text: Having finally caught up with this "masterpiece," it strikes me that it must have seemed terribly clever, in its day. It's French, arty, under-played to the point of agony, and ultimately downbeat. But viewed from the vantage of 37 years in the future, it's also just a bit vacuous, pretentious and unsatisfying.<br /><br />Others have summarized the story, but I don't think anyone has pointed out the dramatic flaw at the heart of this film: the lead characters, Corey and Vogel, really don't deserve what they get. They play square within their code, never harm anyone who didn't ask for it, and show great courage and initiative. Moreover, Corey in particular is victimized by his former gangland 'friend,' who stole his girl and who repeatedly tries to have him killed, apparently just because he (Corey) dared to 'borrow' a few thousand francs. These are guys who really ought to be due for a break! Instead, things go far worse for them than they really need to, within the logic of the story.<br /><br />One might contend that this is the whole point: that the real villains never get caught; that they collude with the police as needed, sell out their friends, and always come out on top. But that's not shown either. Corey's old gangster friend is not shown colluding with the police. Nor is he shown gloating over his victory. In fact, after materializing several times when he's needed, he's nowhere to be seen at the conclusion, leaving a dramatic tension (his feud with Corey) entirely unresolved!<br /><br />Nonetheless, I'd say this film is well worth seeing for its beautiful photography, its slow, deliberate pacing, its great deadpan performances, its elaborate heist sequence, and its encapsulation of the art-film style of the late 1960s.