Spider-Man: Far From Home
Toy Story 4
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
"The Other Side of the Wind", in its entirety, is not a pleasant film for some people. In addition to this is a Welles final movie, incomplete film snippets and moving scenes between the main movie and the main story are quite difficult if you understand. I don't really know but, anyone would definitely leave this film. The mockumentary is very much talking about the life of Hannaford, or Orson Welles, in presenting the background of the film. However, "The Other Side of the Wind" is clearly a masterpiece just like all his films. The presence of this film, for fans of Welles works, can just drink this in the throat. Netflix also seriously presents all old movies into streaming media with HD quality.
The Other Side Of The Wind is very well shot and carries a lifelong project to a master who never got to chance to finish it
I couldnâ(TM)t make much sense out of it.
arty farty nonsense.
The Other Side Of The Wind
The Other Side Of The Wind is Orson Wellesâ(TM) last movieâ"edited and released in 2018 four decades after completing shootingâ"is a matching bookend to his first, Citizen Kane. Arguably, it is just as groundbreaking. Like Citizen Kane, The Other Side Of The Wind concerns the fall of a great man, his boasts and lies, how he bullies hangers-on and betrays confidants, all in a futile attempt to stay relevant. Old alpha-males, take note!
Welles filmed The Other Side Of The Wind in the 1970s but lost control of the original negatives in a lengthy court battle that was only recently resolved by heirs. Welles had edited only about 40 minutes of the movie, leaving the rest to be restored, digitized, and recut based on extensive personal notes and reconstruction by fastidious editors who mimicked the directorâ(TM)s style in order to complete the film as originally envisioned.
The Other Side Of The Wind is actually two movies, a mocumentary about an exiled old Hollywood director desperately attempting a comeback, and within it a screening from the avant-garde movie heâ(TM)s trying to sell to âNew Hollywood,â? not-coincidentally also titled âThe Other Side of the Wind.â? The mocumentary and the movie-within-a-movie are shot in quite distinct styles, a further display of Wellesâ(TM) bravura. Where the mocumentary is filled with witty banter and fast cuts (look closely for cameos by a host of Hollywood glameratti), the movie-within-a-movie art film featuring Wellesâ(TM) statuesque mistress Oja Kodar is lush, lingering, wordless, and semi-pornographic. Kodar and her young lover might well have stepped out of a movie by new wave director Michelangelo Antonioni. Welles was mocking Antonioni in more ways than one, shooting several party scenes next door to the house where Antonioni filmed key scenes for his own flawed masterpiece, Zabriskie Point.
The Other Side Of The Windâ(TM)s fictional director is portrayed by Wellesâ(TM) real-life friend John Huston, who gives an in-your-face performance as a grizzled, misogynistic, homophobic/homosexual, hard drinking, gun-toting Hemmingwayesque bully. Welles considered playing the part himself and expressed reluctance at handing it to Huston, but he apparently made the right choice, as only Huston could convey cruelty with such unmitigated glee. Wellesâ(TM) one time protÃ (C)gÃ (C), actor-director Peter Bogdanovitch, also has a pivotal role as a rising young director whose success has now eclipsed Hustonâ(TM)s character. Is this a case of art imitating life? Absolutely! On one level this is a very personal story about director Wellesâ(TM) own toxic masculinityâ"and an extended middle finger to the Hollywood power brokers who made it so hard for him to direct. Look closely for other examples of Roman Ã¡ clef, including Susan Strasberg as caustic film critic a la Pauline Kael, and also several real-life movie actors and directors playing their fictional equivalents.
The Other Side Of The Wind has received mostly positive but some mixed reviews. I can almost sympathize with those who found it somewhat dated, perhaps suffering from budgetary constraints, perhaps because of semi-nude scenes which objectify female sexuality, perhaps because of ugly allusions to gays, midgets, and Native Americans. (Ironically, our Apprentice president would have been in good company here.) For better or worse, todayâ(TM)s Hollywood blockbusters are mostly populated with righteous but dull superheroes and feminists, actors instructed to deadpan with all the emotion of Dragnetâ(TM)s Joe Friday. Welles always reached higher, and in this case his grasp equaled his reach. Had The Other Side Of The Wind been released in the late 70s as originally intended, I believe it would have been celebrated on a par with The Graduate, One Flew Over The Cuckooâ(TM)s Nest, The Last Picture Show, Catch-22, and Five Easy Pieces, to name a few of my personal favorites. I confess Iâ(TM)m a fan of movies from this era, before blockbusters like Star Wars and Jaws became ubiquitous, when auteur directors rather than accountants had control of the scripts and choice of actors.
Welles fans have been salivating over the release of The Other Side Of The Wind for four decades. Lots of people both in front of the camera and behind the scenes poured heart and soul into making and completing this restoration project. I believe it proves that four decades after he made Citizen Kane, Welles still had talent to burn.
--Bart L. Brody
Fascinating after watching the doc “They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead,” but doesn’t really stand well on its own.
Shatter a mirror---as happens in the ending of Welles' earlier THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI---and what you get is not an eradication of reflection, but rather a multiplication of partial images, a fractal reflection in the aggregate. If art should be a mirror held up to the world, as Shakespeare suggested (and no Welles agreed, despite his absolute rejection of so-called "realism"), then throughout his oeuvre, Welles holds up a shattered mirror to better reflect a broken world, one that has been split apart and torn asunder precisely by the advent of modern disseminative technologies like radio and film, which split reality apart for the sake of putting it back together as art. With CITIZEN KANE---which, of course, has its own famous mirror scene---Welles is well-known for having employed every cinematic trick in the book, cutting up the narrative, cutting into the ground for perspective, caking his face with make-up: Layers and layers of artifice until it resembled something like a deeper truth, to say nothing of the way that actual historical truths are woven together to simultaneously obscure real persons while underscoring their secret psychology, hidden by the light of spectacle.
In this, his final film, after a long career of fighting to maintain his artistic integrity and creative control, on the other side of the classic Hollywood machinery---gone the way of the wind---here Welles similarly puts to use all the secrets of New Hollywood, though now with a somewhat wrier, even angrier irony. This is not the work of an old man bewildered and befuddled by the artistic developments of a younger generation, but an angry man with the heart of child never given the opportunity to grow old in Hollywood, still fighting a system that, our of fear, did all it could to repress him. Through pastiche, parody, and layer upon layer of intertextuality, New Hollywood is lampooned not so as to reject its experimental achievements, but to forward the avant garde even more by showing how New Hollywood is still, with all its false machismo and star-studded celebrity, Hollywood at bottom, a jeremiad by one who was never himself included in Hollywood.
Yet for all its rage at a system simultaneously declining and flourishing, Welles' film is filled with a deeply personal joy, demonstrating the drive to create that Hollywood could never kill, despite their best efforts. Like the Freudian repressed which will return through a failed act, a parapraxis, Welles is a symptom of all that is Hollywood, the wunderkind auteur whose celebrity collapsed in on itself, but whose genius never wavered. Here, in this failure of a film---and for all its brilliance, one can only bemoan that it remains unfinished and divorced from its moment---in the way it slips between fiction and fact and myth and history, we discover the truth of what cinema can aspire to achieve, a truth that, like the wind itself, remains insubstantial and forever out of reach, but which we nevertheless feel as it passes over us.
Intriquing, beautifully acted and innovatively. constructed exploration of a great Hollywood director -- part Welles and part Hemingway, part Elia Kazan and part John Ford -- in declinr.
An interesting resurrection of the great director, but the complexity distracted from Welles' goal to make the perfect movie.