie had a lot of things wrong with it, but the things that distracted me most was the expositional dialogue and Andrew Garfield's performance. If you watch "The Theory of Everything", you get better writing and acting. The redeeming qualities were Claire Foy's performance, playing a role that we all know she can do well, and the exposure of how badly people with disabilities were treated not long ago. That does not excuse it's quintessentially Oscar-baity production value and sterility, which diminishes the sting of the message it tries to land. Mediocre.