|
Directed by: Orson Welles Starring: Orson Welles, Joseph Cotten This is by far the greatest film of all-time. The camera techniques in this film are legendary and Welles' innovative and humanistic directing/acting really shines. He was given the keys by RKO Radio Pictures to make any film he wanted. Thus, Citizen Kane was born. It was inspired by the true life of newspaper giant William Randolph Hearst. The movie opens with Charles Foster Kane, old and withered. Kane is holding a globe in his hand and his last word in life, as the globe falls, is "Rosebud." A 10 minute newsreel that gives lots of character development and setting follows. Kane's newspaper, curious as to why he said this word and what it meant, goes investigating. There are so many great scenes in Citizen Kane, I don't want to give all of them away to any potential viewers. This is #1 movie of all-time by the American Film Institute (AFI) and #11/250 on IMDb. Roger Ebert did the commentary for this movie and it is some of most insightful commentary you will ever hear. He also rated the movie as his all-time favorite. William Hearst smeared the movie and it barely saw the light of day. He branded Welles as a communist and whenever the name of the movie or Welles was uttered, boos followed. It garnered 1 Academy Award for best screenplay out of the 9 nominations. There is nothing more I can say that will do this movie justice. I was surprised when I looked through every page for a Citizen Kane review/ratings thread and did not find one. My "review" if you can call it that, isn't that great. If you are looking for the professional reviews, you can browse them at Rotten Tomatoes RATING: 5.5 PROS: Magnificent directing/acting from Orson Welles and a fantastic script CONS: Orson Welles was a perfectionist and he created just that - Perfection. No cons to the film in my opinion. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/
|
#
?
May 23, 2004 11:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
Awesome--in the literal sense of the word.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2004 16:43
|
|
|
A film for fans of the craft.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2004 18:18
|
|
|
This movie was very innovative, but by today's standards, it's kind of boring, and there's a lot of talking. However, when I say very innovative, I mean it. This was one of the most innovative of all time. If not the most.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2004 22:57
|
|
|
Some people don't understand what the big deal is about Citizen Kane, but look at it compared to movies coming out at the same time -- no one was even close to his use of flashback, camera angles, integrated special effects, etc etc etc. And it was his first movie! 5.5
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2004 23:23
|
|
|
This film really needs to be examined in a classroom setting, much the way I viewed it. In reality, this masterpiece's tricks are almost blind to our eyes, since they have been copied over and over by subsequent films, like it's brilliant photography and amazing script. It has been copied so many times, it almost feels like a copy or knock-off to someone, like myself, when viewing it for the first time. Seeing it with a person with an almost encyclopedic knowledge of film really made the experience greater. A great example is the opening montage of shots that slowly pull closer to Xanadu. As you can see, the foreground changes, but the tower remains in almost exactly the same spot. Brilliance. Alexander Payne used the WOODMEN building in Omaha in the same fashion as an homage in his film, ABOUT SCHMIDT. However, on its own, it stands as one of the true shining examples of the craft of filmmaking. Definite 5.5/5 Pros: Orson Welles' dynamite performance, script, cinematography, make-up and effects work truly ahead of its time. Cons: Can't really think of many
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2004 07:26
|
|
|
This film is pretty drat close to being flawless in every fashion. Also, the White Stripes' song "The Union Forever" is comprised entirely of dialogue from this movie. Voted 5.0
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2004 03:38
|
|
|
ridiculously overrated. good camera standards for 1941 does not equal an interesting movie. the story is alright, but i think it could have been made much stronger, and i think the way his friends get "interviewed" is absolutely pointless - i'd much rather have it done in "real time flashback", with the opening scene still there of course. i consider myself someone who appreciates intellectual movies, and definitely give all movies a chance, but this just didn't hit home for me at all. perhaps i need to see it more times, but again, the cinematography alone can't make a movie like that. voted 3.5/5.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2004 05:58
|
|
|
One of the few movies that gets better each time you watch it. It becomes especially intriguing when you read/watch the behind-the-scenes materials that explains the thematic significance of each shot/character/event, and the techniques used to acquire said effects. A film student's wet dream. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2004 07:55
|
|
|
One of the few movies that get better the more times you watch it. The the lighting, camera work is absolutely brillant. I'm still in awe that this was Orsen Wells' first major movie. Without a doubt, the best movie I've ever seen. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2004 18:53
|
|
|
I didn't intend to give more than one 5.5, but I gave one to Pierrot le Fou and said Kane was better in that review, so this makes number two. The most brilliant thing about this movie is that it is one of the first (if not the very first) films to use a constructed narrative, meaning that the audience is allowed to put together the pieces of the story as the film progresses. To say Kane was years ahead of its time sounds like a cliche, but it is the unavoidable truth; It developed cinematic techniques and vocablary decades before film semiotics emerged as a field of study.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2004 19:03
|
|
|
This film asks the question, "How does one define a man?" In one of the most haunting and beautiful scenes in the history of cinema (the mirror scene), we find that perhaps it simply can't be done. Instead, the best we can do is try to paint as complete a picture as possible. I definitely wouldn't call Citizen Kane a popcorn movie, but it's nevertheless worth watching, and must be seen by anyone interested in film as an art.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2004 06:25
|
|
|
Excellent film. I could gripe about a couple performances and slightly boring scenes that make it less than perfect, but I won't. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2004 08:19
|
|
|
I would have never seen this if it weren't for my necessary Art credit (Film 100). An excellent movie worthy of all praise. Voted: 5
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2004 01:01
|
|
|
The direction and camera work are clearly outstanding, but the plot did not move me at all. I hate endings [like that]. I just did not care about Orsen Well's character either way. Way over-rated. 3.5 / 5
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2004 04:30
|
|
|
I'm a big fan of old movies, but Citizen Kane is one of those rare films that transcends the era in which it was made. It is one of the most engrossing and moving films I have ever seen. Anything that pissed off William Randolf Hearst is a classic in my book. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2004 12:49
|
|
|
I can see why this was greatly praised, but I took issue with the acting in a couple scenes. That said, the cinematography was great and the story similarly great. Some of the shots employed by Welles couldn't have been done any better and the editing was top notch. The ending kind of bothered me, though. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2006 06:24
|
|
|
WHAT THE gently caress ARE YOU POSTING
Somebody fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Feb 18, 2006 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2006 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
Just saw this for the first time tonight, and it was pretty awesome. I wouldn't put it on the top of my film list because honestly I am way more passionate about a lot more movies. But this movie was awesome. When I saw the Third Man a few weeks ago, I gained a lot of respect for Orson Welles making a dispicable character into such a charismatic one. He manages to do the same in this movie. I really didn't like Charlie Kane at all, he was everything you could dislike about a celebrity rolled into one man. I'm pretty sure that was the goal of this movie. But Welles' acting absolutely made this role real, and the makeup work that went into Kane alone is an amazing feat for its time. The ending, for me, was sad and kind of made me feel remorse for this character that I didnt really like over the past 100 minutes of screen time. It's like "Hey, he knows his life was hosed up, and just wishes he could go back and do it differently" Obviously no review of this movie would be complete without mentioning the amazing camera work. I loved the transitions between scenes with the half-fading of one frame into another. The part of the movie where it actually clicked for me was when Susan is laying in bed after medicating herself, and you see her very clearly in the foreground, then a bunch of blurry middle-ground, and then you see Welles standing, clearly, in the doorway in the background. I was like "Jesus that's loving amazing" The girl who played Susan Alexander screeched a whole lot and that made me want to plug my ears and just read the subtitles, but other than that I don't really have any gripes about this movie. Overall, 5/5.5
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2006 08:12
|
|
