Barry Jenkins gained acclaim relatively early in his career with his 2008 film Medicine for Melancholy, but his national recognition didn’t come until his Academy Award-winning film Moonlight in 2016. Jenkins has firmly established himself as one of the top American directors of the past 10 years, and this reputation will certainly continue for films in the future. However, his latest project, If Beale Street Could Talk, feels restrained in comparison to his previous work.

The film is an adaptation of the acclaimed novel of the same name by James Baldwin. The story, set in 1970s Harlem, paints the beautiful yet heartbreaking love story of Clementine “Tish” Rivers and Alonzo “Fonny” Hunt. Tish and Fonny’s love is tested when Fonny is thrown in jail for a crime he didn’t commit, and the racist justice system is set on keeping him locked away.

As far as book-to-film adaptations, Jenkins does an incredible job of capturing the spirit of the novel, but he struggles to achieve the same level of realism. The Harlem that Jenkins creates is certainly beautiful, but the essence of the environment feels fabricated in comparison to the novel. The film feels as though Jenkins has kept the beauty of the novel and removed the gritty, realistic outcome of his characters. The beauty, at times, feels empty, and the emotional connection with the characters is severed during these scenes.

The most shocking element of the film is the heavy reliance on voice-over. Jenkins has proven himself one of the best filmmakers when it comes to conjuring the exact feeling he wants from his audiences, so the use of this cheap ploy was equal parts confusing as it was annoying. Rather than Jenkins using his proven talent, he relies on a narrator, Tish, to explicitly describe to the audience the emotions or actions of the characters. This mutes the film’s emotional aspect as Tish constantly reminds the audience of the dire situation of oppressed lovers. The narration also restricts the source material from blossoming into a new creation through the art form of cinema. Rather, the audience is left wishing to be reading Baldwin’s novel instead of the watching the film.

However, as much as Jenkins mutes his own story through the unnecessary use of narration, there are many instances in which Jenkins reminds the audience of his poetic potential. A few of the scenes, such as the marvelous panoramic shot of Fonny’s woodworking abilities, are on-par with the shots from his previous works. Unfortunately, these scenes are rare and fail to completely make up for the lack of creativity in the majority of the rest of the film.

Overall, If Beale Street Could Talk is an engaging enough adaptation of Baldwin’s novel to warrant a viewing, but isn’t commensurate to the same emotional investment as either Jenkins’ previous work or Baldwin’s novel. That said, the film remains a lovely love story interwoven with relevant commentary and should absolutely be supported in theatres. Jenkins has proven his filmmaking ability with his previous masterful artwork, and he will continue to influence the medium of film until the end of his career.

Rating: 3.5/5

Many great directors, including Lynne Ramsay, Lars Von Trier, Alfonso Cuarón, Josephine Decker and Yorgos Lanthimos, all released movies in 2018, making it a big year in film. Alongside the established directors, the past year also introduced the film world to some brilliant up-and-coming directors with films such as Jim Cummings’ Thunder Road, Augustine Frizzell’s Never Goin’ Back, Paul Dano’s Wildlife and Jennifer Fox’s narrative debut, The Tale. Choosing my favorite films out of this group of incredibly talented filmmakers was a difficult task. Each contributed to the progression of the medium, and made 2018 such an enjoyable year for audiences around the world.

This year was full of great horror films such as Mandy and Suspiria. It also gave us the newest addition to Lars Von Trier’s long and difficult history with the Motion Picture Association of America, courtesy of his latest film, The House That Jack Built. Revenge was a powerful addition to the horror subgenre of rape and revenge films, as Fargeat brought a female voice to the male-dominated genre. Her work upheaved nearly all of the tropes of the genre, and her film’s impact will certainly shape future film criticism.

This past year was also full of gut-wrenching, emotionally impactful movies. The Miseducation of Cameron Post portrayed the nauseating account of a right-wing gay conversion therapy camp, and The Tale depicted Jennifer Fox’s personal, heartbreaking account of sexual abuse as a child. Each of these films recounted a few of the horrible aspects of our culture, but also gave hope to all of those affected by either of these atrocities.

From the deconstruction of the art of acting in Madeline’s Madeline to the slow-burn, psychological mystery in Burning, this past year had a variety of films for all tastes. Hopefully 2019 can live up to the high standard this past year set.

Full List Here: https://letterboxd.com/colefowler/list/ranked-18s/

Directed by Peter Farrelly, Green Book gets its title from “The Negro Motorist Green Book,” a travel guide that aided black travelers during the Jim Crow era. The film is based on the real friendship between black musician Dr. Don Shirley and Italian bouncer Tony Vallelonga.

The film follows Tony as he drives Don throughout the deep south on a concert tour. The pair are met with blatant racism and, despite the social and cultural differences between the two, they are able to bond and become close friends.

Despite the distinct racism of the south, the film avoids directly dealing with any of the racism during this time period. Farrelly uses most of the film to depict the friendship between Don and Tony, and the natural chemistry between Mahershala Ali and Viggo Mortensen provides the film with a justification for its inherent shallowness.

Farrelly earned his Hollywood reputation alongside his brother, Bobby, as the directoral pair, the Farrelly Brothers. The Farrellys directed hollow comedy films such as the “Dumb and Dumber” films and “Shallow Hal”, and have worked together for nearly 20 years. However, since the pair’s latest work on “Dumb and Dumber To” in 2014, Peter has split from his brother and has decided to deviate from the absurdist comedies that he and his brother directed and wrote together. Green Book is Peter’s first film without his brothers involvement, and it is clear that he is not yet accustomed to the tone of the drama genre.

The film itself has many scenes and instances that are played for laughs, and Farrelly is clearly attempting for the overall tone of the film to be lighthearted, but not every scene can be excused by his heartwarming approach. In multiple scenes, Farrelly strays from his attempts at lighthearted fun and tries to direct the film towards a deeper message about racism. It is in these scenes that Farrelly clearly shows how deep in over his directorial ability he really is. The tone of these scenes is nowhere near the level of the attempted serious tone, and Farrelly dips deathly close to outright offensive.

Although Farrelly’s directoral inability is clearly on display, Mahershala Ali and Viggo Mortensen save the film from a tonal purgatory and inject life back into the doomed film. Ali, who plays the introverted, pretentious Dr. Don Shirley, gives one of his best performances of his illustrious career. Although best performance is certainly his work in Barry Jenkins’ film Moonlight, his work in Green Book is a close second. Ali’s loneliness is instantly felt, and his work throughout the film continues his feeling of isolation. Ali’s counterpart, Viggo Mortensen, plays the comically shallow, caricature-like Italian bouncer from the Bronx. Despite Farrelly’s inability to write a believable character, Mortensen’s role as Tony and brings a sense of believability to the poorly written role.

In the directorial hands of a more well-rounded director, Green Book could have had more of lasting impact. The incredible story of Dr. Shirley is one that deserves a better, more in depth film. Thankfully, the enthusiastic performances of Ali and Mortensen make up slightly for Farrelly’s incompetence enough to make the film watchable.

Rating: 3/5

Despite its star-studded ensemble cast and Academy Award-winning director, Widows is strangled by a lack of coherence.

The film attempts to weave multiple characters and subplots together into one overarching narrative, but the final product leaves many unanswered questions and multiple incomplete storylines. The performances of the cast, despite their two-dimensional roles, brings a consistency that grounds the otherwise incongruous film.

Widows is Steve McQueen’s latest film since his 2013 hit, “12 Years a Slave,” won the Oscar for best picture. McQueen began his career directing a multitude of short films in London and went on to win the Caméra d’Or award at the 2008 Cannes film festival for his first feature length film, “Hunger.” McQueen turned his early success into a successful career in the American box office, and this allowed him to direct his passion-project, Widows. However, despite the filmmaking ability of McQueen, the film feels incomplete. Widows is adapted from the British television show of the same name, and the immensity and complexity of the television plot doesn’t translate positively to the big screen.

The film follows the storyline of three widows after their husbands die in a botched heist. The women must repay the debts of their late husbands or risk their lives and the lives of their families.

Alongside the main storyline, many separate plotlines begin to emerge and slowly weave their way in and out of the main plot. These subplots include anything from a local election between a reformed gang member and the incumbent’s pampered son to a woman coping with the abuse of her mother and husband.

Although the plot lines are successfully woven into the main story, the sheer quantity causes the film to become boring and begin to drag on. Despite this, most of the subplots aren’t even explored once they cross into the main story. McQueen abandons the plotline or conveniently, even comically at times, resolves the issue. Having these subplots does not inherently inhibit the film, but McQueen’s rushed, underdeveloped approach makes it difficult for the audience to distinguish between important and frivolous plot points.

Despite the overabundance of subplots, the ensemble cast injects life to every scene, and each cast member shines in their respective roles. Viola Davis is fantastic in her role of Victoria, and her struggle to cope with the loss of her husband as she tries to pay back his debts is certainly one of the best of her already illustrious career. Michelle Rodriguez is no stranger to the action genre, and her role as Linda feels the most natural of anyone on screen.

Colin Farrell, who plays the spoiled successor of a corrupt political machine, is the most realistic character of the whole film. His role as Jack Mulligan is the focal point of McQueen’s underlying politically charged message, and the parallel between his character and the current political climate is the most potent message of the film. Another standout is Daniel Kaluuya as Jatemme Manning, the brother of the candidate running against Mulligan. Kaluuya, who starred in Jordan Peele’s “Get Out” and appeared in Ryan Coogler’s “Black Panther,” is quickly making name for himself and continues to show off his brilliant range as an actor.

Overall, the film is a nice addition to the heist genre. McQueen fails to successfully complete his complex narrative, but the film is still full of many twists and turns that are to be expected in a heist film. While it’s certainly not on the level of the greats of the heist genre like Jules Dassin’s “Rififi,” Jean-Pierre Melville’s “Le Cercle Rouge” or Michael Mann’s “Heat,” the film will no doubt satisfy both fans of the genre and admirers of McQueen’s previous works.

Directed by Joel Edgerton, Boy Erased is adapted from the memoir of the same name by Garrard Conley. The film follows Jared Eamons as he struggles through the horrors of the homosexual conversion therapy camp, Love in Action. Joel Edgerton’s adaptation certainly draws attention to this widespread issue but does not quite capture the true horrors of these camps.

The film opens on Jared’s admittance to the camp, and the plotline moves back and forth between his time at the camp and the events leading up to his admittance. This fractured narrative perfectly mirrors the underlying attempt of the camp to break down the young adults in attendance. However, this narrative structure mutes the emotional impact of the film. This is a direct result of Edgerton’s lack of experience in filmmaking, but the fact that he’s new to the craft does not tarnish the importance of this story.

Edgerton focuses on Jared’s narrative, but the most potent aspect of the film is exposure of the hypocrisy of the conversion therapy. Edgerton also has an acting role in the film, and his role as the “pastor” of the camp is more impactful than his role as the director. His acting role infuses the hatred into the story and perfectly contrasts the purity of Jared throughout the film.

Boy Erased is the second film of 2018 to adapt memoirs of personal narratives describing the disgusting nature of conversion therapy. Earlier this year, “The Miseducation of Cameron Post,” directed by Desiree Akhavan, followed Cameron Post through her experience in a similar camp but focused more on her personal story rather than an exposé of the camps themselves. Unfortunately for Edgerton, it is impossible to watch each of the films without comparing the two. Akhavan, although nearly equally as inexperienced as Edgerton, created a much more emotionally impactful film since she focused on Cameron’s personal narrative. This allowed the movie to develop much more naturally rather than the forced approach taken by Edgerton.

The entire cast is phenomenal, but Lucas Hedges and Xavier Dolan deliver two of the most notable performances. Hedges, who plays the role of Jared, shines in his role, and his innocence on screen truly ushers in the heartbreak of the story. As he is forced to try to conform to the teachings of the camp, his struggle feels authentic, and this is due to Hedges’ the brilliant acting range. Dolan is fantastic in his role as Jon, and he perfectly compliments Hedges in the scenes that they share.

Ultimately, Boy Erased is overshadowed by other films on the same topic and even the actors in the film. These stories are immensely important, but Boy Erased does not successfully depict the subject as well as other films. However, the source material paired with the fantastic acting ranges of both Hedges and Dolan make up for the poor narrative structure choices of Edgerton.

Rating: 3.5/5

David Mackenzie’s most recent film, “Outlaw King,” stars Chris Pine as Robert the Bruce. The film picks up roughly from where the equally drab “Braveheart” leaves off and lifelessly continues the epic story of Scotland’s first war for independence. Although the film contains one of the best cinematic shots of the year so far, the rest of movie was lackluster at best.

The plot follows Robert the Bruce in his quest to free Scotland from the ruthless grip of England during the early 1300s. The film takes place around the time of the famed William Wallace’s death and could be considered a sequel to Mel Gibson’s 1995 film. Neither film truly captures the bravery of the men involved in Scotland’s fight for freedom, but rather directly focuses on the violence of the war. The battle scenes in each are properly choreographed and certainly intriguing, but the brutality of scenes alone cannot make up for the failures that are littered through the rest of the film.

When the film debuted a few months ago at the Toronto International Film Festival, Mackenzie realized it needed serious work before the Netflix release. The film suffers from lack of direction and even Mackenzie himself could see this. He cut nearly 20 minutes of the film in a desperate attempt to save it, but his last-ditch efforts could not recover the doomed film. It’s frustrating to know the director didn’t even enjoy the film in its first final version, and this lack of enjoyment directly correlates to the audience’s lack of enjoyment as well.

Mackenzie made a name for himself in the American film scene with his 2016 film “Hell or High Water,”which also starred Pine. The Scottish director built up a reputation as a filmmaker in Glasgow before successfully transitioning to the Hollywood scene. However, this latest work negates his previous success. The film lacks a central vision and jumps back and forth between indistinguishable, two-dimensional characters.

The film does have one redeeming factor, and that is the brilliant use of the camera work in the opening scene. The opening shot is a gorgeous 10-minute-long shot that brings the audience right into the exposition. The camera gracefully moves back and forth between the English army tents and a duel that takes place right outside. This camera technique is difficult to choreograph and must involve multiple masters of the art form in order to be successful. So even though the storytelling ability of Mackenzie throughout the film is shallow and dull, his work alongside cinematographer Barry Ackroyd in this scene of the film proves his potential as a director.

Chris Pine’s performance as Robert the Bruce is adequate given the mess of a film the final product is. Mackenzie didn’t provide Robert with much character development, despite his role as the titular character of the film. Most of the other characters and performances are pretty unmemorable as few of the characters are given any sort of motivations or development past information on the characters that can be easily accessed online.

Ultimately, “Outlaw King” follows the trend of uninspired Scottish independence films that “Braveheart” started nearly 20 years ago. Mackenzie has proven himself as a filmmaker with his previous work in Scotland and Hollywood, so hopefully this is nothing more than a fluke in his filmmaking career.

Rating: 2.5/5

Joel and Ethan Coen are among the most influential and well-known American directors of this time period and are no strangers to the western genre. Over the course of their illustrious career, the directorial duo have directed three western films. “No Country for Old Men,” which adapted Cormac McCarthy’s novel, thrusted the western genre back the twenty first century, and “True Grit” provided a new interpretation of the classic John Wayne film. However, despite their reputation with the western genre, the Coen Brothers struggle to maintain a coherent story in their latest work, “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs.”

The film, which was originally designed to be a television series, is a collage of six individual westerns stories that have nothing in common except the signature Coen brother touch. However, the pleasant characters and nihilistic style that fans of Coens have grown accustomed to, is heavily restricted in this format. The constant changing of scenery and characters is jarring and diminishes the overall emotional impact of the individual vignettes. Most of the stories deserved to be presented individually in a television episode or a standalone film, so the lack of depth is irritating.

With the style of individual plots instead of an overarching narrative, it is almost impossible for the quality of these stories to be equally distributed across every story. Even as great as the Coen brothers are at paving new cinematic paths, they struggle to keep a uniform quality throughout each of their stories. This inequality is frustrating, and the film struggles to maintain a central message. The film’s sporadic tone is understandable to a certain extent as the anthology is made up of western stories that the Coens have been writing on and off for most of their career, but does not excuse the lack of continuity of the combination of these ideas.

Tim Blake Nelson as the titular character Buster Scruggs is a perfect example of how good the film could’ve been had the Coens given each story a full runtime. As Scruggs weaves his way in and out of trouble, he switches back and forth between singing and directly addressing the audience. Nelson wonderfully fills the role of Scruggs, and his work as the nicely dressed, singing cowboy floods back the nostalgia of Nelson’s singing role in the Coen Brothers’ film “O Brother Where Art Thou.” This segment is by far the most intriguing of the six, and this is solely due to Nelson. Unfortunately, this is this also shortest story of the collection, and the bliss of Nelson is soon ripped away as the film moves on to the next story.

Although the film is shot in some of the beautiful landscapes this country has to offer, the totality of landscape’s allure was restricted by the choice to use digital film over celluloid. This film is the first of the Coens to be shot on digital film, and the choice is confusing. Also, Bruno Delbonnel, the director of photography, has worked with the Coens in the past on the films “Inside Llewyn Davis” and their short film that was featured in “Paris, je t’aime,” so this only adds to the irregularity of this choice. The scenery of the film, despite its natural, overwhelming beauty, is given a counterfeit feeling by the use of digital film.

Overall, the Coen brothers’ latest film doesn’t live up to the exceeding high standards the filmmakers have set for themselves. Despite the clear creativity of some of the stories, the “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs” feels like a collection of the brothers’ unfinished ideas all thrown together on screen.

Rating 3/5

Directed by Luca Guadagnino, Suspiria is the English-language remake of the famous 1977 giallo film by the same name directed by Dario Argento. However, unlike most modern remakes, Guadagnino simply draws inspiration from the original and creates his own unique film. With the directorial experience of Guadagnino and the powerhouse performances of Tilda Swinton, Guadagnino’s “Suspiria” surpasses the original.

In 1977, Argento’s “Suspiria” drew American attention to the giallo genre. Argento beautifully crafts a colorful nightmare as an American student discovers that the German ballet academy she is studying at hides sinister secrets. Both the original and modern versions follow Susie’s descent into the depths of the secrets of the academy, but Guadagnino’s version alters her fate.

Almost instantly, Guadagnino proclaims his deviation from the original with the use of title cards to mark the chapters of the film. Title cards are rarely seen in modern film, but Danish filmmaker Lars Von Trier uses them to establish a sober tone for certain scenes, which has shaped the modern usage of title cards. Guadagnino uses this subtle touch to immediately establish that his Suspiria will not match the dream-like atmosphere of the original.

Not only is Suspiria a deviation from its original source material, it is also a deviation from the rest of Guadagnino’s works. Guadagnino has certainly established himself as a master of subtlety and sensuality. “Call Me By Your Name,” “A Bigger Splash” and “I Am Love” are among the most tranquil films from the past 10 years. However, Suspiria is void of Guadagnino’s signature subtlety and constantly bombards the audience with sensory overload.

Dakota Johnson is fantastic in her role as Susie Bannion, and in many instances she holds the weight of the film on her shoulders. However, her co-star Tilda Swinton outshines Johnson when they share the screen.

Swinton actually has multiple roles in the film, including the choreographer of the ballet company and the male psychotherapist who begins to investigate the academy after hearing ominous rumors. Swinton has the ambiance of the supernatural as she is able to draw the natural talent out of Susie and shape her into the lead of the company, but she also conveys the grounded human aspects of a worried therapist caring for his patients.

Guadagnino’s version is almost double the length of the original, and fans of the original may become restless with the dreariness of the plot at times. As the film progresses, Guadagnino’s style grinds down the audience, constantly teasing them with giallo-style dream sequences that push the audience to the point of exhaustion. However, the first five acts of the film are subtly building toward a finale that will shock and probably upset fans of the original film.

Despite Guadagnino’s deviation from the plot of the original, he certainly makes his love for the original film and his love for the giallo genre undoubtedly clear. Guadagnino brilliantly brings to life a genre that most thought to be stuck in the past, and his balance of subversion and love for the original Suspiria produces a wonderful result.

Rating: 4/5

The pair of memoirs written by David and Nicolas Sheff depict the heart wrenching tale of a father-son relationship as Nicolas struggles with meth addiction. Unfortunately, the film adaptation of these memoirs, Beautiful Boy, directed by Felix van Groeningen, struggles to adapt the emotional tales of the Scheff family successfully on the screen. Although the film struggles to effectively depict the true devastation of addiction, Steve Carell and Timothée Chalamet save the film through their powerhouse performances as David and Nicolas.

The film was adapted from both David and Nicolas’ individual memoirs of their strained relationship during Nicolas’ addiction, but the screenwriters, van Groeningen and Luke Davies, chose to focus on David’s story. This directorial choice causes the film to lack the necessary depth of the complex relationship. With only one side of the story, the audience does not get any sort of justification for the actions of Nicolas throughout the film. Ultimately, the film is frustratingly one-sided, and thus the film feels incomplete. Furthermore, this decision to focus solely on David’s story censors the plot from the raw and horrifying stories from Nicolas’ battles with meth addiction.

The music choices, especially early on, in the film are irritating and confines the audience to a packaged, emotional reaction and does not allow for a natural emotional response to build as the plot unfolds. The choice of music isn’t the issue, but the artificial focus and volume of the music has the opposite effect on the tone of the scene, rather than the intended sentimental reaction.

Now, since the film focuses most of the story line on David rather than Nicolas, Carell is able to flourish in nearly every scene. From the sleepless nights spent driving around San Francisco frantically searching for his son, to the heartbreaking scene where Nicolas unveils his is addiction to his father and mother for the first time, Carell effortlessly and effectively embodies the range of overwhelming emotions that David is experiencing during this time. Carell, who has proven his acting capabilities in nearly every genre at this point in his career, keeps the emotional involvement of the audience throughout the film and makes up for the annoying directorial choices of the film.

Even with the little amount of dialogue and character development of his character, Nicolas, Chalamet gives life to the two-dimensional character. Chalamet shares the screen with Carell in nearly every scene that he appears in, but even with the acting talent of Carell, Chalamet hijacks the scene with his poignant acting style. Similarly to Carell, Chalamet smoothly displays his elite acting range as his work erases the line between actor and subject and he effectively fills his role with the utmost potency. Although not nearly as experienced as Carell, Chalamet is quickly making a name for himself. In 2017, Chalamet appeared in four films, including one of the best performances of the year with his work in Luca Guadagnino’s “Call Me by Your Name.” This year, Chalamet continues to establish himself among the best young actors.

The poor directorial choices of van Groeningen repress the film from reaching its potential for emotional impact. However, the performances of Carell and Chalamet breathe life into a film that lacks completeness. Felix van Groeningen is a rising Belgian filmmaker and this is his first English-language film, so, despite his inabilities in Beautiful Boy, there is hope for the future of his career.

Rating: 3.5/5

Orson Welles’ final film, The Other Side of the Wind, was his last attempt to regain his place in Hollywood. Due to political and financial issues, this film was not completed until this year, nearly three decades after Welles’ death. It was released on Netflix on Nov. 2, and despite the film’s troubled past, it successfully places Welles back among Hollywood’s elite.

During the Golden Age of Hollywood — which lasted roughly from 1920 to the early 1960s — Welles was renowned in the industry, directing nearly  40 films in his lifetime. However, once Hollywood began to decline, Welles began to lose his influence as a filmmaker. He was never able to successfully return to the scene, and most of his projects, including The Other Side of the Wind, went unfinished.

The film itself is difficult to analyze from a modern sense of performances and screenplay as Welles’ intentions for the film lie in his critiques of the global film scene at the time. Welles focuses on his hatred of Hollywood and the arthouse style that had become popular in Europe. Welles found himself stuck between his inability to fund his movies in Hollywood and his desire to avoid conforming to this new style of cinema.

The film follows the character Jake Hannaford as he tries to fund his final movie. The film is styled as a documentary of the screening of Hannaford’s film. Welles balances the narrative between this fictional documentary and footage of his protagonist’s film, including several different styles that move freely between professional and amateur filmmaking.

Welles also masterfully spliced together each of the plot lines. Hannaford’s story is copied from Welles’ personal account of trying to fund his film. Welles finds a good balance of fiction and non-fiction.

Welles was outspoken about his hatred of the European arthouse style of the Italian greats such as Federico Fellini and Michelangelo Antonioni, and this hatred is depicted in Hannaford’s film. Welles crafts Hannaford’s film in a style reminiscent of Antonioni’s 1966 film, “Blow Up” but in the most irreverent way possible. Welles removes all the art from the genre and replaces it with gratuitous nudity and violence.

Although the focus of the film is not on the performances, John Huston’s performance as the washed up Jack Hannaford perfectly fits into Welles’ Hollywood critique. Huston himself was a director in the Golden Age of Hollywood and is best known for writing and directing the 1941 film, “The Maltese Falcon.” Like Welles, Huston also had difficulty adapting to the changing Hollywood scene, so his performance is certainly believable.

Although “The Other Side of the Wind” is a critique of the Hollywood system, the film reminds audiences of Welles’ fantastic filmmaking ability.  Fans of Welles will find this style much harsher than his previous work, but great nonetheless.