[atsonicpark]

here's my cool-slash-weird imdb review I submitted:

As a longtime Godard fan (especially his later works, like "Every Man
For Himself" and "King Lear"), the wait for his latest film was
excruciating; it had been 6 long years since the brilliant "Notre
Musique" confounded and shocked me with its eye-popping imagery,
jarring editing, and poetic dialogue. Something I've noticed about
Godard is that he always strives for more and is always willing to take
his ideas and methods and approach further and further. I was expecting
a pure information overload with "Film Socialisme", and I was not let
down. There is a lot going on in this picture, and it's going to take
many, many watches for me to understand everything, to piece together
all the information. No matter -- Godard's works have always been
densely-layered and offer rewards for those willing to keep watching.

Such is the case here; Godard seems to be be in Histoire(s) du cinéma
mode here, since this film -- for the most part -- resembles his work
with that brilliant "film essay" series, as well as calling to mind
films like Numero Deux and Comment Ca Va? Godard, for the first time,
shot this entire film on digital, and the results are fascinating,
sometimes even... funny. During one part, the crappy digital camera he
had been shooting with appears to have been failing -- or at least,
there was some failure when transferred to the computer for editing --
as parts skip ahead, and backwards; there are artifacts on the screen,
audible and visual glitches, obscuring moments of a character's speech.
This wasn't my DVD -- this was definitely part of the film. Other parts
of the (early parts of) movie seem to have been filmed on really crappy
webcams, then the footage was oversaturated... the results are quite
jarring, especially when some of the "crap" footage is put next to some
of the most beautiful digital filmography I've ever seen. There are
audio messups, video glitches; recording synch sound on a boat in
itself is absurd, as you mainly hear wind, people screaming in the
distant, the engine of the ship; in sequences filming a party, you
basically can't hear anything but fart sounds, a loud distorted booming
and crashing. So, Godard, in a way, seems to be using new technology
against itself, in a way. He plays with jump cuts (which he popularized
50 years ago and has rarely used since), stop-motion (filming a camera
being reassembled), dramatic pausing, silence, glitching, and slow
motion. The first 40 minutes are all kinda like this; voices from
who-knows-where delivering lines that were important to Godard, as
image after image is shown in very quick bursts; some images were
jaw-droppingly beautiful, some were distorted beyond comprehension --
all were striking. Godard is first and foremost an artist, and rest
assured that the first 40 minutes are highly artistic. Not a dull
moment in what can only be described as a postmodern documentary. Has
Godard been watching the Current Channel? Has he been surfing Youtube?
There definitely seems to be a lot of influence from outside sources in
this part of the film, maybe even some of video art manipulating master
Ryan Trecartin...

Then, the next part of the film -- a good 30-40 minutes -- is extremely
"Godardian". It should be very familiar to people who have seen any of
Godard's recent films. There's not a lot of image or sound manipulation
here; just lots of long, quiet takes of characters discussing life...
usually filmed in front of strikingly beautiful backdrops. This section
calls to mind every film he's made in the last 30 years, Some people
call this "alienating", but his style is so brilliantly personal, I
can't help but be fascinated. The direction in this section is
topnotch, of course...

...and it leads to the final 30 minutes, which is mostly a film essay,
with dialogue over top of mostly stock footage (scenes from other
films).

So, it's an overwhelming experience, but I never felt it was 'tiring';
I could've watched another hour or two of this stuff, definitely.
Therein lies its brilliance. While, indeed, its difficult to sum up in
a few words, its not difficult to understand why its so compelling;
this is one giant ball of images, sounds, quotes, hitting us so fast
that we can barely keep up. I'm not qualified to put forth everything
this film meant to me, after just one watch, but I do know I will be
watching this film 100 more times in the future, because it's just so
captivating.

Forgot to mention... LOLcats are on this, as well as a lama who lives
in a garage.

A truly brilliant experience that a lot of people will find "difficult"
or "challenging", but to be completely honest, this is one of Godard's
most easy-to-get-into films in a long time; by adopting the elliptical
"youtube editing" and by going into "Sensory overload" mode (at least,
for a lot of its length), Godard has actually managed to make a film
that even an A.D.D.-addled teenage could probably enjoy... all the
while, commenting on aspects such AS sensory overload, technology,
language, and how impersonal and cold everyone in 2010 is. Characters
speak but don't "converse". Talk, talk, talk... but no one listens. No
one responds. In many ways, this is a style Godard has always utilized,
but this is his best display of it; this might be the ultimate Godard
film.

PS: I originally had a LOT more written on each section, but I had to
keep removing chunks of it to get it to the 1000 word limit. I suspect
anybody who tries to review this film will probably face the same
challenge; there is just simply too much to say about this film. Truly
the best film of the past 10 years.