Rating: 
Summary: Artistic masterpiece, but lacking in interest
Review: As many reviewers have noted, this movie was ranked #1 in AFI's list of 100 greatest movies of all time; however, one should take into consideration that AFI's ranking of films was almost entirely based on the aesthetics of film making. Any film maker/director/producer will tell you that Citizen Kane is an artistic masterpiece, but Welles does this using many (at the time) new filming techniques such as camera angles, character placement/proxemics, form, framing, et cetera.
The movie's plot is a different story. Charles Foster Kane is based on the real life man William Randolph Hearst, who was a newspaper tycoon during the late 19th century to the mid 20th century. The storyline will be boring to most casual movieviewers, so take discretion. I personally found the story a little interesting (due to my interest in history), but those looking for high suspense and action should go see another movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't waste your time with this trash!
Review: I was browsing movies on the Internet for something best to watch, using reviews to decide if it might be worth my time or not. When the movie started, I already knew this one was a mistake. I sat through the whole thing patiently and in the end I felt very cheated out of a buck and a couple hours of my life I could of spent doing something else. The acting, characters, script, and plot were pathetic. The ending that people keep mentioning wasn't a big deal at all. This movie was not artistic as some claim. It wasn't entertaining. It was just a bad attempt at a boring story about newspaper tycoon. It's one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
Rating: 
Summary: Can justifiably called the greatest movie of all time
Review: Citizen Kane was ranked number one on the AFI's list of the 100 Greatest American Movies (which really needs to be updated) and is not undeserving of its position on that list. One can argue that Casablanca, The Godfather, or Gone With the Wind should be the top movie, but one cannot say that Citizen Kane is not an outstanding movie. The movie is about the life of newspaper tycoon Charles Foster Kane, his triumphant rise in popularity among the people, and his horrible downfall. You have no right to decide what the greatest movie of all time is if you have never seen Citizen Kane.
Rating:
Summary: Narrative and Eye Disconnect
Review: Spoilers Herein.This an extremely influential film, by one of the very few inventors of cinema. But I do not think it is Welles' best. (That's either `Othello' or `Lady from Shanghai' depending on your religion.) First of all, this is not the work of a genius, but the excellent product of three committed artisans: Welles, Tobin and Mankiewicz. Mankiewicz, with his brother, were the industry's working intellectuals. Here (aided by Houseman), he simply got a client intelligent enough to know what was up. Similarly with Tobin, who was the Sascha Vierny of his day. These two men pulled on Welles, but as we will see, in independent directions. The story, Hearst and all that, is irrelevant except for the notion that a writer in the right place can create reality if willing to pay the price. The acting is fine of course, uncharacteristically abstract -- but that's hardly innovative nor groundshaking. No, what makes this film important are two features, and the failed relationship between them. The first of these is the incredibly complex narrative structure. Things that are normally nested frames: a reminiscent flashback, a text annotated with pictures... are here multiply set up and in turn enfolded into the film proper. We see a newsreel, whose footage later appears in the `real' action; we have a recalled death vision of a childhood but that becomes untenably self-critical; we see her singing and again from her perspective. We have several on-screen narrators but each gets swallowed. There are so many narrative devices at work it keeps us spinning, sledding as each comes into play and is then reabsorbed. The puzzle is assembled several different ways. Nowhere else is such narrative cleverness been even attempted, not by Lynch, Bergman, Wenders, anyone. The other innovation is the breaking of convention with the eye of the camera. The camera takes positions -- physical and philosophical -- that were previously utterly unknown. Previously, the camera was audience supplemented by `context' shots: perspectives that a human observer might not see but that seemed natural. Now, the camera is something unto itself that we have to accommodate. The camera does things no human would or could. It sometimes (often!) sees two things simultaneously, something that never happens with the natural eye. It has a curiosity that we would not have directed. The eye defines the lighting, not the other way around -- here everything is colored not by what it is, but by how the film's eye changes it. Both of these experiments are masterful. They changed the world of films, and hence dreams, and hence all of abstract thinking forever. But the flaw, the lethal problem with this film is that the two experiments have independent lives. They are not coordinated beyond some fairly easy touchpoints and then only in the simplest of ways: an image that is being described by a speaker and the nature of the newsreel. It is as if there were TWO geniuses at work, each doing something important and neither communicating with the other. So when there is a shift or a trick in the narrative, the eye is ignorant of it. But hey, it was just the man's first film. He quickly fixed that in `Othello' and especially `Shanghai.' The merger of eye and narrative is the real revolution. `Kane' raised the question, which is why it is important. Tarkovsky, some Bergman, Malick, Greenaway have subsequently succeeded with this merger using different devices, but the master is Kurosawa. Welles made Kurosawa possible. It all starts here, but only as a promise. In real terms, the film is a failure.
Rating:
Summary: Foundation of Modern Filmmaking
Review: It's unfortunate that some contemporary viewers raised on high concept video, low-brow comedy, and wall-to-wall explosions can't appreciate the quality and value of a film like "Citizen Kane." Simply put, this film is the very foundation of modern filmmaking. Techniques so common as to be invisible to a contemporary audience, techniques that make film seem real and natural rather than staged and artificial were established by Welles in the making of "Kane". And the story of media, power and politics is as timely and telling today as it was when the film was made (perhaps moreso). There may be movies with singularly better stories, singularly better acting, cinematography, etc. etc., but taken as a whole and in view of it's impact and influence on filmmaking in general, "Citizen Kane" IS the single greatest American movie ever made.
Rating:
Summary: Doesn't have anything to be considered the best film at all!
Review: AFI makes itself look like a bunch of idiots who decide what is best for us to see. Actually, Citizen Kane is not even a good film. You can't convince people by establishing an institute that does the film ranking and expect people to believe the judgements. The rankings are unfairly done by few people. I'm not surprised why this film receive such a strong rejection to the tile of the best American film. Even Orson Welles himself would not agree. It's painfully ridiculous..
Rating:
Summary: it stinks
Review: Sorry to disappoint you ladies and gentlemen but this film is not the greatest movie ever made. First off, I do not believe that there is such a thing as the "greatest movie ever", the title is far too subjective. There are great movies but which one is better depends on who is watching it. This movie does not even fall into the great movie category. Oh and to the people who discount my opinion as base or plebian, screw you hippie, my opinion's just as valid as yours. I know a good movie when I see it and this is not one.
It is long, boring and goes nowhere. These are not the qualities of the best movie ever. The characters aren't at all interesting and it doesn't hold the viewer's attention. No one cares about a paper boy and his little sled. Ghostbusters was a great movie, Edward Scissorhands was a great movie. Shawshank Redemption and Glory were great movies, clockwork orange, 2001, the godfather, and Akira are also greats. This is my opinion of course yours may differ. I, unlike some pompous reviewers, am not going to condemn you just because you don't like a certain movie. This review may or may not help you, I don't really care. I just had fun decrying the disgrace of cinema.
Rating:
Summary: Lives up to the hype
Review: All I ever heard from adults was how great Citizen Kane was. Well to fulfill a class requirement in my college movies class, we watched Citizen Kane and I have to admit, it is right up there in my list of great movies. It is an old story but its a great story. Orson Welles really out did himself.
Rating:
Summary: DISCLAIMER: MULTIPLE VIEWINGS REQUIRED
Review: The first time I saw this movie it was with a friend; it was the only good movie hanging around at the public library. We both knew of its legendary status and where excited to see it (after all, it is #1 on the AFI greatest 100 movies list). When we tried to see it, we nearly fell asleep, so we just kinda fast forwarded to the end. While we both liked the style and direction, we felt the rest of the movie was lacking, and while the end was incredible, it took WAY too long to get there. So in comes TCM, who was showing it. When I saw it again, it blew me away. I really loved it the second time around, putting it immediately on my top 10 list. why the change? I gets way better on the second viewing since you know the end already: the movie draws you into it as you watch a man and his dreams fall into despair and dust (literally). the movie is as good as many people claimed, even though i would have given it 3 stars after my first viewing. I guess people just need to realize that the audiences in the 40's were used to slower paced movies, and once youre into the movie enough, you cant get enough. If you thought negatively about it, wait a while and see it again. It worked here.
Rating:
Summary: INTRIGUINGLY SYMBOLIC, NEAT CAMERA PYROTECNICS, ETC..BUT..
Review: If you don't mind a black and white print and savor crisp dialogue, this movie is undoubtedly a collector's item. But I am not sure if it has aged well enough to be exalted to the level of the greatest movie of all time or anything, especially for non-American audiences. The theme veers around a (typical) rich guy who was born with a silver spoon, then gagged on it with his egotistical empire of yellow journalism, and made a spectacular, stylish mess of his life. The plot line is thus simple and predictable, the acting very convincing but not legendary. There are several quotable quotes, which may interest some viewers. Around the middle the movie exhibits a bit of chaff, long scenes where very little purposeful happens. Yet, the artistic value along with some of the "scandal" involved in Citizen Kane (semblance to the real life of William Hearst) is what made it a classic years later. If it is believed that this film was a trailblazer in cinematography, I can absolutely see why. It sports a dazzling kaleidescope of amazing lighting tricks and innovative camera angles (e.g., having the camera on the floor). Yet, is it THE best movie ever made? Many reviewers here seem to have said exactly that, but my enthusiasm is more restrained. It remains a highly recommended rental though. If you like your DVD collection, this is one you'd even want to buy..
|
