Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Greekguy Most of the time, I do not watch Godard, because that would be maddening; instead, I roll up my sleeves and work at watching him. It's almost always rewarding, and it's much less frustrating than trying to remain entertained."Tout Va Bien" is not an entertainment – it's a sometimes funny look at how humanists deal with the aftermath of class struggle, the aftermath of the presence of the real possibility of change in society. Set and made in 1974, this film looks at the legacy of the student-led May 1968 Movement. What did this Spring of Revolution leave behind as seed, particularly for the upwardly mobile intellectuals who embraced its concepts without sacrificing their own materialism? To find out, we have to watch our hero and heroine, played by Yves Montand and Jane Fonda, as they negotiate their relationships with one another in the light of their politically committed past and the professionally unsatisfactory compromises that each of them are being asked to make in the present.The main action of the film is the seizure of a food factory by its workers, and the consequent detention of our couple together with the workers' intended hostage, the factory manager. Through this device, the film raises issues of workers' rights, women's rights and the role of trade unions in the free market workplace. It also allows us to see snippets of an actual production line, and memorable glimpses of our stars making sausages and chain-sawing through pig carcasses.It's very strange, but precisely because Montand and Fonda seem so cameo-esque in their execution of these tasks, the work itself becomes more tangible, more real. However, this is not to say that this film is a work of realism. Indeed, it's the opposite of that. The film itself begins with a series of shots showing the cheques that were written to fund it. Throughout the film, our couple remain "He" and "She". They have no other names. At times, they speak directly to the camera. Others in the story do the same. It is all part of a strategy to never hide the work's representational nature. This is, Godard says, a film, and films are made in order to look at issues. In turn, this honesty of approach, this confession that it is a performance that we are watching, allows us to concentrate on the questions raised rather more than the characters that raise them. That's okay, because it's not a film about them, it's a film about us. About you and me and this world. And though it was made nearly forty years ago, what it has to say about gender roles, power, economics and politics is as fresh as the blood on all their aprons.

Joseph Sylvers A less heavy handed, less pretentious, more political film from Godard?? Well it is, and it works. May 1968, was a big month for French politics, students taking over administration buildings, the president evacuated, the next french revolution armed and ready...but then, things went back to normal and Jean Luc Godard made a film called "Tout Va Bien" or "Everything's All Right".It's a film about how complex making a film with a "single' political stance can be, and how absurd, and kinda impossible that is, so instead of the apocalyptic barrage of "Weekend", we get the sober, hang over, of political doubts and inconsistencies on both the right and the left. Big stars like the Fonda's, function as big stars, to entice the audience, but do job performances anyway.Like many Godard films, it's kind of an essay in film form, but if that kind of thing holds no interest, for you, just ignore this. It's good, and funny, but it's about a very specific place, at a very specific time, through the minds of not one but two very eccentric and at times difficult, artists, in Gorn and Godard, and that probably wont appeal to everyone. Which is fine, movies are good, because of their specificity to individual lives, tastes, and concerns, not their universal appeal to crowds.

RResende Godard always makes me think. I'm never indifferent to what he does, with a few exceptions. But many times the excitement about a film by Godard comes in the days after i saw it. This is one of those cases.The setup is simple, he is working on the structural (re)invention of his own films. He probably was by than arrogant enough to believe he was working on the reinvention of the whole cinema (remember the "jean luc cinema godard" signature of Bande a part?). Well there are conclusions which came to affect other works by many other authors, but not always. I think this one is important as a milestone for Godard, in the great picture of his work and it is important to watch on the historical context of cinema than. Many things were happening in the beginning of the seventies, and the main issue was perhaps to clarify the meaning of cinema and its links to real life, the main question the nouvelle vague had raised but never satisfactory answered to that moment. So there are a few works from this period i think should be checked for they show different approaches from different contexts to a similar issue. Think about "F for fake" by Welles, "The conversation" by Coppola, "La nuit américaine" by Truffaut, a few years before Antonioni's Blow up. In the root of all this projects (and some others) is, to my view, this cinematic concern of understanding whether cinema represents life, stages life, or is pure fiction which may influence life. This is probably the least interesting answer of the works i mentioned, but it is still worth a look.The reason why i think this is less rewarding than the films i mentioned above is because Godard, at this point, tended to ruin partially his films by dulling the viewer with his childish half baked conceptions of political ideologies. So he doesn't focus so much on cinema as he does on politics. I like to believe that even than he had the notion of the lack of deepness in the ideas he depicts, but chose to understand that posture as a motivator of certain aesthetics conceptions. So, regarding cinema:The film is in itself a rough structure, which contains several rough structures inside. The result is that we are able to check the mechanics of all the issues we watch: film, politics, and personal relations. Of these three, the only one that matters is the issue film-making. All is denounced so, in the beginning, we have a shot in which someone signs checks to pay film-related services (photography, film, script, etc) followed by an off dialog translating a stylization of the beginning of the film making process. Than we get a beautiful hole sequence inside a factory. We see the factory as a section, so we are able to simultaneously get what happens in every division of it (this structural denouncement was to be used in different context by von Trier, with Dogville). Even before we are allowed to understand we are watching a set, never for a moment one believes to be watching a real location (the colors are those of the french flag). The performances by the workers are also ostensibly stagy, so one doesn't suspect we are watching real life being captured. So, fiction is announced. Like Truffaut in "la nuit américaine", Godard finally assumes that film has a kind of dynamics which has not that much to do with life, and the role of cinema is not to capture life, but to create a life of its own, which has roots in real world, but has its own inner laws.Than Godard ruins partially the experience. He assumes the political speech. He places still on the factory context several workers (actors performing workers, good to remember) unleashing terribly boring monologues (at least from by point of view, i'm not a May 68' guy, older folks please comment on this) concerning their rights and their complaints. He places the actors talking directly to the camera, assuming once more there is a filming being made. Later he even assumes we can make our own film, when he puts Montand talking side by side with a camera pointing at us.The third and clearly least worked out issue is the personal relation between Fonda and Montand. It is also told caring for the structure of the thing. So everything is stylish, cliché, but it is supposed to be like that. We end the film with possibilities on how their relation ends.This is a cinematic sketch, like the demo of a film. I like that attitude, i like the aspect of "unfinished" project, roughness, provisional look of the film. It's as if we were part of the process. And indeed we are.Oh and there is a shot, that alone makes this worth watching. The relatively famous shot on a supermarket. We have the camera moving for about 15 minutes over a straight line, we watch the normal life of a supermarket, stuff happening, a staged "ideological" fight. Just that. The camera comes and go, the line it follows is parallel to the line of register boxes which register the clients shopping. We see the things at the level of the registers box workers. It's just beautiful. It's cinema, maybe not the cinema of truth, but true cinema. Really.My opinion: 4/5

charlessmith702210 Going through the French language and its subtitles, I was amazed about the reason of this film, and since I had been to France over 5 times, I was starting to like this film more and more. The film is Jean-Luc Godard's melodramatic story with some twinges of independent comedy about the rise of the new leftists in France in 1972....and its effects on not only France...but all those in other parts of the world whose only way of bettering themselves is through socialist struggle.The film also remarks the year 1972 to some of the major events that crippled the world in 1968, like the MLK assassination, the Black Power gesture at the Mexico City summer Olympic games as well as the violent crackdown on protesters at Tlatelco University, and the massive antiwar outcry during the American involvement in the Vietnam War.Although I never researched Godard's history, this film was probably inspired by Hugo's "Les Miserables" and the socialist uprising in Lyon, France in the 1830s.One of the first scenes I adored is the crackdown on leftist strikers who were protesting at a factory at the town of Filns. A bus that carried the strikers to the protest was set on fire by police and blows up, and the strikers walk up at you with hands behind their heads. A voice-over tells some places in France that had similar crackdowns, like Dunkerque and Palais De Sport. That scene is an allusion to the Jews who were sent off to concentration camps in World War II.But there is one person who shocked me in the film---but she is not a French actor. Her name is Jane Fonda. She did speak some English in the film--sometimes without the usual French subtitles put in. This was an allusion to the Americanization of France that was temporarily halted around 1990.Jane Fonda played the role in the film an American reporter trying to deal with the events leading to the explosive leftist struggle in France in 1972. It was quite remarkable for this lady who could be almost the antithesis of Susan Sarandon, since during the Vietnam War, Jane went to Vietnam to temporarily go on the side of those Vietnamese who were fighting the Americans. At least, the film did not mention anything about the war in Vietnam. If that was so, the whole film would be completely ruined by American antiwar backlash.I especially adore the scene at the Carrefour supermarket. Here, Jean-Luc Godard does a filming technique I call "the slow-sliding pan". Godard uses the big expanse of this super-store to tell multiple events. There was Jane Fonda, who is right in the middle of the store chaos, witnessing a crowd of onlookers surrounding a small band of members who are trying to enlist bystanders to the French Communist Party. One of the group's leaders shouts "Join The French Communist Party! Four-Thirty Francs Down from Five-Fifty Francs! Better life!" It seems like leftists in France don't like it when inflation runs out of control.As the bystanders discount the group, the strikers that were cracked down at Filns appear from the back-door entrance of the store, strike back and tell the bystanders that all of the store's items are "gratuit"--or free. The bystanders and the strikers then fill up the shopping carts and try to get out of the store. This was techincally looting---not just shoplifting---and the cops later come in, stopping some of the stealers with their batons but several of them get away with the loot. The result is still another allusion--this time to the looting after Hurricane Katrina.When at the end of the flick you hear "France...1972.....Me.....You", as Godard pans the camera on an an old junkyard on a cloudy day, then a brick wall, and then the same junkyard again, Godard is telling us that the leftist struggle in that year is a warning for all people who protest--not just the French. Protest way too far and you will suffer devastating consequences. (Like what happened when the Red Brigade group terrorized Italy in the 1970s.) Protest gently and you may get what you really deserve. Therefore, what I like overall in the film is how France faired in the early 1970s. If you like to see what was really on French peoples' minds in that time, this film is just for you!