It doesn't have interesting characters to keep my attention.

Here are some of my top films:

JAWS
American Beauty
In The Bedroom
Crimes and Misdemeanors
Rounders
ET
JFK
Angel Heart

All are character driven films with little special effects (except for ET).

Kane is just the eptiome of boredom. I love a film with a great script and well written characters. This isn't one of them.

I tried to like it.

My post was not directed to you personally.

Some films just can't be liked by some people, because it's not their taste. There are many "classic" films I find boring (Citizen Kane not being one of them).

There is a difference though between "It's not my kind of film, and I didn't like it" and "this film sucks." (We've had this debate before in other threads, so I won't go into it all again!)

Charles Foster Kane isn't an interesting character?!?! Boring?

Ahhh! Good lord!

Anyway, along with the technical and structural brilliance, Citizen Kane is also among the most entertaining movies, certainly amongst the much much heralded 'classic' canon. If it wasn't it wouldn't have it's reputation. It IS is my top 20, and not because of deep focus photography.

It is, in so many ways, the pinnacle of film art. The perfect blending of the elements that make the movies great, not to mention engrossing and wonderfully epic. Some will never see nor want to see that, so I really need to end this compulsion to keep jumping into threads like this.

There's nothing wrong with finding Kane boring, boredom is a personal thing, although saying that it 'sucks' or is 'dated' is kinda hard to justify.

It's very easy to justify. If every critic in the world didn't tell you how good i t was, you'd never feel teh way you do. The film and all its rubbish praise has brainwashed you.

That's just an ignorant statement.

lol

It's true. The movie is so far from brilliant that you all need someone to tell you why its great and then like sheep, you say it is. Groucho is excluded. Judging by the films he likes and appreciates, I can buy that he really does like the film, the rest of you are like a herd of cattle following the man on the horse.

You hit the nail on the head.

I tried to like it, too. I even tried to watch it a second time thinking my mood was the problem the first time. It wasn't, the movie is dull and slow.

Scary thing is MAV, just when the loonies are out, they get pulled back in. Scary to think there is a Citizen loonie base.

Ah, I love eliticism. "The film really is terrible. Obviously everyone who likes it is just a little sheep, herded towards a common opinion. Only I, baumer, have seen the true light and am superior to all of you."

I see you are finally coming around.

This is still a deserving #1.

not mine #1, mine is godfather.

To me a great old classic shouldn't look dated.

To me GWTW looks very dated to me and cheesy but Mr. Smith goes to Washington still look great.

Actually, that is funny coming from one of the most elitist posters on KJ.

I didn't like it. But if someone wants to put it at #1 Im fine with it. I don't notice things such as cinematography and such as much as others, and if it really is so influential, then maybe it deserves its cred.

I thought it was boring, though.

How the hell is Shape elitist? A big horror fan maybe, but elitist??

I think that it's every cinema goer's right to say that something sucks, if that's how they feel. In a genre where taste is paramount, you shouldn't have to provide a rationale or full thesis to publically dislike something.

No one would contest someone's right to say that Son of the Mask or Jaws IV "just sucks". The fact that a film is deemed by a majority to be a classic shouldn't put a sudden burden of proof on the film's detractors.

"Classic" status guarantees that people who *want* to be fans of classics (because they think it makes them intellectuals) will be generous to the film, whereas those who root for underdogs (because they like to think of themselves as being free-thinkers or eccentric) will be subconsciously hostile to it. I suspect that only a minority of people will be able to have a genuine reaction to any "classic" film, in cases where the film's reputation hasn't preceded it.

I think the exception might be something like Casablanca, where the classic status works in its favour... you expect one thing, and instead, you end up getting something funny, colourful, vivid, and surprisingly fresh.

Anyone who disagrees with his horror takes, is chastised.

Look, I like Dark Shape. We share a love for horror and that is a good thing. But I know i have a differing opinion when it comes to Kaqne. I just don't get the love for it. And I guess i feel strongly about it.

My bile-spitting Saw 2 review only got a meek reply, althou I was fit to kill after that film so perhaps Shape gave me a free ride.

As for Kane, its another film I haven't seen in years, its solid but more a great building block for modern cinema then a titan that would stand up today. It's around a B for me.

Verry verry goud. 10/10 points.

Still feel this way about the discussion and the film itself. And I've actually seen it four times, holding up ever time. And it's also Charles Schulz's favorite movie!

Better than Saw 4.

rosebud