This is a counterblog, so it's good when it's bad.

Wollen’s article clearly denotes the methods by which Godard counteracts orthodox cinema. He chooses seven “deadly sins” of cinema and pits them against Godard’s seven “cardinal virtues.” It’s somewhat unclear why cinema is viewed in such a negative light here, but I think Wollen redeems himself when he says “Godard was right to break with Hollywood cinema…Nevertheless, I think there are various confusions in his strategy” (74). I’d like to interpret this statement to mean that Godard’s film is to be taken with a grain of salt. Besides the fact that I don’t think many people would like Weekend (since it’s literally the opposite of a [good] movie), I think it’s at least good for reflection by the film community. Filmmakers may be influenced by this (counter)film to make their own movies somehow better.
At the end of the article, Wollen somehow denies that cinema is good simply because it “cannot show the truth,” which is obviously not the point of orthodox cinema. Luckily, however, he admits that Godard did not achieve the revolutionary cinema he desired, as the counter-cinema he used was only a “starting-point,” since it cannot have an “absolute existence” as it depends on contrast with ordinary cinema.
In the end, it seems as though Wollen is saying that Godard has made a good start towards some revolutionary new form of cinema, perhaps attractive to the masses. It also seems as though he likes Godard’s films too much. They are interesting, but at the point where “unpleasure” succeeds, they literally become unpleasurable to watch. I guess it isn’t fair to call it a bad movie, when he’s trying to make an anti-movie. Maybe good anti-movies are bad regular movies, but then I don’t want to like anti-movies.