One of the three best movies ever made, groundbreaking for its storytelling and especially the camera work. I was too young when I watched it first and hated it, but being wiser I am able to see why this movie is seen as a masterpiece and one of the milestones in the history of cinema. Orson Welles was a genious in his time, too bad he got so much backlash from the Hearst imperium who basically destroyed his career (that and probably his own egomanic personality). This is a gripping piece of work and the Rosebud-Twist makes Shaymalan pale in comparison (A+)

It's a stupid movie. It steals many camera tricks from "M" - for example: the camera in Citizen Kane dollys around a Neon Sign while in M - 10 years ago, used that technique introducing the characters, yet Orson gets credit!

The story is stupid and slow, The "twist" isn't that great and reminds me of The Usual Suspects. Everyone says it's so great but I am just like "Okay?" STUPID.

Stupid movie.

F triple -.

It appears to me that you think almost every movie that is considered a classic is "stupid".

Do you have any other adjectives?

Not true. I like many "classics" such as The Godfather Part 2, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Seven Samurai, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, The Third Man, Vertigo, M, Casablanca, 12 Angry Men and others.

And yes I do have other adjectives. I just don't really like writing full reviews all the time so I sum it up in the word(s) that are appropriate. However I did write a full review in the "Spider-Man 2" thread.

While I agree that Orson Welles was heavily inspired by M in a technical sense, Citizen Kane is IMO a far superior film. For one thing, Welles is a terrific actor, and his filmmaking is incredibly insightful. The use of shadow, as well as the music truly add to the feel of the film. Also, I felt that the ending was less of a twist, and more of a closure to the saga of Kane. Overall, a subtle and touching film.



P.S. Yes it is possible for someone (like myself) to love Citizen Kane and Bad Boys 2...as wierd as that may seem. And shame on you if you haven't seen this film, which it seems like very few of you have [-X

A classic that deserves its reputation. I've seen it a number of times now and it never gets boring. Unlike many important films that set new standards, this one is rewatchable. Only disliked by people who think "Phantom Menace" is good filmmaking.

The Phantom Menace is good filmaking. This movie is disliked by anyone who has study film without a biased POV. Anyone who knows anything about film knows Orson stole a lot of techniques from M (ONE example is given above) and that the story is nothing special and does not stick out and has one of those usual "twist endings" that save so many would-be crap movies if it didn't have them. However this film is still crap and even with its ending it's still crap.

How can you talk about how great The Phantom Menace is in one sentence, and then talk about "biased POV's" in the next

10/10
I give that grade not only for camera work (as said M was before) but its a damn good story about life and thats far more important to me than any camera tricks and angels.

This is on Tuesday or Wednesday on TCM. I'll definetely check it out!

It'll be on TV tomorrow. I'll watch it, finally.

I'm 33 years old. I first saw this film in first year film studies at Carleton University. It was required viewing for the course. I hated the film then. I thought that maybe because I've had about 10 years to grow and mature that I would give this film another chance and watch it for the third time in my lifetime. Guess what? My opinion has changed. I hated it then and now I just dislike it quite a bit. And the question that I have is why? Why is this film the masterpiece that people say it is? Is it really because it revolutionized film back in the 40's? Okay, so it invented the wipe and it had lots of different styles of lighting. That may make it brilliant on a technical level, but come on people, you cannot tell me that this is not one of the most boring films ever made on the face of this planet or any other planet that has theaters to watch movies in. How can you get excited about a film that creeps along like a snail moving across a highway in the middle of nowhere? I really feel like Welles is taking all of you for suckers. Because I think he set out to make a boring film just to see if audiences would have an orgasm over it because of its technical brilliance. I still think he is laughing. I know I would be.

There was really nothing to like in this film except for one thing. I can honestly admit that Welles' acting will stand up well today. He does play Kane with energy and he is believable. Almost all older films have cardboard actors that speak to fast, have little emotion, overact or are just plain bad actors. Kanes's second wife in the movie was so laughable that I eventually fast forwarded most of her lines in the film. She whined and cried and moaned and she was boring. You ever seen Aliens? Remember Newt, the little girl that Ripley takes care of, well that is Dorothy Corningmore's character as a little girl. What a joke.

Citizen Kane has pulled the wool over everyone's eyes for six decades!!! Critics, well I can understand them liking this piece of garbage, they have to or they look like they are incompetent fools. That is their job. But the general public? Are you people on a really bad acid trip? I welcome any emails that would please try to explain to me the greatness in this film. Please, contact me. I really am dying to know. Why is this a tragic film? Why is this an American masterpiece? I am begging for some insight, because I haven't heard anything or read anything that says how great it is. All I have read is a bunch of people conforming to popular opinion that this is THE MOVIE to see.

I can name about 500 films that I have seen in my life time that are better than this and some of them I probably don't even like that much. I would even go so far as to say that a really good Friday the 13th film is better than this joke of a film.

Well, I guess diplomacy is not one of my strong points, but I really don't understand the beauty, importance, tragedy, wonder or any other compliment that has been bestowed on Citizen Kane. It just doesn't do it for me. You want to watch a great film that has everything that this film apparently has? Watch Jaws, JFK, Apocalypse Now, Aliens, Mississippi Burning. That is just a handfull of films that are what I consider to be the best films ever made. I don't think that this is on my list of worst films ever made anymore ( it used to be ), but it easily tops my list of most overhyped, ridiculous boring films to ever disgrace our screens.

oh, and btw....I loved Phantom Menace!!!

To love Citizen Kane you must have some taff/hard/bad experiences in your life I guess. Its a film about to get cheated by others by yourself; to be fooled by yourself or others: To cheat/fool on others life etc. You can really reconize a lot of different types of people in Citizen Kane. Perhaps you watch the film again with some points in your mind


1: Ever had a dream that never fulfilled????(A big thing of course
2: Ever had to llive a life that you hated???(for a long time 5 years +++++)
3. Ever had fear from Death and the feeling to miss something in your life that it made you sick????
4. Ever felt in love but your love was not answered or was washed away by time????????
5. Ever worked so hard for something but didnt get it
6.Ever be realy badly cheated by a friend you trusted????????
:wink:

oh and btw TPM sucked :razz:

Yes, Filmo, I've had all of those things happen. But here's the thing. The story is uninteresting, it is a boring film and the acting in it is abyssmal. Nothing can change that...nothing. :razz:

Then its perhaps just not your thing. I for example think Matrix is mediocre and was slammed for that so much times :razz:

Different strokes for different folks. I am not hugely fond of Ragin Bull either....(baumer runs away before the Scorcese polic arrest him...)

This movie sucks! It doesn't hold up well, the acting is terrible, and it's pretentious. It's only liked by people who let the AMI do their thinking for them, in hopes that they'll become smarter than the next guy if they do. I only wish I didn't try to give it a second try. I shut this garbage off halfway through my second viewing. Awful awful excuse for a movie.

Good movie, didn't age well. All the older movies from the 20's and 30's have that Dr. Caligari overly dramatic stiff feel to them, but the content of Kane is superb, humanist, and unbeatable. Sadly, what that means for me is that this movie is almost better to read a whole book about than to sit through. People's patience back then for anything that moves and flickers astounds me. I find both aspects of Kane to be great. And while I can appreciate the narrative and themes, the granduer and delusion, I couldn't quite connect the style with the content. The imagery is solid at first, and then moves in a direction that is too heightened for the nuanced shift in desire and expectations. The result to me was almost comical. But it wasn't funny. It was a deeply depressing and introspective movie. I relate to some slapstick that alludes to serious undertones, but this felt more like serious undertones that got lost in stark "horror" images. Eh, I never reconciled the two, but found the movie to be a must see for both film and theme.

B+/A-

I hate to be cliche, but this film is like watching paint dry. Seriously. ROSEBUD....his frikking sled? Come on. I'm going to make a movie and call it Han Solo. It will be about how scarred I was in life due to my HOTH HAN SOLO losing his head after my puppie SUGAR bit if off one morning. Troubling times in the baumer household. Parents refused to buy me another one to teach me a lesson. That would be a great film.

Woah watch out with the spoiler there!

And I thought this was a forum with film-lovers... #-o ](*,) [-X [-(

Spoiler? Who here is going to watch CK that hasn't already?

That's not fair Levy. I am a film lover, just not this one.