Is Citizen Kane as good as people say it is?

[LostInAnomie]

It's coming on in about a half hour and I am trying to decide if I am going to watch it or not.

[soothsayer]

1. I was really disappointed in it, but I guess I missed something.

I suppose it's worth a try, but I felt gypped. But there's a good chance that I'm an ignoramus.

[autorank]

2. Better. It's highly relevant to our current situation.

Orson Welles was a fucking total genius!

[Bouncy Ball]

3. I can NEVER get past the first 45 minutes.

I always, always, ALWAYS fall asleep. And it bugs me, because it's number one on that AFI list of the greatest all time movies so I feel like I really should see it, but dammit, it's like the cure for insomnia for me.

In fact, I should watch it now so I can go to sleep.

Good luck! :hi:

[Bucky]

4. Yes, it's good. But if you expect too much from it, any movie...

...any movie can be disappointing. It's just a movie, so enjoy it.

[Must_B_Free]

5. yes, better

the greatest fil of all time.

[RadicalMom]

6. YES! Orson Welles was amazing and the film is historically

signifigant from the standpoint of filmmaking. A must see.

[6000eliot]

7. In a word

Yes. Are you watching it?

[Khephra]

8. It helps to know about the background of the film

Hearst was current when the film was made so background wasn't needed for the audiences back then but he's not so well known today, so you might miss out on a few things here and there.

IIRC, Kane was the first American film that dealt with the idea of several characters seeing reality from from different angles.

[Cooley Hurd]

13. Hearst tried desperately to keep the film from opening...

...including an offer to buy all of the movie prints (because it made his girlfriend, Marion Davies, cry).

A great movie on the subject (of the battle for Citizen Kane) is RKO 281, staring Liev Schreiber as Welles...

[AngryOldDem]

23. Manipulation of events by the media

Is what makes Kane relevant to today's audiences.

It is a very complex film, which makes it more remarkable. It's worth it.

[mr blur]

9. Yes it is

Visually, artistically and even "historically". There were so many daring, new things done in that film and Welles deserves all the praise he gets for it. Just compare it to the all the bland crap that comes out of Hollywood (and elsewhere) these days, full of bad acting, "faces" from lousy TV programs and appalling writing.

[elperromagico]

10. If you ignore all of the praise, yes.

No film - no matter how great - could live up to the level of acclaim Citizen Kane has had.

Just sit back and enjoy the story.

[Jeebo]

11. The first time I saw it, it bored me silly for two hours.

The second time I saw it, it bored me silly for two hours.

The third time I saw it, I think I had grown somewhat in film-appreciation sophistication, and I actually enjoyed it a little. But only a little.

I guess it's a pretty good movie, but I never have understood what all the fuss is about. Some years ago I watched Siskel and Ebert raving about "Citizen Kane." They went on and on about THIS reason why the movie was so great, and THAT reason why the movie was so great, and with every point they made, I wanted to ask them, "So effing WHAT? WHY does that make the movie so great?" They were describing individual trees in a forest, but when I watch that movie I see the whole forest.

Maybe that movie is just way over my head. Or maybe it's just that it's not where my film tastes lie.

To give you some sense of my film tastes, if you're interested, here's a list of my top ten all-time favorite films:

1. Ben Hur
2. Schindler's List
3. A Tale of Two Cities (the 1935 version with Ronald Colman)
4. National Velvet
5. Forbidden Planet
6. The Graduate
7. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn
8. Dr. Strangelove
9. Spartacus
10. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the 1956 version)

Ron

[Cooley Hurd]

12. I love the movie...

...and it's w-a-y ahead of its time (in plot, as well as cinematography).

I watch it every time its on.:thumbsup:

[no_hypocrisy]

14. "Charles, people will think . . . "

"WHAT I TELL THEM TO THINK!!!"



How relevant is that for today with regard to the media being a toothless dog protecting democracy?

[terrya]

15. Answer: Yes. eom

[Kahuna]

16. Yes it is! Watch it and let us know what you think about it....

You can also post your thoughts in the Classis Films Group.

[Boswells_Johnson]

17. It's very good, but as with any "critical success"

reputation can overshadow the work itself.

[robbedvoter]

18. Yes. Better. memorable. Food for thought.

[Orangepeel]

19. It bored me, but then again, I'm not a film buff

with a lot of art, when you see something that was revolutionary long after the fact, it can be hard to appreciate. Art that had an enormous impact, by necessity, tends to look mundane after you have seen everything that was impacted by it.

I assume this is the case with Citizen Kane, although I don't know enough about film and film history to be sure.

[BrklynLiberal]

20. Watch it and decide for yourelf....

[DinahMoeHum]

21. ". . .quote, singer, unquote. . ."

n/t

[nicolemrw]

22. absolutely, yes.

as long as no one tells you the secret of rosebud before you see it.

[yellowdogintexas]

24. NO highly over rated

maybe for its time it was worthy of all the hoopla, but not now.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. You have to look at it in its historical context

The reason it's disappointing now is that the film techniques it pioneered are commonplace today, but in its time, its use of jump cuts, odd camera angles, and fake newsreels, among other things, was highly innovative.

The first time I saw it was in a film class with an instructor pointing these things out, so I guess I have a fondness for it. I do like seeing it every few years.

[GRLMGC]

26. I didn't like it

I'm a film buff and will probably be reviled by other film buffs for my opinion. I love the visual style. It's ahead of its time. However, I didn't find it entertaining in the least and I, personally, think that's what a film is supposed to do.

[Placebo]

27. I wasn't that impressed with it either.

Visually, it was great, especially when you consider the time it was filmed, but the story and the acting did nothing for me.

[Rabrrrrrr]

28. YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!

[henslee]

29. The film is an encyclopedia of cinematic language esp. camera techniques

like deep focus and tracking shots that still stupify today. Still, a bit of a snore by today's standars -- better off watching Big Daddy or Old School.

[DerekG]

30. Yes, but it isn't #1...

Hitchcock's Vertigo, Lean's Lawrence of Arabia, and Coppola's The Godfather are *better* films (Pauline Kael once called Citizen Kane a "shallow masterpiece") but Welles gets points for innovation.

[48pan]

31. I'll Have to say no...

It bored me terribly. Rent Run Silent, Run Deep instead.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

32. When you watch it on TV

you're watching a video of "Citizen Kane." When you see it in a theater, you're watching "Citizen Kane" itself. The two experiences are entirely different. The only time I've seen the film itself was when it came back for its fiftieth anniversary. It wasn't at all like seeing the video on television.