The worst kind of film is not one with bad acting, or bad direction, since these can be campy and unintentionally funny. The worst kind of film is not a style over substance summer blockbuster, since these at least provide a temporary cheap thrill. The worst kind of film is a film with competent acting and directing, but with NOTHING of interest going on. Jacques Rivette's "Va Savoir (Who Knows?)" is one such film, running at two-and-a-half hours, without any real purpose or entertainment value for the first two hours (!).<br /><br />	Perhaps the reason a film such as "Va Savoir" is so disappointing is because it is so well done. There are no problems with the direction (director Jacques Rivette being a true veteran, has been making films for around 50 years); it is neither distractingly experimental, falsely grandeur, or frustratingly inept. The acting is up to par with that in an American romantic comedy, and is edged slightly higher due to the flawless bilingual dialogue of leads such as Jeanne Balibar (Camille) and Sergio Castillitto (Ugo), who are involved in an Italian theatre production. The characters have somewhat normal (normal for the type of film anyway) relations with each other, including past lover, current seducer, and half-brother with hints of incest. "Crazy" characters such as Pierre (Jacques Bonnaffé) and Arthur (Bruno Todeschini) seem genuinely off-kilter, under the influence of mortal pleasures (Pierre by the love of his ex Camille, and Arthur by the money he gets from selling stolen goods, such as priceless manuscripts "borrowed" from his dead father's library). Sounds like an interesting cast of character to spend some time with, right?<br /><br />	Sadly, absolutely nothing happens in the film until around the two-hour mark. At this point, all of the film's memorable moments, which the rest of the film spent carefully (too carefully) trickling out one drop at a time, begin to flow uncontrollably. Suddenly the film's much-touted "farce" status becomes realized and obvious, with a series of odd events, some of which, indeed, mock "traditional romance themes" (e.g. a duel for the love of Camille is a drinking contest atop a scaffold). Are these moments enough to make up for the rest of the film? Not really. The period up until then is wasted through over-drawn character development (which does little but establish every character as pretentious and confused, traits that are almost expected to some degree in romantic comedies) and many scenes of the play produced ("Come tu Mi Vuo", an Italian play that, from the excerpts presented alone, is already a better farce of romance in general than the film, but has no specific connection to the characters other than their participation in it). The first two hours of the film are a great displeasure to sit through, being dialogue-heavy with characters that are still "normal" in their actions and dialogue. As a final assurance that the time spent watching this was in vain, every character remains within the same relationships they were in at the beginning of the movie, shrugging off the previous sub-plot romances and character development.<br /><br />	The problem I have with American romantic comedies is their saccharine and non-unique nature. I rented this seeking redemption for the genre in a stereotype of "artsy" European films and film-makers as being able to revitalize a seemingly forever-tired genre. As much as I hate maudlin American romantic comedies with boring characters that never stand out, at least these are generally an hour or so shorter than an "artsy" maudlin European romantic comedy with boring characters that become interesting at the midnight hour. I shudder at the thought that this is one of director Jacques Rivette's shorter films.