Citizen Kane, best movie ever?

[The Royal Rush]

Hi all. Long time lurker first time poster. I had some gift cards for Best Buy recently, that I had to use before the experation date which is actually Wenesday. I decided to buy a movie which is highly praised on both this board and pretty much every where else. Obviously by my subject line you can tell I am talking about Citizen Kane. Now I heard every where that this is one of the greatest movies of all time and I must say I was greatly dissapointed. It was by far one of the worst movies i've seen in the last ten years. It had some decent camera shots in it but it was terribly boring.

Now all of you are going to immeditaley jump to the conclusion that the only movies I like are Michael Bay movies when I like all kinds of movies like Magnolia, Rushmore, Good Will Hunting, Adaptation, and Lost In Translation. I just don't see what is so great about this horrible, horrible boring movie. The acting and dialogue was terrible. Didn't Orsen Welles see how bad of an actor he was. I just don't see the appeal of this movie. I now regret buying it and will probably try to sell it just to get rid of it.

P.S. I was just wondering why every one thinks it's such a good movie.

[larphillips]

sigh.....


A few basic questions, to flesh out this discussion. If they sound condescending, they aren't.

* First, have you ever seen a black and white film that you really liked?

* Next, do you know who William Randolph Hurst is?

* Do you know about 'deep focus?'

* Are you aware of acting styles in the 30's and 40's?

* Do you know who Gregg Toland is?

* Finally, are you aware of the shit that had to be done to get that movie made?

[Morticia]

Also please see the Film Discussion thread...that may help. I hope.

[Shoegaze99]

Originally Posted by The Royal Rush

I must say I was greatly dissapointed.

Disappointed is reasonable. Citizen Kane has gotten grand accolades, so much so that a bit of disapointment might be expected.

It was by far one of the worst movies i've seen in the last ten years.

This, on the other hand, leads me to believe that you've spent the last ten years watching nothing but great movies with nary a dud in the bunch.

Citizen Kane is not among the most entertaining films I've seen, but it's certainly among the most impressive. It was like reading wonderfully written prose: I may not go back and read it for lazy Saturday afternoon reading pleasure, but I can certainly get wrapped up in the craft.

It had some decent camera shots in it but it was terribly boring.

I suppose I can understand that. Me, I was compelled by the character and got wrapped up in his ups and downs. The rise and fall of a great yet flawed man is almost always an interesting tale.

I just don't see what is so great about this horrible, horrible boring movie.

Wow. "Horrible, horrible" is pretty damn rough. I second larphillips's question: Have you ever seen a black and white film that you really liked? I've known folks who simply cannot get past black and white.

The acting and dialogue was terrible. Didn't Orsen Welles see how bad of an actor he was.

Welles was fantastic.The pathos, the combast, the ambition, the veiled self-loathing ... I bought every moment of it. And when placed in the context of its time, his acting was even more remarkable.

I was just wondering why every one thinks it's such a good movie.

It told a compelling story of a great and powerful man, and how his own flaws crumbled the empire he built. The story unfolded in such a way that Charles Foster Kane was an enigma, always a mystery, leaving the viewer thinking they had an idea of who this man was only to have the rug pulled out from under them. The film made statements without a word (such as the forced perspective shot in the board room). Knowing some of its history when I first watched it, I was stunned at how many other movies I saw in Citizen Kane ... in other words, how many later films it informed. The scope of influence impressed me.

[Riddick]

Don't feel bad I don't care for it either , in my opinion it is not as good as everyone says it is, and you can add " Gone With the Wind " to that crap list also.

I'm a "Casablanca " man myself ( the Greatest Movie ever made )

Kane and Wind just don't do it for me, other people love'em and think they are the best thing since sliced bread but not me.

Kane is a very well made picture and has many innovative scenes that we take for granted now-a-days, but it just bores me to death also
same with "Wind"

Give Casablanca a spin see if you like that a little more

[El Lancito]

Well, maybe old movies just aren't your thing. My wife likes movies like Whale Rider, Lost in Translation, 21 Grams, etc. but I just can't seem to get her into older, classic movies. Perhaps your taste is similar to hers and you just can't get into that particular style.

As for myself, sometimes I need to see an older movie a few times until I feel that I "get it". Perhaps you need to just watch it again. Then again, Kaine was an exception for me. As soon as I was done watching it the first time, I said to myself, "Wow, this really IS as great as they say it is!"

[SeanL]

I didn't care for CK either. That's not to say that I don't appreciate it for being a cinematic achievement. Accusing it of bad dialogue and acting is a bit of a stretch though.

For me personally, I just didn't get into the story. As someone noted a couple posts earlier, it was not what I consider to be "entertaining".

[Grimace2k2]

It's a great film. One of my favorite shots is when Kane and his wife are sitting at the table and after each scene they get farther and farther apart.

I actually have never seen Casablanca. I guess i'll watch it now.

[Marq]

Sadly, I suppose even the great masterpieces of early cinema that single-handely shaped how the medium is today can still be seen as "boring" or "unentertaining" by some audiences. I have trouble following how any fan of movies could be bored or unimpressed or consider it "one of the worst films I've seen" by Citizen Kane, but it is indeed a great mystery:

Another thread:
- Is Citizen Kane worth a blind buy?

[re-ac-tor]

What many people forget is, when these movies were made! In 1941 no movie like this had ever been made, it was the first "modern" movie and despite what some people say, it still stands up today. But really have to look at when these films were made and compare them to what else was out there at the time. If you watch movies like The French Conection or Mean Streets today they may not seem special, but when they came out the were different than any other movies of the time, and they changed the way that movies were made, much like Citizen Kane did in it's time.

[The Royal Rush]

First, have you ever seen a black and white film that you really liked?

Um yea. I have the Criterion Akira Kurosawa Four Samurai Classics box set. I also have seen and loved almost every Hitchcock movie except for the very bad Strangers On A Train. I also happen to love Clerks which is also a black and white film. :p

Next, do you know who William Randolph Hurst is?

Yes.

Do you know about 'deep focus?'

Um yea.

Are you aware of acting styles in the 30's and 40's?

Yea and quite frankly most of the acting i've seen from that era was pretty bad.

Finally, are you aware of the shit that had to be done to get that movie made?

Yes I am but what does that have to do with the quality of the movie? It took a lot of shit for Mark Steven Johnson to get Daredevil made, but that movie isn't considered a cinematic classic.

Give Casablanca a spin see if you like that a little more

I'm very interested in seeing this as it actually looks like a movie I would like.

If you watch movies like The French Conection or Mean Streets today they may not seem special, but when they came out the were different than any other movies of the time, and they changed the way that movies were made, much like Citizen Kane did in it's time.

Not really I have seen both and I think both are great movies especially French Connection and Mean Streets are amazing movies that still hold up today.

I don't know may-be I need to watch the movie a second time to gain a full understanding of what is so appealing about it to all of you. I highly doubt that I will like it after a watch it a second time but I might as well give it a try. Oh and Marq calm down a bit dude it is just a movie.

[Shoegaze99]

Originally Posted by The Royal Rush

Oh and Marq calm down a bit dude it is just a movie.

Among my favorites message board phenomena: The “Dude, calm down, it’s just X!” response when somebody expresses an opinion in something even approaching strong terms.

And Marq’s response barely even fits the category of “approaching strong terms.”

[larphillips]

Originally Posted by Shoegaze99

Among my favorites message board phenomena: The “Dude, calm down, it’s just X!” response when somebody expresses an opinion in something even approaching strong terms.

And Marq’s response barely even fits the category of “approaching strong terms.”

Always feigning surprise at the responses after starting a thread that trashes either an established classic or beloved favorite.

[asphodel5]

Originally Posted by The Royal Rush

I don't know may-be I need to watch the movie a second time to gain a full understanding of what is so appealing about it to all of you. I highly doubt that I will like it after a watch it a second time but I might as well give it a try.

If you decide to watch it again, I would suggest listening to the Ebert commentary. Say what you will about him, but he can record an excellent commentary. If you don't like it (at least a little bit) after that, it is probably a lost cause.

[Riedenschneider]

Welcome to the forum "The Royal Rush." Having fun? Or should I say is the rush royal?...

[Dogstyles]

I too bought it blind. Afert seeing for the first time. I was like "ok, I guess that was alright." I watched it again, then again with the Ebert commentary (which as said before is awesome, see also his commentary on Dark City). Then agian after that. I finally get it. It grew on me. The power of every shot, every angle, the light lighting, the special effects. How simplethe story is, but how deep it goes. It's an awesome film and it was Welles first. My advice (and this should come as no surprise) is to watch it again. Just try to notice all the little things. There is no detail that wasn't thought of. Just watch the the lighted window in the opening scene, as we get closer to the house (somethign also brought up by Ebert). And finally watch with the Ebert commentary for sure. Not this means anything, but I'm 22 years old, and I love this movie. Just for reference on my tatses check out my collection below. I do think this is one of the greatest movies of all time (i've always had a problem saying something was THE best; like all art, so many things mean so much to so many different people) along with Transformers: The Movie.

I know some of you will get that last statement, others won't and I'll hate you for it. (Though, I really do like Transformers: The Movie)

[NotaNumber]

Originally Posted by larphillips

sigh.....

* Next, do you know who William Randolph Hurst is?

I dunno who Wiliam Randolph Hurst is. William Randolph Hearst is a different matter

[larphillips]

Originally Posted by NotaNumber

I dunno who Wiliam Randolph Hurst is. William Randolph Hearst is a different matter

Smart ass.

[El Lancito]

Originally Posted by Dogstyles

I know some of you will get that last statement, others won't and I'll hate you for it. (Though, I really do like Transformers: The Movie)

I hear ya, brother. I love The Transformers movie too, and I understand the connection. Of course, I would never try to convince anybody that it's a GOOD movie that they need to see, but it will always be one of my favorites. (Although I will tell people that it's better than they probably think it is.)

[manigrasso]

TRR, no offense, but it's not even an argument worth starting. I highly doubt anything anyone can say here is going to make you go "Hmmmm...well maybe I didn't give it the shot it deserved." You didn't like it. Maybe one day you'll give it another chance, but not now and not because of anything anyone here said.

However, to give credit where credit due...I don't know how old you are, but when I was 25, I was wokring in a shitty retail chain and trying to learn to produce Previews of Coming Attractions 1 or 2 days a week when I could get into the city. Orson Welles was making Citizen Kane. And that was his first time at bat.

[theta]

A short note about acting here:

A lot of people make judgement calls about acting based on their own internal criteria.

This is because they've never tried acting, you know, in front of actual people.

I suspect you have never done that seriously, Royal. Once you do, I think you'll appreciate the acting in "Kane" a whole lot more.

Too bad it's not to your taste. I don't think it's a matter of black and white...I'm betting you don't own a lot of dramas, period, am I right?

[EPKJ]

Citizen Kane is a good film. It is not a great film and never will be a great film. It is the most overhyped film in history. Unlike Casablanca, which is truly the greatest film ever made, Citizen Kane never connects with an audience on an emotional level. To put it bluntly, one could not care less about the characters. The pacing of the film is deadly boring as well.

Originally Posted by larphillips

sigh.....


A few basic questions, to flesh out this discussion. If they sound condescending, they aren't.

* First, have you ever seen a black and white film that you really liked?

* Next, do you know who William Randolph Hurst is?

* Do you know about 'deep focus?'

* Are you aware of acting styles in the 30's and 40's?

* Do you know who Gregg Toland is?

* Finally, are you aware of the shit that had to be done to get that movie made?

Sigh yourself. Every one of your questions is irrelevant as they have nothing to do with the quality of the film. Innovation in camera work does not make a good film. Neither does being different than other films of the time make a good film. By the way, I have a question for you? Do you know who William Randolph Hearst is as opposed to this Hurst of whom you wrote?

To conclude, Orson Welles was an egotistical man with very limited talent. See the remainder of his career for proof of this. None of his films ever attracted a wide audience or made money at the box office. Yes, being successful at the box office does speak to quality. The purpose of a film is to entertain an audience in order to make money. Before the advent of cable and video, Casablanca was the most watched film on television. Citizen Kane has never been popular and never will be. If a film has no audience, it is a failure. Citizen Kane has not gained an audience with time. It has just gained status among film students and critics. Average filmgoers still don't watch it.

[EPKJ]

Originally Posted by Marq

Sadly, I suppose even the great masterpieces of early cinema that single-handely shaped how the medium is today can still be seen as "boring" or "unentertaining" by some audiences. I have trouble following how any fan of movies could be bored or unimpressed or consider it "one of the worst films I've seen" by Citizen Kane, but it is indeed a great mystery:

Another thread:
- Is Citizen Kane worth a blind buy?

Let me enlighten you. The film proceeds at a snail's pace and is boring with a capital B as a result. I like aspects of the film and do like it, but it is not a masterpiece nor is it a great film. The only mystery is how anyone views Citizen Kane as great or entertaining. It is especially amazing given that Orson Welles career never went anywhere. The proof is in the pudding and Welles ended up hawking wine on television because he lacked the talent for anything better.

[EPKJ]

Originally Posted by theta

A short note about acting here:

A lot of people make judgement calls about acting based on their own internal criteria.

This is because they've never tried acting, you know, in front of actual people.

I suspect you have never done that seriously, Royal. Once you do, I think you'll appreciate the acting in "Kane" a whole lot more.

Too bad it's not to your taste. I don't think it's a matter of black and white...I'm betting you don't own a lot of dramas, period, am I right?

A short note about logic here. One need not be an actor to judge acting. By your logic, only actors would like Citizen Kane. While that might explain its box office failure, it makes no sense.

[Shoegaze99]

Originally Posted by EPKJ

Citizen Kane never connects with an audience on an emotional level. To put it bluntly, one could not care less about the characters.

Sorry, no. The film certainly connected with me, and I without question found myself compelled by, and at times caring for the fate of, Kane.

Originally Posted by EPKJ

The proof is in the pudding and Welles ended up hawking wine on television because he lacked the talent for anything better.

Because the idea that Welles never produced another film of the same caliber = the film was never really that good in the first place.

Let me enlighten you: Impeccable logic that isn't.

[Marq]

After much thinking, I've decided I much prefer this thread...:

Schindler's List anyone else think this movie's a pile of crap??

... so I'll step away from this pissing contest now.