Critics’ reviews

The Wind Will Carry Us (1999)

10 reviews from 10 publications. Critics’ score 82: 9 positive, 0 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of The Wind Will Carry Us

82
Positive
9
Mixed
0
Negative
1

Most critics respond warmly to The Wind Will Carry Us, with praise clustering around Kiarostami’s landscape photography, precise compositions and patient attention to everyday life. The reviews find humour and compassion in an approach that puts observation ahead of conventional storytelling. Several also admire the way unseen people and off-screen events ask viewers to fill in the gaps. For its admirers, the film’s apparent simplicity allows for a demanding but rewarding consideration of life and death.

The divide concerns how much that patience yields. Most critics welcome the ambiguity and unhurried sense of time, though some stress the demands these place on viewers. Eye for Film supplies the lone negative assessment, finding the story opaque and repetitive while still admiring the village and countryside. The spread is therefore wide but lopsided: the principal dissent rejects qualities that the other reviews largely regard as strengths.

Empire
1 January 2000 · William Thomas
95*

The critic calls the film utterly brilliant, praising its humanism and its tribute to the Kurdish people. They also single out its challenge to intellectual torpor and its preference for everyday observation over conventional narrative.

Read the full review →
IndieWire
28 July 2000 · Mark Peranson
90*

Peranson calls the film probably a masterpiece and Kiarostami’s finest work since Close-Up. He praises its depth, exacting visual composition, and indelible images.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
28 July 2000 · A. O. Scott
90*

Scott praises the film as funny, accessible, and visually arresting, and recommends seeing it in a theater. He singles out Kiarostami’s vivid landscapes and immersive, poetic sense of time.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· GA
90*

The critic calls it a subtle, richly rewarding work of genius. The review singles out its deceptively simple approach and opens by noting a long shot of a car crossing a dusty landscape.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
29 March 2002 · Keith Phipps
85*

Phipps finds the film consistently comic, challenging, and deeply rewarding. He especially praises Kiarostami’s use of nature and the film’s late action that reframes what came before.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
12 May 2025 · ★★★★ · Jordan Cronk
80

Cronk presents the film as a defining, career-summing work by Kiarostami. He praises its careful visual form and the Criterion restoration’s vivid image and richly detailed sound, while noting the loss of extras from the prior release.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
1 July 2001 · Philip French
80*

French presents the film as masterly and lucid, with a mysterious, disturbingly comic tone. He singles out its unsettling relationship between sophisticated strangers and the inhabitants of a remote village.

Read the full review →
Total Film
22 September 2000 · ★★★★ · Total Film
80

The review finds the film compassionate, amusing and moving. It praises the ambiguous protagonist, off-screen events that invite viewers to fill in gaps, and landscape photography.

Read the full review →
Variety
13 September 1999 · festival review · Deborah Young
78*

Young finds the film a subtle, demanding meditation on life and death, likely to please Kiarostami’s international audience. She particularly praises how the film’s offscreen figures and events draw viewers into filling its deliberate gaps.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
19 January 2001 · Angus Wolfe Murray
40*

The critic is largely unimpressed by the film’s opaque, repetitive story, though he notes its humane conclusion. He praises the beauty of the village and surrounding countryside.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate