Rating: 
Summary: NO WONDER WHY IT`S NAMED THE BEST EVER
Review: Last night I found myself in a moviehouse seeing CITIZEN KANE for the very first time. I have 2 admit it:IT IS A DARN GOOD MOVIE The editing/montage in the beginning is 2 my knowledle not surpassed. Orson Welles comes through as a magnetic presence. Yet, the biggest revelation is not the high technical standard, but that the film has characters of REAL flesh and blood. KANE is indeed a REGULAR CITIZEN. Seeing KANE to me was like meeting myself in the door; a person full of flaws - yes a normal human being. The other actors are good 2 and it is a real joy 2 see AAAAAALLL the twists the story contains. I brought with me an 18-year-old and we saw it as a test... We were both spellbound. It MUST be regarded as a handbook for young directors, writers, photographers... THIS IS T H E key film for anyone who wants 2 be a part of the medium.
Rating:
Summary: The Ultimate Film!
Review: There are simnply no words left in any lexicon to describe the greatest of all films. Its all things to all viewers, some things to many viewers and a meloncholy lament to real Wells, fans. How does one start at the top and work your way down in Hollywood? The answer is in veiwing the aforementioned video on the making of " Citizen Kane" Imagine, its 1942, you have just left the movie house after viewing "Citizen Kane" , a film the likes of which you have never seen before..and will never see again. Accordingly, lets just think about some of the dialogue in this greatest of greats to try to understand the sheer dimension of this film! William Alland: " no,,,I dont think one word can describe a mans life" Joe Cotten: " Charlie Kane...huh..no he just wanted to convince everyone that they should love him" Wells,: " I will ,arrange for the arrest...indictment and conviction of boss Jim Gettys" (?) Wells: " Mr. Bernstein...you dont think we,ll keep any of those promises ..do you"? Sloan: " What do you want to know..I got all the time in the world" Comingmore" Charlie..your little boy...you dont want him to read about you in the papers"! Comingmore:( to Kane) " whatever you want just name it and its yours.....but you gotta love me" ! Profound dialogue ( Mankiewicz) mix in Hermmans mastery and Gregg Tolland,s vision..and you have it!
Rating: 
Summary: Not No.1 !
Review: I don't understand why this movie was voted to be No. 1 of all times! It's not special in any way - plot, actors, photography. Just an old movie!
Rating:
Summary: A vanguard motion picture
Review: Probably the most unfortunate thing that ever happened to 'Citizen Kane' was that it found itself atop the AFI top film list. Now, no one can simply enjoy the film. Everyone feels compelled to scrutinize it and make a decision about its greatness. Asking whether 'Citizen Kane' is the best film of the century is like asking if Marilyn Monroe was the most beautiful woman. It depends on whom you ask. 'Citizen Kane' is not the most entertaining film I've ever seen, but it is certainly one of the most important. It is a vanguard motion picture and a gargantuan achievement for Orson Welles. If you consider the fact that Welles was a 24 year old Hollywood outsider who had only done radio and theater when he landed the contract for this film, you begin to appreciate what a big deal it was. This was during a time when a few studios controlled every film that was made. How many 24 year old actor/directors can you name today, even in a world where independents abound? The story is based on the life of William Randolph Hearst. Writer Herman Mankiewicz had an up-close look at Hearst as he had been an occasional house guest at the Hearst mansion. The similarities were striking, right down to the paramour whose career Hearst promoted, who loved to do jigsaw puzzles. The fact that this film was released at all is a marvel in itself. Hearst went on a personal campaign to crush the film and enlisted every powerful friend he had to stop it. Louis B. Mayer offered RKO $800,000 to destroy the print. John D. Rockefeller ordered the Radio City premier cancelled. All of Hearst's newspapers were forbidden to mention the film. Hollywood was uniformly against it and Welles was branded an insolent maverick. The film was snubbed by the Academy. It was nominated for 9 Oscars and won only best screenplay. The film turned out to be a commercial failure, losing $150,000. With all the forces stacked against it, we are lucky to be having this best film debate at all. The story has a simple moral; that money and power can't buy happiness. We see Kane's progress from a happy child, to an idealistic young journalist intent on helping the common man, and finally to a bitter and angry old man whose innocence has slipped from him. One of the most effective scenes that illustrated this was the two minute overlay of breakfast conversations with his wife. It starts with cooing lovers and progresses through increasing levels of discord. It ends in silence with the two reading separate newspapers, her disdain for him subtly indicated by her choice of the hated Chronicle as her newspaper. What is so remarkable about this film is the filmmaking. Director after director has pointed to some aspect of this film as having influenced them. The use of shadows and various perspective shots was not unprecedented in 1941, but never before had they been used with so much dramatic impact. What was unprecedented was that 'Citizen Kane' was the first film ever to depart from the strict narrative format, which moves forward chronologically. The film starts at the end and jumps around in time based upon the perspective of the person who is telling his or her story about Kane. So the next time you see a flashback, remember it started here. The makeup was revolutionary. Welles often went through four hours or more of makeup to be properly aged for each scene. The film also launched a number of brilliant careers. Besides Welles, Joseph Cotton and Agnes Moorehead went on to long and prominent film careers. If 'Citizen Kane' is not the best film of the century it is certainly one of them. Its influence on a generation of filmmakers cannot be ignored in the equation. People who watch this film and ask, "What's the big deal?" are comparing it with modern films that have borrowed from this film's techniques and undergone 60 years of evolution. It's like going back to Kitty Hawk and saying, "What's the big deal, the flight only lasted a few seconds." There is only one rating to give to a film of such monumental importance. It is the consummate 10.
Rating: 
Summary: The most overrated movie of all time
Review: Frankly, those who rate this movie as one of the greatest of all time must have no appreciation of that facet of moviemaking known as "plot". What little plot is in this movie is laughable, and ridiculously forced. I don't remember seeing a movie with as obvious, surface-deep, and tenuous a connection between the ostensible story and the real story. Why would anyone care so much about what "Rosebud" means? Answer: They wouldn't. It's a thinly-veiled, contrived, plot device. For example, the interviewer listens to one person tell a story about Kane that has absolutely nothing to do with Rosebud. He sits uninterrupting, until the story is finished. Finally, he stands up, announces, "You're no help! You know nothing of Rosebud!", and marches off like a jerk. In another scene, however, the interviewee tells the interviewer up front that he knows nothing about Rosebud. "That's OK, just tell me what you know about Kane". Come on. Those two things taken together are so utterly ridiculous and transparent. A lot of people who argue that this is a great movie imply that those who disagree are too shallow to see into its intricate depths. Feh. Its "depths" are blatantly obvious - and its attempts at hiding them are laughable. The other argument that they use is that of masterful cinematography, lighting, et cetera. I won't debate any of that, but even if Kane is the greatest movie of all time in those respects, the main purpose of a movie is to tell a story; Kane fails miserably in that.
Rating:
Summary: Sorry, but...
Review: Anyone who gives this movie less than 4 stars is simply stupid. Sorry. If one knows what was going on behind the cameras(by reading "The Road to Xanadu" or watching RKO 281 or whatever), then it's even more enjoyable than if one goes in blind. To those who are giving this movie 1 star reviews, and to those annoyed by the 1 star reviews: The groundling mentality has always been around, but fortunately it used to involve some shame. Don't review things you are too uncouth to appreciate. A warning: If you think movies need a plethora of one-liners, nudity, or violence, do not watch this movie because you will hate it.
Rating:
Summary: Nice nice nice
Review: Read the review by "OK everyone relax" from TL from USA. I think this person sums up what is important about this film. Indeed the photography is amazing, the fact this was made when Welles was 26 makes me feel like a slacker, etc. But it is really the 'man sells his soul to gain the world' story that took a cheese grater to my heart when I first watched the movie. And while I'm at it, I'll just state what someone else has said, that Welles did not go downhill after this. Funding for his movies did but his magic is still there.
Rating:
Summary: Enormously entertaining
Review: Welles' audacious technique intimidated many filmgoers in 1941 and apparently (judging from some of the negative reviews on this web site!) still does today. But putting all the praise of the technique aside, the fact remains that "Citizen Kane" is one of the most entertaining movies ever made.
Rating: 
Summary: If you learn the story behind this movie, you may like it.
Review: I saw this old classic produced by the extremely young Orson Welles (who was also famous for causing a big Mars-invasion scare back in 1938) in my film class years ago. Though I sluggishly waded through this seemingly meaningless film, I was nevertheless quite impressed by the incredibly elegant mansion that Mr. Kane once lived in. And then later on, I read the script all about this movie. Thus I truly understood its contents as well as the protrayal of the real-life William Rudolph Hearst behind it. In addition, this old film was supposed to be a revolutionary of its time, when very simple props were efficiently used to create utterly believable settings as well as to tell a believable story about a certain gentleman of the early 20th century. This story all begun with an innocent little boy playing on his sled in the snow during the 1870s or so as his stern-looking mother patiently looked on. Then he grew up to become a newspaper emperor and married a wife at the turn of the century, yet suffered from a very loveless marriage. So he then courted a very pretty young girl who wanted to be an opera singer, yet she simply did not prossess such talent or skills. But Mr. Kane used his great influence and wealth to promote the naive little girl into a very gaudy role complete with a real operahouse and all. Unfortunately, the whole audience suffered from her terrible voice, yet could not say anything about it lest they rouse the great Kane's wrath. In addition, Mr. Kane built a very fancy palace for his young mistress, who eventually could not stand his suffocating arrogance. So in the very end, she simply packed up and walked right out, thus the very furious old man really ripped up her room, destroying everything in sight,...but the little old snowglobe that suddenly sent a nostalgic shard right through his heart: a miniature setting of his childhood home. So - he cried out the famous word, "Rosebud" before finally passing away. A very sad picture of a proud but unhappy man. Though there are indeed many viewers who may not get this old movie at all, yet it did inspire a great deal on the future generations yet to come as well as the famous painting, "Scream" does. For instance, Matt Groening, the creator of "The Simpsons" makes a great many references to "Citizen Kane" especially with Mr. Burns, the overaged, superrich old boss at Homer Simpson's work. Now this is a good example of why this old flick straight out of the WWII period continues to be one of the most acclaimed movies of the 20th century.
Rating:
Summary: Forget about camera angles... It's just boring !
Review: THis is one of the worst movies I've ever watched. It doesn't matter if it has new camera angles, new techniques. The plot is plain horrible, the narrative is boring, lazy and slow. I can't figure out why the so-called critics say this is "the best movie of all times" ! They must be joking! The dialogues are terrible, acting is poor, image is old.I prefer Chaplin !
| 
