Citizen Kane

[baumer]

Discuss

[BiffMan]

I have a lot of respect for this film and can certainly admire the craft, but it really doesn't entertain me.  No knocks against anyone that likes it, more power to you, just not one I feel compelled to rewatch very often.

[baumer]

written in 1999I'm 27 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 five 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.2/10

[IndustriousAngel]

I have a lot of respect for this film and can certainly admire the craft, but it really doesn't entertain me.  No knocks against anyone that likes it, more power to you, just not one I feel compelled to rewatch very often.

My feelings exactly. This film is one of the fundaments on which today's cinematic world is built, from the maker's view as well as the viewer's. The cinematography, the editing set standards by which all later works had to be measured. But judged as a story, it's good but not exceptional. A kind of cynical and dark Charles Dickens tale.

[Gopher]

I have nothing to say that hasn't been said for a century. This is an absolutely exceptional film that's actually fun to revisit. 

[fishstick]

My feelings exactly. This film is one of the fundaments on which today's cinematic world is built, from the maker's view as well as the viewer's. The cinematography, the editing set standards by which all later works had to be measured. But judged as a story, it's good but not exceptional. A kind of cynical and dark Charles Dickens tale.

 

Yeah, I ddin`t get that the hype is all about its technical achievements and modernizing the way movies are made (from static camera and lights to moving camera, different angles, lights,etc). But storywise, I agree about Dickens comparison., I find Dickens highly overrated and boring as fuck and this is up that alley.

[CoolioD1]

It's fine. Not gonna do backflips over it like others do. I like Welles performance a lot though. Very charismatic.

[dashrendar44]

My feelings exactly. This film is one of the fundaments on which today's cinematic world is built, from the maker's view as well as the viewer's. The cinematography, the editing set standards by which all later works had to be measured. But judged as a story, it's good but not exceptional. A kind of cynical and dark Charles Dickens tale.

 

We judge a movie by its execution of the story. The execution is revolutionary. Because a story had never been told that way in cinema. It's just set a standard in illustrating "The rise and fall of a character". It invented a new cinematographic language most directors use nowadays on daily basis. I mean Nolan built his whole schtick of fragmented narrative puzzle and convoluted temporality on Citizen Kane, 60 years after its release!

 

What other movies of that era can brag about that? You can't dissociate its story to the way it is narrated. That's what makes Citizen Kane the achievement and the crown jewel it is in movie history.

 

A+

Edited February 18, 2013 by dashrendar44

[DAR]

It's a film that I've always admired more for what it brought to cinema than the actual story contained within the film.  B+ 

[BiffMan]

We judge a movie by its execution of the story. The execution is revolutionary. Because a story had never been told that way in cinema. It's just set a standard in illustrating "The rise and fall of a character". It invented a new cinematographic language most directors use nowadays on daily basis. I mean Nolan built his whole schtick of fragmented narrative puzzle and convoluted temporality on Citizen Kane, 60 years after its release!

 

What other movies of that era can brag about that? You can't dissociate its story to the way it is narrated. That's what makes Citizen Kane the achievement and the crown jewel it is in movie history.

 

A+

I judge a movie by whether it entertains me or not.  I agree completely that it broke new ground and was revolutionary and Wells is completely awesome in it.  It's just not all that much fun to watch.

 

So A+ for being a landmark achievement in cinema, but a B for pure entertainment value.

[Tower]

The most boring film I have ever seen, up there with the likes of Transformers and Knight And Day as the worst films of all time.

 

F

[Jack Nevada]

It think its actually a pretty entertaining movie. I was never bored. 

 

Oh, and its also one of the best movies I've seen as cliched as that is.

 

5/5

[Jake Gittes]

Seen it twice by now, it's not one of my favorite films, but I enjoy it a lot and admire it even more. Welles does wonderfully as writer (well, co-writer), director and actor, the deep-focus, precise cinematography is stunning even today, and the story has no problem hooking me. I certainly never felt bored watching it, and I'm sure it will be fun to revisit every once in a while.

[luna]

it's a rather good character study. it certainly isn't world-class. there are all sorts of things that influence the future, but it's unnecessary to point out that that has little to do with quality. citizen kane had influence, and so did charles kane. they should be judged on their own merit.

 

7/10

[narniadis]

B I can appreciate those that really love this movie but I definitely don't rank it among my favorite films.

[Cmasterclay]

It's obviously revolutionary and a technical masterpiece, but it's not a fun or entertaining film to watch in the slightest. As much as it contributed to film history, it doesn't change the fact that it isn't an enjoyable watch at all, making it pretty much impossible to grade for me. 

[Plain Old Tele]

I think it's not only a great and groundbreaking film, but a very entertaining one.

 

A

[vc2002]

You know, if IMDB exists in 1941, this would be the film that's ranked as top 10 of all time.

[baumer]

You know, if IMDB exists in 1941, this would be the film that's ranked as top 10 of all time.

 

 

No, because it sucks.  

[StarSaber]

I respect what the film has provided for the industry, but is just too slow for me to really like it. The acting nor the story are interesting enough to go anywhere. Honestly, I was bored out of my mind.

 

C