Rating: 
Summary: No wonder it's the best movie of all times!
Review: When you start to realize how many "first times" this movie contains, and when it was made, there's no wonder that it's been deemed the best movie of all times. It was the debut in the director's seat of also first-time big screen actor, co-writer and producer, Orson Welles. He was surrounded by a cast of experienced actors, most of which were new to the big screen as well: there goes a couple of "first times." In terms of the script, the fast-forward and rewinding of events into the future and back to the past is simply mind-boggling. Welles accomplishes the magical time shifts by resorting to some pretty nifty editing tricks (fading out, fading in, etc.) This might be something that movies such as Pulp Fiction or Memento have us a little more used to these days, but Citizen Kane broke film-making ground when it accomplished this back 1941. Also, the content of the script itself was very controversial back then, due to the fact that it was "loosely based" on a real-life big media mogul, William Randolph Hearst. This caused the movie to suffer all kinds of oposition and delays at the time, in spite of the fact that the contract Welles signed with RKO for the movie was one that allowed him creative freedom in ways that are evident all through the movie, and that can be the envy of today's Hollywood's directors. Yet, as controversial as the story was "outside," the story itself is based on a concept that strikes for its simplicity: "Rosebud," Charles Foster Kane's last word, and the pursue of its meaning by a team of journalists, among the people that supposedly knew the man well. Supposedly, because appearances can be deceiving...Illumination is simply fantastic: the game of shadows and bright lights to cast more suspense or cheer up a particular scene is superb. The angles from which the actors are shot at times, break not only the normally accepted paradigms of directing at the time, but also the studios floors (since they required the use of a hatchet to make way through the wooden floors, down to a point where the camera could be placed at footstep level.) The effect this accomplished in terms of the scenes shot this way was amazing, since dominant (power) characters where shot from below, thus making them "larger" and more imposing than they would have looked like, had they been shot normally. Likewise, submissive or powerless characters were shot from above, much from the perspective of the dominant characters. Some scenes are worth a thousand Oscars, one of my favorite ones being the one where one of the reporters walks into this huge room under custody and is furnished with a book from the diaries of another wealthy man who was close to Kane, in order to read about Kane in it. The scene is just magnificent, in terms of illumination (shadows below, god-like illumination from above), camera angle, script, everything... And this one is only one of several, that make up a movie that has stood the test of time, and has become a pivotal influence to most of today's directors. I hope I have made my point, but if I haven't, long-story, short: you can't afford not to see "Citizen Kane."
Rating:
Summary: The greatest, for a reason
Review: In June 1998, on a much-publicized list, the American Film Institute named "Citizen Kane" America's Greatest Movie, sparking a controversy that rages to this day. Since then, when people watch "Citizen Kane", they've been analyzing it and dissecting to see why it made the list. They completely have forgotten what made it so great. I am one of those who think any greatest movie list is ridiculous (Though, if asked to, I would make up a list). How can you judge the greatness of movies by ranking them 1,2,3? And what would you judge them by? Entertainment or artistic value? That is why most critics, when they make "greatest" lists, rank them alphabetically. However, I believe the best way is for a person to have several favorite movies and, if they are asked what is their favorite, they can name one of those. But they should also know why. "Citizen Kane" is one of these I would name because it's so creative. Every scene is a delight to watch in terms of cinematography, lighting, sound, writing, music or acting. Almost the entire cast was in their film debuts. Orson Welles, Joe Cotton, Everett Sloane, Agnes Moorehead, Dorothy Comingore, Ruth Warrick, Ray Collins, Erskine Sanford, William Alland, Paul Stewart and George Coulouris are all excellent and most would have long, productive careers. It's difficult to name who is the best, but I think that Cotton (For his talk to Mr. Kane while drunk), Sloane (For his speech about the girl with the white dress) and Moorehead (For her scenes at the boarding house) were the best. My favorite quote from the movie comes early, in the newspaper office scene between Welles and Coulouris. Here, after being asked by Coulouris "Is this really your idea of how to run a newspaper?!" Welles remarks "I don't know how to run a newspaper, Mr. Thatcher, I just try everything I can think of". As stated before, Welles and almost everyone else involved had no previous film experience, yet had been landed a huge contract to have full creative control on a movie. Much of Hollywood was envious at this and looked down upon Welles, hoping he would fail. However, Welles and company took advantage of any thing they had and doing anything and everything they could think of in the movie. No idea was too large or too small. One example was with the plot device, the last word of Charles Foster Kane called "Rosebud". Film Critic Pauline Kael once called "Rosebud" a gimmick. Admittedly, this is correct. It seems to explain everything, but really doesn't explain a thing. What makes the movie's story so great though is that it gives us the inside on a rich and famous celebrity, the kind we are always interested in. Rosebud is the key of newsreel reporter Jerry Thompson (Alland), as well as ours, to unlocking the life of Charles Kane. Contrary to some statements, we really never sympathize with him during the story since he is a jerk. He uses people to his own advantage and kicks anyone around who gets in his way. Nevertheless, his story is fascinating. The screenplay by Welles and Herman Mankiewicz (Surprisingly, the film's only Oscar winner) was one of the first to take liberties in the plot. It doesn't have a linear narrative, but rather jumps from interview to interview, from event to event. Gaps made by one interview are filled by another and oftentimes a new gap is created. However, there are other elements that make the film work. In addition, there is the photography of Gregg Toland (The only major team member with previous film experience), the film editing courtesy of Robert Wise (Who would become a great director in his own right), and the sound created by Bailey Fesler and James G. Stewart. One must also cite Maurice Seiderman's makeup work, which convincingly makes many of the actors look aged. In fact, some of the actors would resemble their older characters in later years (Compare Welles's appearance as the older Mr. Kane with his Detective Quinlan in 1958's "Touch of Evil"). Blend all these elements together, allow to bake and you got a great movie. Even after 60+ years of age, the movie is still as fresh and entertaining as though it were made yesterday, just as it will be 60 years from now. If you decide to watch the movie for the first time, do not expect it to be the greatest movie you have ever seen. Instead, don't expect anything. Only expect another movie and you will get your money's worth. On the cinema mountain range, there are few on or near the same height as this one in terms of artistic and entertainment value. Sadly, many of today's teenagers aren't getting raised on films like this. In fact, when I told someone about this movie recently, he said "Citizen Kane? Is that a movie?" Most unfortunate, especially since the filmmakers of tomorrow need better inspiration than from today's good but largely forgettable movies.
Rating:
Summary: an indisputably great film.
Review: i had this film as an assignment in a film noir class. i'd never seen it before and had read very little about it, knew nothing of the plot, or who bill hearst was, etc etc. if you'd asked me about "rosebud," i'd have assumed it was an obscene reference (and according to roger ebert it is). i was essentially unbiased as to the content of the film. on first viewing i found it "sentimental," yet effective for the really good (by any standards) performances of welles, cotton, et al. it's a "life story," quite literally, from early childhood to death, of a larger-than-life figure; so it's bound to impress the viewer with the sheer scope of its subject and its inevitable tackling of monumental life issues, including the meaning of life itself in a way more direct, really, in its simplicity than has ever been achieved before or since in cinema. the ultimate sentiment implied by the word "rosebud," the snow-globe, the sled itself, is that of childhood innocence lost. that winter day when his mother handed him over to the bank might have been the last of his life. there is the idea that the world and worldly life corrupt the soul, and that his mother, though she may have felt she was acting in his interest, had therefore sold his soul to the devil as it were that day and sealed his fate. there were a few points i missed the first time through, so i decided to watch it again with one of the commentaries - roger ebert's. this is certainly one of the better commentaries i've heard on dvd; all too often they degenerate into brainless pedantic ramblings that have nothing to do with anything, but ebert brings his knowledge of the making of the film, of welles himself, of the sundry ground-breaking techniques and effects used in the film - nearly every shot is a special effect - and of the many layers of meaning in the elements of the story, adding comprehensively to one's knowledge and appreciation of the film. plus he actually talks about the scenes that are on the screen as he's talking. how often can you say that. so i watched the whole thing again, and the vista widened. the next day i watched it again, this time with the peter brogdonovich commentary. this was just as informative as ebert's, and by the time it was over, i felt like i'd made the damn movie. i also felt like i never wanted to see it again, it having occupied something like 9.5 of the last 24 hours of my life. of course, i did watch parts of it again and again as i wrote my paper. by the way i got an "a". these director commentaries on dvds are great for film classes. (the teacher recommended we watch them, i wasn't "cheating" at all.) very comprehensive and facinating. oh - i watched that hearst documentary and the "making of" thing too, they also helped a great deal. i bought this dvd for this asignment, but i havent watched it since my paper, i admit - i did burn myself out on it. but it's still a powerful movie, unique in the history of cinema for the degree of nigh-omnipotence the hollywood "powers that be" allowed to be invested in one genius - the 26-year-old orson welles - to realize the project, and for the inevitable epoch-making backlash thereby incurred, which really did cripple welles' career permanently and probably set everybody back a few decades. a legendary film in every sense. i can't believe another reviewer called it "boring" but hey, no accounting for tastes. he probably thinks "dude wheres my car" is the paradigm.
Rating:
Summary: Great art without any limits
Review: This film is a masterpiece. The last tycoon of the first half of the twentieth century. A power and an influence entirely based on newspapers and a new way to practice journalism : journalism as a reality show. Kane has the tendency though to think he can mould the opinions of people as if he controlled them through his papers. The film is a sad demonstration of the impact of such journalism and at the same time its limits and its failures. Actually he is destroyed in his political career by the same papers and journalism that all the other papers immediately imitated because the circulation of Kane's papers was menacing the others to be crushed down into oblivion. But the film also explores the personal dimension of the character, his pharaonic ambition, his cult of collecting artistic artefacts or any other collectibles, his love for his second wife and its inevitable end because she could not live up to his dream of being some kind of king or god on earth. She felt abandoned and crushed by the famous palace of Xanadu and finally decided to leave. Strangely enough the film does not emphasize the death of his son, from his first marriage, a death that must have been particularly dramatic to Kane. The film is also a masterpiece by its technique and the way the story is unveiled and developed. It tried all kinds of story-telling techniques, a film in the film, a musical in the film, a jounalistic investigation within the journalistic world of Kane, and a completely exploded plot line that follows the investigation more than chronology. Things come apparently haphazardly though in an absolutely planned way. The structure is not clear cut and onesided, but rather a multifarious and multifacetted structure that gives to the film a tremendous power and dynamism. Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
Rating:
Summary: One of the Best.
Review: Even after sixty years, CITIZEN KANE remains as one of the greatest movies of all time. Though it is true that some are bored by the movie because it's "just a boring black-and-white movie with no action", those who hold that opinion are in the minority. KANE is often held as the pinnacle of filmmaking by movie buffs not just because of the advances the movie made in film production, but also because it set the standard that all filmmakers wish to reach: the total director's vision; a movie made with total control and no studio intervention. With that said, what does KANE hold for the average film-goer? The movie has an excellent script (it won an Oscar), great acting, and a haunting score. The story, though loosely based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, is an old one: powerful man starts out promising and full of ideals, becomes consumed by greed and looses his vision, and ends up loosing it all (anyone read MacBeth or ALL THE KING'S MEN?). Overall, a deeply penetrating and thinking movie that film buffs usually love and that most everyone else will at least enjoy if they don't mind a strong drama filmed in black and white.
Rating: 
Summary: Welles, Imagination and compilation
Review: I saw this movie when I was 13 years old and I was NOT into black and white. I had only heard of his radio speech and the scare it had caused. My grandfather was visiting and I had no choice, but to sit down and pretend. I stopped pretending fifteen minutes into the movie and was not only entertained by the movie, but by my grandfather's incite on the movies of this era and breakthroughs this particular one brought to the movie industry. the fading in and out of scenes, the ending focus on "rosebud", etc. and the acting which was not a dramatic portrayal, but an almost real one compared to the acting of that era was something you only see again maybe 15-20 years later. Since then, I have seen it two other times and as a 23 year old and then a 26 year old, found it even more riveting. so why not five stars? Well, it is still a movie from a different time and has that time stamped on it from the very beginning. I still watch old movies trying to broaden my horizons (whatever that intails), but I can't find that common cultural binding point with them and they fail me. Orson Welles did that. His political and social commentary and understanding of the human spirit seemed to generate that for me and I am grateful to both my grandfather and him for being able to entertain me 60 years later.
Rating: 
Summary: Grossly overrated
Review: In its day ( Note: IN ITS DAY ), this was ground breaking
stuff. A young punk lashing into the newspaper industry
with such gusto and giving people a glipse of something
they may only have suspected. But that does not make it a
classic and I don't think it stands the test of time at all
well. Welles should be more correctly remembered for the
impact of "The War Of The Worlds" broadcasts - that truly
showing his impact within the wider reference of the culture
of his day. Citizen Kane is at best a chapter in a life - and probably just
a footnote if the truth be told. Could such a movie be made now with Mr Murdoch owning Fox? Of course not.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Film...
Review: I first saw Citizen Kane in the mid-'80s in an Intro to Film class at Community College. I took the class because I thought it would be an easy A. As it happens, I got a B+. Anyway, I was prepared for a 2 hour yawn festival. A cure for insomnia. As it happened, I was hooked by the 'newsreel' footage. The whole Rosebud thing and Kane himself were a facinating mystery.
I thought the characters were better drawn out in 'Kane' than in many of the films I usually enjoyed. The friendship that Kane & Leland had was particularly well developed. It just felt like Orson Welles had really put his heart into the film. One didn't get the impression that he was in it just for the money. The fact that the film is Black & White just adds to the beauty and mystery of this film.
I'm not the type of person who likes a film just because
it's soooo intellectual. I do find 'Citizen Kane' to be a very smart film, though, and a film that one needs to pay attention to during their viewing. Unfortunately, most people see film or TV as a merely passive activity, which you shouldn't have to actively participate in with the ol' noggin. One really does need to pay attention to the details to really 'get' this film.
'Citizen Kane' is a great film, one of the greats of all time. The greatest of all time? Beats me. I have seen too many films and find it impossible to narrow it down to one great film of all time. 'Kane' is even, perhaps, a tad bit over-rated, but I can find very few films made before or since that are as well crafted as 'Citizen Kane'. Kane proves that one can make a film with a big visual impact without CGI, blue screens, chase scenes, or big explosions. Perhaps some reviewers were bored with the film because it lacks explosions and enormous dinosaurs!?
The DVD package is superb. The picture quality is very close to perfect. The best quality I've ever seen on a film this old. It looks better than some of modern films that I've viewed on DVD.
The sound is great, too. It's mono sound, but come on, this film was released in 1941, many decades away from Dolby Digital Stereo sound. The commentaries by Roger Ebert & Peter Bogdanovich are great, with Ebert's being the most informative, in my opinion. The documentary on disc 2, which is just a few minutes shorter than the actual film gives a lot of insight into the battles had over the film with William Randolph Hearst, who supposedly inspired the film.
A very fine package, in my opinion. A film that I definitely plan to view at least a couple times each year.
Rating:
Summary: Is This the Best American Film of All Time???
Review: In a word, yes. 'Citizen Kane' is not only the best American film of all time, how it was born is one of the great all-time stories of film. The plot of the film, the rise and fall of multi-millionaire and newspaper emperor Charles Foster Kane, is known to most fans of film...So what makes it so great? I think lots of people will tell you that Welles' innovative camera angles, beautiful cinematography, great Mercury Players all contribute to the brilliance of the film. For me, though, no film has ever been a better study of the best and worst of human nature. Kane (and Welles too, for that matter) was an extremely gifted man who was able to control nearly everything he touched. What so many of us wouldn't give to have what Kane had. Kane never asks the question on-screen, but you know what is going through his mind: "Is this all there is?" What a powerful study of a man of power and influence. 'Citizen Kane' is such a film of staggering proportions, it has been imitated countless times, but never equalled. Welles truly was a genius and even if he never surpassed 'Kane' himself, the film will continue to live on as the standard against which all other films are measured. It is truly greatness. But there's more. 'The Battle Over Citizen Kane,' the second disc is just as great as the feature. The story behind the film is an amazingly informative and entertaining feature. See how 'Kane' came to life and how it almost died before it was ever born. An amazing tale. Add to this the commentaries by Peter Bogdonavich and Roger Ebert and you have a DVD set that no movie-lover can pass up. I can't think of a better gift for anyone who loves classic films. BUY IT!
Rating:
Summary: Great transfer and CORRECT aspect ratio of a work of art
Review: A lot of [people] complain about the transfer not being in widescreen? Virtually every film made up to 1953 is the same size as your TV. Widescreen aspect ratios were not available in 1941. So buy the pristine new transfer and enjoy it with the assurance that nothing has been cropped out. That said, this film is a work of art. Art is open to many interpretations, emotions, and feelings. Not everyone can go into a gallery and pick the same painting and call it their favorite or the best. True, "Kane" was named the greatest film of all-time by the AFI and that can certainly be debated. Do I think it is the best of all time? Not completely. But I do find it interesting that it is in just about every film director's top ten list. That is perhaps it's greatest influence.
|
