RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

mifunesamurai There is something about Godard that I find hypnotic. Even when you know it's not right, it still seems like it is perfect for the cinema! The way he moves his characters about within a frame. The mannerisms and political diatribe he allows his actors to divulge in, and sometimes the crude visual beauty makes for some mind stimulating cinema. And for this one, he pushes it that little bit further, as he does with all his work. The older he gets, the more eccentric he has become, and the more fascinating he is. To me, this is his last real masterpiece before he became the mad professor of the Wacky Cinema According To Godard!

tfmorris I like this film a lot, but I first have to get past my reaction to the whale game. The problem is not merely that mother and son are involved in an erotic game, but that they play it with such enthusiasm. She just mentions the possibility of not playing the game later on, and they are both quick to play it, like lovers who can't wait for nighttime and who dive into bed at the thought of sex. What it means must be connected to the scene in which Marie is bathing and talking about enjoying showing her body to God. Her son is somehow the same as God. Even at the end of the movie, Joseph still isn't getting anything; this is Mary's only sexuality. Of course God is spirit, but her son would be spirit incarnated. Because it is just a question of exposing her body, there would be no physical love. So I guess it is just Mary's way of reestablishing her relationship with God.If we were on a different planet we would all look different. As we are, we would look strange to someone from a different planet. As the doctor said, women are essentially mysterious. Joseph loves Marie rightly when he has that sense of her mysteriousness.There is a contrast with the affair between the professor and one of his students. He thinks that evolution requires some sort of intelligent design, but sees it in terms of a more advanced race coming to earth to steer the evolutionary process. He acknowledges the girl's suggestion of the possibility of God being the intelligent designer, but only as an afterthought. When he eventually leaves her he says that the world is not sad; it's big. The particular is not important; it is just part of this big scheme of things. The scheme of things dwarfs the particular, and thus there is no sadness. On the other hand, if you see the particular as coming from God, the particular is of the highest importance. It becomes mysterious through its relationship with its mysterious source—thus enabling right love.I felt that all this was confirmed by one of those bird calls. The bird, for one reason or another, is announcing it's presence. There is something out there over and above what our senses present to our mind's eye. That's the point of all the animal noises. On the other hand, the sound of the wind represents the presence of God. The sun and the moon represent the eternal. The significance of the repeated words "At that time" would be that the various events are happening in the temporal world. The angels come in at the airport; the landing airplanes represent the eternal becoming directly involved with the temporal.All the writhing on the bed would be Mary's effort to deal with temptation. The long shot of the fingers in the bush indicate that the temptation is that of masturbation. Hence someone can say, "Hail Mary!" Her chastity—which is not the chastity of do not lead me into temptation—was a real accomplishment. What she couldn't get from basketball's excitement and exhaustion was comfort. But flesh qua flesh is not comforting. It is the presence of the spirit in the flesh that allows flesh to be comforting. This spirit is suggested by the shot of Mary's open mouth at the end of the film. There is something mysterious animating this body.When the professor is talking we hear Godard's own voice repeating the word "earth" in a reverential way. Godard has a reverence for this mysterious world we find ourselves on.There must be some connection between the first film and the second. Marie needs the comfort that Mary finds in God. There's no comfort for Joseph though. No wonder at the end of the film he is still threatening to leave. Worse yet he has to see his wife playing whale with the child. Seeing her nakedness was all the sex that he had, and now the kid is having it too. But, no; it's different. He expressed love in response to her nakedness, and she is just telling the kid what people call various parts of the body. What is said conventionally about the body is the opposite of appreciating the mysteriousness of the body.The shots of the dog and the shots of the paired animals and the donkey at the end of the film are meant to represent the strangeness of the body. Seeing the body as a freak mutant along with other freak mutants helps give us the sense of the (mysterious) spirit that is housed in the mysterious body.When Mary asks the doctor whether we are spirits with bodies or bodies with spirits, it is very important to her. If we were bodies with spirits, then her denial of fleshly comfort would be denying what is primary.There is something going on with money. Joseph can pay in two years. The rich people make Joseph wait days for them. The second naked girl gives the professor thousands of franks. She thinks he is a zero when he acts cool about giving it back to her. He is merely thinking about his status as he leaves her. He shakes hands with some other people after saying goodbye to her. Saying goodbye to her is just one more duty. He is acting as if there is nothing significant there, so she honks as the bird calls: I am here!

vetapublishing The best part of this film is the music. It is Classic. Dvorak Cello Concerto and Bach Chaconne is well shuffled even before IPod existed. So are the shots. Shuffled, repetitive, boring. The story? Confusing. Religion has nothing to do with my comments. I am an Atheist. While the actress playing the Virgin has a beautiful body and the naked shots are most enjoyable, the script does not allow her to utter an intelligent or intelligible sentence. The other actors are not convincing either. They are not real, and in that respect the virgin birth could be acceptable in the environment as presented. Could this film be regarded as a great director's mistake?Andrew B.

sonic_russ_preacher jean luc godard arguably one of the most influential directors of all time, you only have to look at easy rider, scorsese's early films, coppola's films, peter greenaway and spike lee to see the unique and influential impact godard as had on cinema without godard's editing techniques without his cut up style, just imagine easy rider without the whore scene in the cemetery, it could even be said without godard's genius the so called golden age the cult directors enjoyed during the seventies enjoyed would never have happened or at least wouldn't have been as influential. like vigo who gave the toys for welles to play about with in a sense godard gave the world independent cinema. godard is the godfather of independent cinema. this film contains the greatest cinematography, the best direction of actors, the greatest script ever written, some of the most iconic and influential imagery ever put to film and is the most powerful example of existentialism on film. well don't take my word for it you know how highly i think of it or that's left to say is watch it and make your own mind up about it?