Rating: 
Summary: GARABAGE
Review: THIS IS NOT THE GREATEST FILM OF ALL TIME (THAT WOULD BE "STREETS OF FIRE") OR EVEN ORSON WELLE'S BEST FILM (THAT WOULD BE "TOUCH OF EVIL"). BUT THEN AGAIN, WHAT DO CRITICS KNOW ANYWAY? ANYONE WHO SAYS THEY LIKE THIS FILM IS A LIAR.
Rating: 
Summary: One of my faves
Review: A compelling story, fascinating characters, tip-top photography, haunting score -- I really dig this movie. A classic, but one that doesn't make you feel like you're sitting in church at a funeral.I wish it hadn't topped the AFI list...now all people want to do is attack it. Oh, well. It'll always be my "Citizen Kane." (And it may shock you, but I like "Star Wars," too.)
Rating: 
Summary: The Greatest?
Review: I just watched the l924 masterpiece, Greed. This is a far greater movie than Citizen Kane. There's no comparison between the power of Erich von Stroheim's phenomenal work of art, in which everything from performances to the technical, are still spell-binding. Kane is memorable for the way Orson Welles re-used technical tricks which had fallen out of fashion during the 30s and he suddenly brought them back in Kane. The reason Kane is automatically thrust to the top of the hysterically laughable "10 Best...100 Best...movies of the century" is that it's politically correct. Would-be film students were taught this by hack would-be film makers in college. Anyone today can gain instant panache by saying: "Oh, Kane is definitely numero uno of all time!" It'd be interesting to see how many people have actually seen this bloodless exercise in egomania. Citizen Kane are the two words which can make you look instantly "sharp...in...cool". It's a fascinating movie. But watch "Greed" to see what could one of the two greatest movies ever made. The other one is Gone With the Wind. Yep, it's got sentiment but sentiment would have helped Kane attract a much bigger audience through the decades.
Rating:
Summary: This film doesn't deserve the best American film!
Review: The Godfather should be the one, not this one. I don't appreciate anything much in this film. I agree with many people here who say it's overrated. It is overrated indeed!!!!!
Rating:
Summary: THE BEST, Period.
Review: Some people can't appreciate subtlety, complexity, emotional ambiguity: they prefer Gallo Hearty Burgundy to Chateau Latour. In fact, they can't tell the difference. Some of the reviews here are no different, translated into cinematic, or artistic, terms. The nanosecond attention spans and need for constant sensory overload which is the result of too much MTV is explanation enough why this film did not please such people: the film is deliberately paced and densely complex in visual, verbal, and situational terms. It is almost certainly the greatest film ever made. And for a myriad of reasons. Some have overemphasized the technical advances of the film, forgetting its narrative richness and stylistic wealth. The range of styles Welles displays is awesome. The opening is like a Universal Pictures horror movie-- eerie, brooding, doom-laden. We approach Kane from the outside-in: we are given fair warning that the journey won't be easy (we first see a barbed wire fence with a "No Traspassing" sign!)and as a series of dissolves moves us through the decaying grounds, to the castle at Xanadu, we get the feeling that we're peeling an onion, peeling away layers of disguise. When Kane's lips whisper "Rosebud" and the glass snow-globe suddenly falls and breaks, it is as expressionistic as Murnau. (This opening is a metaphor for the film as a whole: peeling away the layers of a man's life itself.) The film now is a sequence of approaches to Kane the man: each one a little closer, a little more intimate, often describing the same occurrence through the eyes of different witnesses. And each has a different style. The "News On the March" is the most exterior and superficial, and its style is the same: bright, over-exposed, bombastic, and empty. Then, through the words of Kane's business manager, estranged erstwhile best friend, second wife, and butler, we see deeper and deeper and yet-- in the end-- like peeling an onion, we find at the center: nothing. I don't see why some have said there is no emotional connection. I find the story immensely sad. The glass snow-globe, with the little snow-covered house, is a sentimental reminder of Kane's childhood in Colorado. That he keeps this worthless geegaw while surfeited with priceless statues and treasures, says something poignant. Later we hear his second wife, in a cutting whiny voice, complaining, "You never gave me anything that MEANT anything to you -- it's just money or jewels, it doesn't MEAN anything! You never GAVE me anything in your whole life..." And then, after she leaves him, he begins tearsing up her room, and we see, on her bedside table-- the snowglobe. In front of which he stops, hands trembling, lifts it and says-- "Rosebud". He really DID give her something, not intrinsically worth much, but precious to HIM. As he walks away, stunned, through the Baroque loneliness of his empty castle, his tragedy is complete. And as the tone returns to the dark brooding horror of the beginning, and we the camera pans over the unopened crates of treasures, past the flotsam and jetsam of a man's life, we see Rosebud thrown in the incinerator. And black smoke gushes into the air as we retreat as we came, back through the grounds, and past the fence with the "No Trespassing" notice. Chilling! How anyone can accuse the film of being emotionless I can't understand. In every aspect CITIZEN KANE has NEVER been surpassed, in spite of all the technical innovations since... it is a film that continues to reward the serious, careful viewer with new insights at each repeated viewing... no wonder that true cineasts, at least, have no hesitation in declaring it the best. They'll be watching Citizen Kane in the year 3000, if we don't blow ourselves up first. It won't appeal to the jejune, for obvious reasons. But it wasn't meant for them anyway.
Rating:
Summary: It still belongs among the best films of all time
Review: Many alive today are too young to remember what Hollywood and the film industry were like immediately after the advent of sound films. This film wasn't a big-budget one, but it helped launch the careers of many find actors and actresses like Orson Welles, Joseph Cotten, Agnes Moorehead, etc. This film caused quite a stir in Hollywood at the time of its theatrical release. However, its appeal probably won't withstand the passage of time with each generation; the mixed reviews presented here attest to that.
Rating:
Summary: The REAL "Citizen Kane"...
Review: As I have already reviewed "Kane" here at Amazon, (twice! See below) this addition is merely an attempt to clarify the issue here. All I can say, TL, is perhaps more viewers could concentrate on the "emotional" story of "Citizen Kane" if it carried some emotional resonance. It doesn't. The technical wizardry comprises the only resonance this film has, and that is why most of the "snobs," and even some of the "MTV-ites," ape over it. I am reminded of the words of critic Egon Larsen, "It is a fascinating picture, but because of its congestion of technical stunts, it fails to move us."
Rating:
Summary: The ultimate classic
Review: Until I saw Citizen Kane I didn't understand what all the fuss was about - a movie about a search for the meaning of a man's last words the greatest movie of all time? Luckily, I did see Citizen Kane in school, and boy was I surprised. It truly is a cinematic masterpiece. The story is a sad yet realistic and moving tale of a man unable to fill the void of his empty life, torn apart by the money he never wanted. Now I finally understand what the fuss was about, and hopefully you will too.
Rating:
Summary: Ok...everyone relax!!!!
Review: I had no intention of writng a review, but after reading several I couldn't stop myself. It seems like most of the people here are falling into two camps, the "Film Snobs" and the " Folks whose brains have been rotted by MTV, etc..." The comments of the"MTV people" seem to be typified by this quote I picked from out of many bad reviews: "Maybe you intellectual, artsy types go for this, but give me Star Wars any day!" Where the "Snobs" counter back with: "I cannot think of another film which so challenges the viewer time and time again. I still pick up little nuances, incredible effects and camara angles, and overlapping dialog on subsesquent showings. Gregg Toland's camerawork is justifiably among the most memorable in film." Oh boy! I, of course believe Citizen Kane is a great film, but I believe both sides in this argument are missing the point. I really wish those who defended this movie spoke about it in human terms, rather then talk about the camera work, or Welles' age or it's "impact" on film history. It is great because (if you let it)it will tell you a deeply emotional story. It is no accident that the very first and very last image of the film are the same. A locked gate with a sign that says,"No Trespassing." For in this movie, Kane is a guy with a virtual "no trespassing" sign around his neck. He is a man who wants so deeply to control those around him, to FORCE them to love him, that he allows nobody close. He essentially locks out all hope of love! Give it a chance...don't expect Star Wars. Pay no attention to the camera work and special effects, they are beside the point. Welles is talking about the very saddest, deepest, loneliest part of us all...you might find something to relate to....if you are patient.
Rating:
Summary: Innovation Has Become Commonplace
Review: It is easy to see why cinema historians consider 'Citizen Kane' a landmark film; unfortunately, like the equally famous 'Birth of a Nation,' the technical innovations which made the film seem so stunning in the 1940s have now become rather commonplace, and it will be difficult for most casual viewers to understand what all the fuss is about. Film buffs, cinema students, and movie historians will find much to interest them here... but the casual viewer will find 'Citizen Kane' of only mild interest.
|
