Some films are hard to judge, especially something like this, that may be very close to what Welles intended, but never finished and never really seemed to be really satisfied with (see also the documentary about Welles from 2018, which is really good). Now there are things in here that may seem redundant to some or annoying. Or even pretentious to some extend. If that rings true to you or not, it doesn't mean you are right or wrong, one way or the other. It just means you have feeling and maybe knowledge and that's why you lean to a particular way or side.

Having written all that, I am surprised by the amount of nudity that made it into the film. I'm also surprised about the film depicting scenes being shot "in real time" with off commentaries by the director, with different cameras, cuts and all that. Now obviously we are taking creative liberties here and it's supposed to be heightened. It's to prove a point or even points. So in a way there is more to the film than meets the eye. You have to approach this movie with a certain mindset.

If you do that, you may be able to see more than some others. But if you don't you'll probably be bored. Whatever your stance on this is and it will be dividing, you cannot call this an easy movie to watch. Some probably will watch it multiple times and cherish it's commentary and behind the scenes insights as much as its psychology. Others will just sneer at the mention of the title. In a way I'd say that would make Welles happy after all ...

Peter Bogdonavich and Others Decided to Finalize the Film and Edit the Footage (that was Completed but not Cut and Edited by Welles before he passed).

The Result is a Mesmerizing Movie.

The Film was Made in the Early to Mid Seventies and the Restoration and Modern Tweaking is Absolutely Amazing.

The Colors Penetrate the Image and Take Over the Frame Resulting in Glorifying the Art of "Painting" a Canvas.

This is Simply a Unique and Involving Film and One of the Best of the Year.

Although 75% it was Made almost 50 Years Ago.

The Characters and Dialog Draw You in to its Scathing Dark Satirical Rants about the Movie Industry and Pulls Few Punches.

It's a Sight and Sound to Behold.

Bombastic, Welles Shot it with Cinema-Verite in Mind, Staging a Documentary about a Fictitious Film that is Screened for Film Critics and Movie Maniacs and what Unfolds is Cracker-Jack Commentary.

It's a Movie about a Fake Documentary about a Fake Film but Echoes the Real Life Problems that the Director was Experiencing while Making the Movie.

The Expansive Verbal Sparring and in Terms of Subject Matter, Characters and Cinematography are Captivating.

The Film is Like a Feedback Loop that puts One in Mind of Welles Famous "Hall of Mirrors" Sequence.

Folding in on Itself and it Creates a Mind-Boggling Movie that is Like No Other.

It's a Creation from the Creator that was Ahead of its Time in Terms of Style and Showcases the Genius of the Master Movie-Maker.

Surprisingly Played Today it Still Seems Like Cutting-Edge Stuff.

One of Orson Welles Best Films.

Years ago I saw a documentary that included a scene from a never-released Orson Welles film, The Other Side of the Wind. It was remarkably modern, a kaleidoscopic, eccentric work that was surprising for someone Welles age.

It wasn't until 2020 that I learned the film had actually been pulled together and released.

The cinema-verite style is explained as the result of pulling together footage from various documentarians and journalists video. The film begins with various hangers on of a famous director traveling to his party while elsewhere an investor is watching footage from his current, unfinished film.

This is actually the weakest part of the movie. The individual scenes are confusing and the way they are intercut with the film-within-a-film just add to the confusion. Apparently Welles had rough-cut about half the movie by the time he died, and my suspicion is this first part was not part of that rough cut, since it's weaker. Just a guess.

The film-within-a-film seems to be a parody of trippy, avant-garde, 60s filmmaking. I take it as Welles' portrayal of an old director past his glory days trying to create something hip.

The movie gets its footing when the director's party starts. There is a lot of striking B&W footage cut in and John Huston as the director is a powerful force. The party is to screen his movie, such as it is, and while it is essentially a plotless bit of nonsense with tons of gratuitous nudity, it does have some striking imagery, such as a scene set in slatted shadows and another involving a beaded necklace.

The surrounding film doesn't have much story. It's mainly about the director charming or dueling with various characters who want something from him. Things are hinted but rarely spelled out.

Welles was a genius, so even his worst movies, like Mr. Arkadin, are splashed with brilliance. Other Side of the Wind has a remarkable style and is generally fascinating, but it's not always satisfying and the film-within-a-film takes up more time than it probably should have.

If you're a fan of Orson Welles, or just a fan of cinema, this is a must-see. Yes, the movie would have been more impressive if it had been released in the early 70s, when it was filmed, but even today in a world full of found-footage movies this is still remarkable.