This is not entertainment...I'd seen Contempt (1963) and Breathless (1960) many years ago and thoroughly enjoyed both. After 1964, I sort missed all that he directed until now, which appeared on late-night TV. And no wonder it was on so late at night...It seems that, as many of us get older and maybe wiser, we like to expound on things philosophical. Bergman did it well, and without resorting to didactic circularity or confusion – and still managed to tell a good story. Woody Allen uses satire brilliantly for the same purpose.However, Godard here uses the bare bones of a simple, quasi-documentary style story – and one that it episodically fractured and with much symbolism – to reflect upon 'what it all means': that is, life, death and the whole damn thing. Using the current Israeli problem with Palestine and vice-versa, he explores the three concepts of Hell, Purgatory and Heaven, using each to show what humanity has done, what it's doing and where it should be going, respectively.The first, Hell, is obvious: with a montage of cuts from a multitude of news and film clips, Godard shows us the extent to which we prey upon each other even as we pray for each other. So, there are some real – all too real – scenes of the dead, the dying and the executed during the many wars that have been documented during the last hundred years or so. Nothing new here at all...The second, Purgatory (a place for waiting), is – well – an exposition about waiting: waiting for a bus, for a train, for a plane, for a meeting to start, for a bridge to be rebuilt, for a nation to recover from war, for people to begin to understand each other. And this is all done within the thin framework of the story of Olga (Nade Dieu), the Jewish journalist from Tel Aviv who is attending a lecture by Godard (playing himself) in Sarajevo, and who is trying to understand why human problems cannot seem to be resolved, no matter what. Significantly, by choosing just Olga, Godard has certainly brought his philosophy to a very personal level, and one with which we can all identify, more or less.All of that is rendered moot when Olga appears to commit an unspeakable act when she returns to Tel Aviv. Perhaps Godard should have told her that it's not the end that matters but the journey to achieve that end?The third – the shortest vignette – is our final destination: as a prisoner of Nature, complete with - American! - border guards who let Olga through to join the happy throng. Essentially: strip off civilization and return to our basics to find out who we really are...I think I'll stick with tackling prejudice, reducing global warming and trying to make a positive difference rather than taking Olga's choice.It's well filmed, as you'd expect from Godard; the music is, at times, quite beautiful to hear; and the Sarajevo mise-en-scene is a stark reminder of our collective sins. An annoying aspect for me, however, is that not all dialog was translated and subtitled; perhaps it wasn't necessary? So, while interesting visually and aurally, I'd recommend this only for those who like to reflect upon existential problems within philosophy.

Was really the best film of 2004 and I am a bit shocked that I heard as little as I did about it. Like The Divine Comedy, the film is broken into three parts, Inferno, Purgatory, and Paradise except the realms of the afterlife are here used as political metaphors. The Inferno is ten minutes of images of war from all of film history and some stock footage, Purgatory is the "story" part of the film about a meeting of artists, thinkers, and journalists in bombed out Sarajevo for a conference, and Paradise is a beautiful impressionistic beach resort guarded by US Marines. The dialogue is fairly oblique and stilited, but thats just how Godard rolls. If you can keep down the little reactionary who lives inside us all anytime we sense that dreaded word "pretentiou..", than you may find yourself moved by the end, moved in a way Godard has not moved anything in quite awhile.

There are movies to help you relax on a Saturday night and there are movies that stimulate, even if that means asking questions that have no answers. I didn't understand this movie but I still felt stimulated by its questions. I tried so hard to make the connections and I had a lot of trouble. But you don't read Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man once without discussing it and expect to understand it. Nor is the more accessible Three Colors Trilogy meant to be seen only once for complete understanding. The quality of a movie is not determined by its accessibility. It's a limited understanding of the medium to judge film by its accessibility. It can be more than an easy way to relax. It can be the impetus to dialogue. I cared about this movie because I didn't understand it.

In spite of all intentions, a movie has to be understandable for the average intelligent person. It works and has always worked by the main method of showing pictures in motion. It's not supposed to be a filmed text, although the text in this film is not read, but spoken.The Israeli girl here is not really acting. She is an instrument for Godard's confusing view on politics and war. Things that ought to be obvious, like the meaning of Indians in the library of Sarajevo, becomes slightly comical in its so called complexity. The climax is when the Israeli girl talks about the only philosophical problem: The suicide.We aren't interested in that problem because we don't get any solutions. This film is dead, because Godard doesn't seem to have an answer to whether death or anything else exists (although it's definitely worth discussing, according to him). This is not a movie. It's a filmed text and you won't care about it.