TxMike My wife and I watched this at home on DVD from our public library.Andrew Garfield is really excellent in the part of Robin Cavendish who in 1958, at the age of 28, contracted polio while in Kenya on business. I remember polio well, I was a boy in the 1950s and I remember taking the Salk vaccine. It is a devastating illness, it usually causes paralysis which is not reversible. Typically polio victims were given a few months to live and were kept hospitalized, on a ventilator, unable to breathe on their own. After about a year Robin began to ask why he couldn't be moved to his home and kept on a ventilator there. Eventually he was and with the help of a friend had devices built, with battery operated ventilators, that would allow him initially to go outdoors then to even take trips. And devices which operated by slight movements of his head.The meat of this movie is what he accomplished after he left the hospital, particularly how he helped open up development of batter ways to care for those with similar afflictions.He eventually died in 1994, about 35 years after contracting polio. It is implied though not stated in the movie that he chose his time of death by having a doctor administer a medicine so that his ventilator could be unplugged and he could died peacefully and painlessly.

Dee Mou A true rendition of the circumstances and ignorant assumptions/roadblocks against which the disabled community are constantly fighting. The main characters fight diligently past public opinion to break precedent in unbelievable ways (given the time period and technological restrictions). No Spoilers. Highly recommended.

Kapten Video Of all today's famous screen actors, Andy Serkis is one of the most unique ones. Meaning that he's widely known for not "usual" roles but those based on motion capture - Gollum in Tolkien universe, Caesar the smart ape in "Planet of the Apes" franchise.The technology wizards record his movements, create a digital body on top of that but also make a strong use of the man's facial movements and gestures, so the resulting creature would look like lovely yet kind of creepy combination of human and alien.But Serkis seems to have aspirations behind the camera as well. "Breathe" is his directing debut, and there's another one already coming, newest adaptation of "Mowgli" in October.Serkis is not all about action and sci-fi, "Breathe" is based on actual events and has this pleasant old-fashioned look and feel that makes it a promising date movie, and instantly attractive for the little girl living inside every one of us.Based on promotional materials, it looks like a love story, which it is for the first ten minutes or so. Then it turns into an inspirational movie and stays that way. Which brings, sadly, emotionally limp results as my score of 5/10 has already hinted.Plot summary found on IMDB gives a perfect example of what exactly the movie is prepared to offer: "The inspiring true love story of Robin and Diana Cavendish, an adventurous couple who refuse to give up in the face of a devastating disease. Their heartwarming celebration of human possibility..." The couple is played by Andrew Garfield and Claire Foy, sadly the "adventurous" is not saying anything about their sex life.Serkis seems to be a fan of valuing how things look on screen and not if they have any real depth to speak of.His famous performances mentioned above are a good example how the "one-note but pretty" approach can bring awesome results - because the computer-generated images look good and there's also a lot more going on in those movies."Breathe" looks beautiful, but doesn't have any other strengths to support the weak storytelling. There's no depth nor any real development to those relationships and characters that we see on screen.Everybody and everything here is so black and white that it's impossible to relate in an authentic way.It hurts the main character the most. Why exactly are we supposed to find him inspirational as the other characters like to hint at, especially near the end? What kind of relationship does he actually have with his wife, son, friends? We don't see anything explaining that.A long life by itself should not be equalled to good or meaningful one, just as a long marriage by itself is not a sure sign of happy marriage. Clinging to life in the face of adversities is not exactly inspirational, it's something of a basic human instinct, although not everybody in the world has a strong inner contact with it.There's a recent, similar movie "The Theory of Everything" where they at least try to show, why and how the paralysed hero (Stephen Hawking played by Eddie Redmayne) is inspirational to all the others. In "Breathe", they only tell us so, passingly but repeatedly.It's important to add that the movie was produced by real-life Cavendish's son, who co-owns the film company with Serkis.I am quite OK with simplistic stories painted with thick colors - there's nothing wrong with good Hollywood melodrama - but "Breathe" is in dire need of something that would really count as inspirational (well, other than the producers' promise, of course).The greatest cretive success in the movie comes probably as a result of hiring Andrew Garfield as the leading man. He has a suitable physicality and presence for such a role - boyish good looks coupled with a touch of almost child- or animal-like innocence.This made him great also in Mel Gibson's war drama "Hacksaw Ridge". Too bad the material allows him to express his acting range here mostly by smiling, be it sad or happy smile."Breathe" is a mediocre drama suitable for those who can't get enough of sad stories no matter how well they are told. For everybody else, it's an example of what happens when somebody has tried to do something specifically "suitable" for award season.The Oscar nominations are not announced yet but I hope "Breathe" has the same zero-level success as with all the other movie awards so far. It's close to two quite long hours of sweet nothing.For wishing to end with a positive note, I want to say that Serkis has absolutely succeeded in making a feel-good movie about being almost completely paralysed. And there's one truly remarkable, bizarre-looking scene depicting the main hero entering a room chock-full of other similar patients. But that's about all.

ronfernandezsf A good movie based on a real life polio victim. Could have been called A REAL LOVE STORY. All the elements are there for a tear jerker and is well made and acted by the two leads. Seemed a bit rushed at the start as there was no real build up of the love between the two main characters. So much happens much too soon. Wondering why the writers didn't go into detail about how the couple survived financially or did Robin have any family. No mention is made of a mother or father. Surly they would have been at the house helping one way or the other unless he was an only child and the parents were deceased. Should have been more clear on his family. Diana's mother is only shown for a second or two. Did she help? Andrew Garfield did seem to age some, but Claire Foy looked about the same throughout the time element of 1958-1981. Minor quibbles, but more detail on how they survived and his family would have made the film a little more realistic.