Rating: 
Summary: Overrated!
Review: Some critics said it's the best film ever made. To me it's absolutely boring and doesn't deserve that much compliment. No offense! I can't pretend to rate it too highly than the level it should be.
Rating: 
Summary: Best after repeated viewings.
Review: Let me make a comment for the benefit of those who contend they were "bored out of their minds." As a film student I was struck with the creativity (not necessarily revolutionary!! just nifty, and rare) of the camera angles, fade-ins, creative use of the black and white medium, etc. Plus something no one seems to have debated, how he made the sound work with the picture, like with "Sing Sing" - I guess someone said that. I like the aesthetic qualities, of the sets, sound, and picture combined, a perfect aesthetic mix. BUT! I didn't appreciate this until a second viewing, when I could anticipate a particular mood and see how Welles evoked it, rather than sit through a stark, slow, impersonal documentary (what I felt the first time). The pacing, yes, is tedious, but you grow to appreciate it because 1. it's more realistic - life is not fed to us in MTV-style sound bites, and 2. it fits Kane the character, especially as he grows more conceited, decrepit, and shallow. Note the VERY slow scene near the end in the gargantuan living room where he sits down in an easy chair, a mile away from Susan doing her puzzle, and suggests as if she were sitting right next to him, that they go picnic. If you've grown up on MTV, it's harder to appreciate the use of silence to create mood. The acting, some have said, is less than perfect. This is true. Susan is whiney and intolerable and Kane's friends, like Bernstein, don't really betray any substance and are, to be truly honest, dull as dirt. The best films from Hollywood's "Golden Era", or from any era, have memorable characters; and if you really think, the only one here was Kane himself (thanks to the incredible, articulate, bombastic Welles). The others were (intentionally?) meant to be doorposts next to Kane, except Leland, and he was only adequate. CK isn't the world's best film, since there are others like it. But it's still worth a look, especially if you're into clever, subtle bits that make you grin if you spot them.
Rating: 
Summary: It's Cinimetography is Inspiring
Review: Allright, I gotta admit, the film itself isn't really that good, BUT you have to admit that this film's photography is amazing. I saw someone reviewing it who said that Akira Kurisawa films are better. I beg ti differ. This film has inspired me to do many things with the camera and movies and stuff I was never interested in...until I saw the speech scene...that one scene in itself was a remarkable scene. Now, I'm going to say that it probably is the best film of all time, BUT by far not the most entertaining. I mean, I liked it, but anyone else who likes it must admit, it is a little dull.
Rating:
Summary: No greater film has ever been made than KANE.
Review: There is no question amongst most that Citizen Kane is not only the greatest american movie, but the greatest movie ever made by anyone, anywhere. It is multi-leveled: on one level it is as fun and interesting as any story ever told on film. On another it is the embodiment of all the technical wizardry of Orson Welles and Gregg Toland. On yet another level it is as artsy as anything to ever hit the screen, with symbolism running rampid. By now almost everyone knows the story- the young technical wizkid from radio was hired by RKO Pictures to make a movie. Orson Welles was that wizkid, and he drafted, along with co-writer Herman J. Mankiewicz, a screenplay that was a story of a man whose success destroyed him. The story was a little to close to that of media mongul William Randolph Hearst. Hearst was the newspaper king, as well as radio king, and movie king. Think of Ted Turner, Bill Gates, and Rupert Murdoch as a single person. That was Hearst. Hearst was outraged and demanded that the neither the name of Orson Welles or "Citizen Kane" ever be mentioned in his presence. His media outlets were banned from mentioning it, and as a result, all references to it in Hearst papers were reduced to "that new silver screen attraction." The result was the film had little succes, and at the Acadamy awards won only one, for best screenplay, losing across the board to a rather mediocre film called "How Green Was My Valley." The masterpiece winning best screenplay but not the best picture it deserved has been repeated at the Acadamy Awards time and again, most recently in 1996 with "Fargo." On the direct side, it is thought to be the first true non-linear film, and it was most likely for this merit alone that it won best screenplay. It is the story of Charles Foster Kane, and how his rise and subsequent fall from power is chronicaled by the people who knew him best after his death. They tell tales of his buying up artwork, receiving his initial fortune, and falling in love with an untalented opera singer who becomes obsessed with jigsaw puzzles. His last word, rosebud, is the search. What does it mean? We find out only in the last few seconds of the film as rosebud, his precious childhood sled, burns away. On the technical side, the inovations made by Welles and Toland revolutionized cinematography, editing, and sound forever. For cinematography, Welles demanded that you should at least be able to tell which characters were associated with others and how without hearing a word of dialog.The same, he reasoned, should be true for evaluating the positions of power that people in the film encompessed. Cameras look up at powerfull characters, down at weak ones. Many a time, Toland and Welles were seen digging up the floor boards so the camera lens would be even with the floor. They also created something called deep-focus. Deep-focus is a system so devised that with the proper use of lenses, lights, and prop placement, everything in the scene would be in focus at the same time. This ahd just become possible with the invention of new lenses, and Welles and Toland used it to every possible extreme. They also brought in a plethora of optical illusions, the most famous coming at the end where the window in Xanadu increases in size faster than Kane as he walks towards it. Many matte drawings are used effectively, and for the first time ceilings could be seen. They were cloth, with the microphones above them. There are also wipes, furniture that moves out of the way of the camera, and the amazing shot of infitnate Kanes' in the mirrors. The help from Gregg Toland was so great, that Orson Welles had his name put on the director's title card with him during the closing credits. Finally, in the artistic realm, we see the entire idea. At the end of the film, just before Rosebud is seen burning, we hear one of the men say "I don't think any one word can describe a man's life." But can it? What was Rosebud to Kane? Was it a mere sled? No, of course not. It was the symbol of everything that Kane lost with his success. It was his parents, his childhood, his youth, and his innocence. But it is somehow not about Rosebud. It is about our lives. After we are gone, we live not as material evidence, (seen as Rosebud burns) but as fragments of the memories of those we knew. Kane is many things. He is the man who makes newspapers and the man who makes shaddow puppets. He is only one man to himself, yet many men to many others. He becomes great, weak and great. Kane is realized throught others, just as we all are. We stand throughout our lives and beyond not as what we think we are, but only as what others think we are. This is our essence, and the teaching of "Citizen Kane", the greatest movie ever made.
Rating:
Summary: don't listen to those whining idiots
Review: this is one of the five best films ever made.it's also one of (or the) most influential film(s) ever made.what's even more remarkable about this film is that orson welles was only 25 or 26 when he made this brilliant film.
Rating:
Summary: Revolutionary
Review: I first saw this movie several years back, when I was just in seventh grade. I am proud to say I saw then the greatness of it. Orson Welles was a genius and a revolutionary, as was his masterpiece. I recommend this to anyone with an above-average intelligence. Maybe that is what it takes to appreciate this film.
Rating:
Summary: A great film.
Review: Although I don't see how it could rank #1, this is definately a wonderful American classic. Orson Welles was one of the best actors/directors of his day, and this is proved in this first major motion picture. The story of Charles Foster Kane is an intruiging one which captures the audience and keeps it interesting enough thorugh out that only the impatient will get bored. This is a wonderful film and I do highly suggest it to any true film buff.
Rating:
Summary: Is too the greatest.
Review: When people make comments about how this movie may have been great when it was released, but isn't now, they are showing that they do not know what "great" means. Look it up. It does not mean really, really good. It means "remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness," according to Webster's. No, "Citizen Kane" is not my favorite film, that would be "The Godfather." But the effect that "Citizen Kane" has had on filmmakers in terms of camera, lighting and storytelling techniques is, indeed, "remarkable in magnitude." Not only that, but it is a film utterly lacking in sentimentality from a time when other films were loaded with it ("Gone with the Wind" e.g.). When deciding whether or not something is truly great, it's important to look at not how much we like it, but the impact it has had.
Rating: 
Summary: Rip-off of Cat and Canary
Review: I was intrigued when the viewer below compared Citizen Kane and the l929 terror slent, Cat and the Canary. I watched the latter last night and it's true. Orson Welles definitely used The Cat and the Canary as a blueprint for Citizen Kane. I was amazed to see in this beautiful black and white silent the surreal, stylized scenes of distorted figures, the shock cuts and edits. This isn't to detract from what Welles did. Like all artists, he studied the masters and transmuted their achievements through his particular creative lens. All film directors, artists, writers, etc. have done this since time began. But to come out and say that Welles movie "revolutionzed" the film world is hysterical. Recognize his work as being the great thing it is. And I,too, think no movie will ever compare with Gone With the wind. I watched it again last night. The amazing pull-backs, the extraordinary grouping of each scene is still stunning. Welles is okay, but Citizen Kane is not something I'd want to curl up with a cold night for enjoyment.I also watched "The Cheat", the l915 masterpiece by Cecil B. DeMille which another reviewer compared Kane with. Again, "The Cheat" was really a revolutionary movie, almost as much as Griffth's "Intolerance". The raw sexual energy between Fannie Ward and Sessue Hayakawa, the phenomenal lighting and photography in the year of l915, the revolutionary use of art deco before it was even recognized as such, the naturalistic performances of Ward and Hayakawa--now this is a movie that one could say revolutionized movies.
Rating:
Summary: Not the best, but undeniably incredable
Review: To people who go on long insulting tangents about how overrated this move is, understand that when people say it is the most important movie ever, they do not mean most entertaining. They mean that it literally changed movies forever, and that's no small feat.This is not the best movie ever made, true, but not only is it important, it is entertaining, with great acting right down to the bit parts, a screen play that never drags, and atmosphere enough for anybody.
|
