Seems to me that Godard has been on a quest to find out how post-modern-ly confusing & difficult he can make his films before the intelligentsia can no longer claim they are "brilliant", "deep" & "original". I think that if you want a message to be perceived by your audience, you have to make it minimally accessible. To me this is a boring, long, pseudo-intellectual gimmick. Not a profound and significant analysis.
Vanguard really benefits with unity, although the two concepts historically don't go hand in hand: that's why the second part of the movie, mysterious, allegoric, filled with a incomprehensible (but existent) meaning is much better than the first. I was lucky to see Adieu first; to me a polished version of this movie.
A great examination about the end of Europe, his failure to connect with the « others », the dead of language, and the power of digital film and the paquebot to testify all that. Some of the most striking images of the century. Barely comprehensible (but relatively « accessible »), but essential for any late Godard's fan.
Jean-Luc Godard has always, to an increasing degree, attempted to deconstruct what film and cinema can be but I think he's crossed the line here. Film Socialism is not a film. In fact I don't know what it is. But whatever it is, it seems to follow Godard's "throw everything at the wall and see whatever sticks" agenda, which has become terribly annoying of late.