Why do people love Citizen Kane?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I just can't grasp it.
I saw the film minutes ago, and it wasn't that good. The plot-twist I guessed about 30 minutes befor it was revealed. The cinematography was good, but I saw flaws in it non the less. The acting was meh, not good nor bad.

So how can this be called " the best movie ever made"? I can say without any doubt that Eyes wide shut,A clockwork orange or even Fight Club is better by far!

So can anyone explain the love? (But then agian, maybe I shouldn't complain about love since it's always good ;P)

Soemthing about it being ground breaking. I dont know. I've seen it, didnt think it was special, but then again, I'm not one of those people that likes Atlus Shrugged type movies.

Then again, I didnt think eyes wide shut, a clock work orange, or fight club where all that special either.

Pontus Hashis:
maybe I shouldn't complain about love since it's always good

False. Playing Alice: Madness Returns taught me this lesson very swiftly.

You guessed the plot twist? That doesn't really make any sense.

As regards your other suggestions for best movie, they seem flawed. I can't testify to Fight Club, having not seen it, but Eyes Wide Shut and A Clockwork Orange are regarded as Kubrick's worst works...

Long story short, is this an attempt at trolling? I found the movie fresh and original even though I watched it 60-odd years after it was filmed...

Edit: apparently A Clockwork Orange is considered on a par with the rest of Kubrick's good works. Who knew?

People love it because it pulls the audience in with its fascinating central character. The character of Kane is tantalyzingly close, yet we are never actually able to understand him, and there is something beautiful in that.

Also, the cinematography still stands out as excellent today, although it was a much bigger deal when it came out, when it truly was groundbreaking. I'm not one of the people who thinks that something being innovative when it was made is any reason to pretend to enjoy it now, but Citizen Kane really does still hold up.

Pontus Hashis:
I can say without any doubt that Eyes wide shut,A clockwork orange or even Fight Club is better by far!

Eyes Wide Shut('99): 77% - Ugh. Based on a novella.
Clockwork Orange('71): 91% - Major diversion from the book. (Two Kubrick films?)
Fight Club('99): 81% - Interesting twist but has been used often. Also diversion from the original book.

All three of your films are adaptations that didn't follow the plot of the original.

Citizen Kane('41): 100%. No-one, repeat NO-ONE, of the film critic studios gave it less than a stellar review. (Bergman famously called it boring, but his view on things is..interesting)

Kane works on many, many levels - with the music, storytelling, acting, choreography all working to produce a film that has more in common with opera than simple storytelling.

You can call it boring (Kubrick's 2001 often gets that, as does Dune), but it doesn't rely on sexual "deviance" to divert from the main plot (All three of your choices).

You may not agree it is brilliant, but it's built from layers that even Kubrick didn't quite manage. Also it has that timeless quality (like other greats) that allow Charles Foster Kane to appear as Randolf Hearst in the 40's, or Rupert Murdoch in the 10's.

The_root_of_all_evil:

Pontus Hashis:
I can say without any doubt that Eyes wide shut,A clockwork orange or even Fight Club is better by far!

Eyes Wide Shut('99): 77% - Ugh. Based on a novella.
Clockwork Orange('71): 91% - Major diversion from the book. (Two Kubrick films?)
Fight Club('99): 81% - Interesting twist but has been used often. Also diversion from the original book.

All three of your films are adaptations that didn't follow the plot of the original.

Is there an inherent problem in films not following the plots of their source materials?

Lateinos:

The_root_of_all_evil:

Pontus Hashis:
I can say without any doubt that Eyes wide shut,A clockwork orange or even Fight Club is better by far!

Eyes Wide Shut('99): 77% - Ugh. Based on a novella.
Clockwork Orange('71): 91% - Major diversion from the book. (Two Kubrick films?)
Fight Club('99): 81% - Interesting twist but has been used often. Also diversion from the original book.

All three of your films are adaptations that didn't follow the plot of the original.

Is there an inherent problem in films not following the plots of their source materials?

An inherent problem, yes. It may work as a short term fix, but earlier/later points will have to be re-written to compensate, and that will cause plot-holes to appear. (CK also has a huge plot hole) From the three films mentioned, the audience is diverted away from the main point of the novel by the secondary point which is purely for the audience's titillation.

That's a problem, but doesn't have to be a film wrecker (as I guess you're implication was). It does make the adaptation weaker though, as it's trying to tell more than one stories at once.

You we're born in the wrong time frame. Citizen Kane was and in legacy is a great movie in many ways, but to today's audience it's just some old movie.

It's akin to growing up with a PS2 and wondering why everyone gives DOOM so much credit, its graphics are shit, the music is bland and its not scary in the least, but when it came out it was groundbreaking, scary and controversially gory.

Croix Sinistre:
It's akin to growing up with a PS2 and wondering why everyone gives DOOM so much credit, its graphics are shit, the music is bland and its not scary in the least, but when it came out it was groundbreaking, scary and controversially gory.

Really? I think Doom is a bad example; it's still fun to play today (and that's without nostalgia goggles). The same can't really be said of Wolfenstein 3D however.

Lukeje:
You guessed the plot twist? That doesn't really make any sense.

As regards your other suggestions for best movie, they seem flawed. I can't testify to Fight Club, having not seen it, but Eyes Wide Shut and a Clockwork Orange are regarded as Kubrick's worst works...

Long story short, is this an attempt at trolling? I found the movie fresh and original even though I watched it 60-odd years after it was filmed...

Attempt at trolling? Lol so much for personal preference?

Lateinos:

Also, the cinematography still stands out as excellent today, although it was a much bigger deal when it came out, when it truly was groundbreaking. I'm not one of the people who thinks that something being innovative when it was made is any reason to pretend to enjoy it now, but Citizen Kane really does still hold up.

Citizen Kane was no big deal when it came out. It was a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE blunder. It was barely covered by the press "which was because that Kane was somewhat based on Randolph something, he owned like EVERY newspaper, and forced em all not to write aboot it. So it didnt make alot of money. Was something like in teh 60'ies where a frenchfrog discovered it and said like "best movay evvah"

Croix Sinistre:
You we're born in the wrong time frame. Citizen Kane was and in legacy is a great movie in many ways, but to today's audience it's just some old movie.

It's akin to growing up with a PS2 and wondering why everyone gives DOOM so much credit, its graphics are shit, the music is bland and its not scary in the least, but when it came out it was groundbreaking, scary and controversially gory.

I didn't much like Citizen Kane either, but I can see your point. Although, I find that I can appreciate some old movies; I liked Double Indemnity and The Third Man, but to me CK was just an overlong film about a character I didn't like very much. It's not even that I didn't understand it, because I understood the significance of how the twist is meant to represent his life before money corrupted him, but I just didn't find it enjoyable enough to warrant a second watch, let alone for it to be the 'best movie of all time'. It's kind of like The Great Gatsby, in a way... I understand it and I enjoy talking about the symbolism of it, but I just can't stand reading it.

Most of the cinematography seen in Citizen Kane was the first time it was ever used. It completely changed the way films were made.

Dr Jones:

Lukeje:
You guessed the plot twist? That doesn't really make any sense.

As regards your other suggestions for best movie, they seem flawed. I can't testify to Fight Club, having not seen it, but Eyes Wide Shut and a Clockwork Orange are regarded as Kubrick's worst works...

Long story short, is this an attempt at trolling? I found the movie fresh and original even though I watched it 60-odd years after it was filmed...

Attempt at trolling? Lol so much for personal preference?

You didn't answer any of my points. Thus I feel justified in my assertion.

Edit: Mistook you for the OP'er. Sorry. Thus, until he answers my points I shall feel justified in my assertion. Unless you care to defend him with something other than thinly veiled ad hominem attacks?

I had to watch it about 30 times at university and I too never saw the brilliance. Also being made to watch it so much made me hate it more,

I think it's mainly because back in the day, it was groundbreaking, maybe it doesn't excite you as much because nowadays a movie like Citizen Kane wouldn't be as great as it was back then.

As I see it, we're from a different generation so we can't really judge since we don't really know how it was back then.

I myself didn't like it as much as the reviews but I liked the premise and the "twist" in the end.

I watched it for the first time recently and was actually surprised at how 'modern' the cinematography was, compared to similar films of that era which I struggle to get through.

I gather that it was a big leap forward at the time in terms of special effects and style, and was the actor/writer/director's first production. I would guess that the Orson Welles cult of personality is a big part to the film's enduring success, in addition to being a pretty damn well-made film.

To be honest I actually think it's kind of 'cool' at the moment to dismiss Citizen Kane as a film, simply as a reaction to the high regard it's held in by many critics. Which is why I was a little taken aback to find myself enjoying it when I watched it, as I was expecting a blandly average film.

Best film ever? Maybe, maybe not, I'm perhaps not informed enough to judge. But it is certainly a very very good one by both modern standards, and those of the time, and anyone who denies this (including Ingmar Bergman) is talking out of their arse, really.

Ursus Buckler:

Croix Sinistre:
You we're born in the wrong time frame. Citizen Kane was and in legacy is a great movie in many ways, but to today's audience it's just some old movie.

It's akin to growing up with a PS2 and wondering why everyone gives DOOM so much credit, its graphics are shit, the music is bland and its not scary in the least, but when it came out it was groundbreaking, scary and controversially gory.

I didn't much like Citizen Kane either, but I can see your point. Although, I find that I can appreciate some old movies; I liked Double Indemnity and The Third Man, but to me CK was just an overlong film about a character I didn't like very much. It's not even that I didn't understand it, because I understood the significance of how the twist is meant to represent his life before money corrupted him, but I just didn't find it enjoyable enough to warrant a second watch, let alone for it to be the 'best movie of all time'. It's kind of like The Great Gatsby, in a way... I understand it and I enjoy talking about the symbolism of it, but I just can't stand reading it.

Then I guess your Citizen Kane is my Half Life 2, I can see where it's significant, I 'get it', but I still don't like it and don't see why it has the massive following it does.

It's cause most people who tout it as the best haven't seen it themselves: They've just heard other people who've never seen it claiming it's the best ever, and figure "Who am I to argue".

opinions, opinions. i don't love Citizen Kane, but I do like it. some people don't. There's not much to discuss here.

RastaBadger:
Most of the cinematography seen in Citizen Kane was the first time it was ever used. It completely changed the way films were made.

Yeah pretty much this. Consider the death bed scene, look at what the camera does, how everything sits in the frame perfectly. No-one had shot a film like that before. There is a tracking shot from outside a building on a rainy night that tracks into and then through a solid window. Film makers were blown away by that one sequence. The camera moves through the window. There is a tricky edit hidden in a flash of lightning that combines two shots into a seemingly unedited take.

You may not like the story, (I do, I love the story) but the film making stands up today. Oh and there are no plot twists in Citizen Kane, unless you weren't paying attention, everything is laid out in the open.

I've seen Citizen Kane. I watched it mostly so I could say I've seen it. I got it, I understand, but I don't like it. I'm not one who absolutely needs a lot of action, and really, I love character-central stories, but I found Kane to be a bit dull and uninteresting.

I really couldn't understand why everyone raves about it. It may have done a lot of new stuff, but I still think it's overrated.

Edit: I will say that I understand it was influential. I'm not denying that. However, there is a difference between "most influential movie of all time" and "best movie of all time."

Deshara:
It's cause most people who tout it as the best haven't seen it themselves: They've just heard other people who've never seen it claiming it's the best ever, and figure "Who am I to argue".

Or maybe they want to look edgy by naming a movie no one else has watched, so they can say, "What? You have never seen Citizen Kane?" *fake gasp that makes you want to punch them, hard* "Well, you arent even in a position to talk about movies then!"

OT: Its the kind of movie that didnt age well. Eh, I guess thats not entirely true. So let me rephrase that. Im guessing you saw the plot twist coming because youve seen similar ones in about 10 movies previously? Well, thats because those movies owe the whole idea to Citizen Kane. The movie earned its respect.

Its like pancakes (stay with me). If you had never eaten or heard of pancakes, and then you ate some, your mind would be fucking blown. From that day on, you can eat only pancakes (for some fucking reason I dunno im trying to make this work). But the mind fucking factor drops each time you eat them, until you can muster only a faint "Oh, pancakes again?" each time you sit down for dinner. Then, 20 years into your everyday pancake diet, you meet the woman (or man, lets not be sexist eh) who invented pancakes. I imagine it would be very hard to muster any enthusiasm.

It is a good movie, but I don't think it's as much of a huge-ass deal as everyone makes it out to be. The symbolism was pretty heavy-handed in a few places, and it's not like the basic "decent guy becomes evil" storyline hasn't been done before.

Orson Welles was a pretty awesome guy, and yeah it was pretty groundbreaking at the time. But I think people calling it the best movie ever made, and especially the people who say it's timeless, are just stuck in the past. Particularly when they use it to complain about how wonderful everything was in the past and how terrible it all is now.

Semi-off-topic rant, but I hate it when people think that the first game/movie/book/whatever to do something should be the only one to do it. If someone else comes along and does the same thing, just as well or even better, people hate on them and say they're just stealing from the original work. Originality shouldn't be the only thing we look for. Quality is more important.

(I mostly went off on this tangent because I knew a guy who liked bringing up how much he hated Avatar and loved Citizen Kane every goddamn conversation, and his only arguments were "stuff in Avatar was done before, and stuff in Citizen Kane was never done before." If that's your sole basis for deciding whether something is good or bad, then ur dum. Just about everything has been done before.)

Because the entire film is so well done in nearly all aspects. Sure, the acting and directing are dated themes and tricks, but that movie was a huge precedent in film making, especially American Hollywood film making.

Like I said it's dated at this point, but the good stuff doesn't become crappy over time. No one expects you to LOVE it, I don't, it's not one of my favs, but I can't argue against it.

I would say Vertigo is a better movie as far as directing goes, Shutter Island is better as far as acting goes, and Mullholland Dr. has better symbolism...those are my opinions.

I'm glad you actually sat down and watched it to find out for yourself if it connects with you or not. But the reason why the AFI and SAG love it is because there's nothing wrong with it from Hollywood's perspective.

Lukeje:
Clockwork Orange are regarded as Kubrick's worst works..

What the fuck are you talking about? Clockwork Orange? Considered one of his worst works?

What is this I dont even... How... I... Just... Let me quote a great movie because I cant find my own words for this. What in gods name are you blabbering about? Thats not just wrong, its so false it mindfucked me to the point where... What critics, or whatever, are you thinking of, when you state that CLOCKWORK ORANGE is considered one of his worst movies?

It may be a little overrated but it's still a very good movie.
So is Fight Club.
A Clockwork Orange is also very good but loses out by omitting the 21st chapter which drastically alters the end of the story.
Eyes Wide Shut? Meh. Kubrick's worst by a long way.

EmperorSubcutaneous:

(I mostly went off on this tangent because I knew a guy who liked bringing up how much he hated Avatar and loved Citizen Kane every goddamn conversation, and his only arguments were "stuff in Avatar was done before, and stuff in Citizen Kane was never done before." If that's your sole basis for deciding whether something is good or bad, then ur dum. Just about everything has been done before.)

Totally hear ya on that one, except (arguing against your friend) the stuff in CK was done before, just not as well or in front of such a wide audience. But the Avatar thing is annoying to me. I still highly dislike that movie, but you're right you gotta take things for what they are, not what they were inspired (or highjacked) from.

Ursus Buckler:

Croix Sinistre:
You we're born in the wrong time frame. Citizen Kane was and in legacy is a great movie in many ways, but to today's audience it's just some old movie.

It's akin to growing up with a PS2 and wondering why everyone gives DOOM so much credit, its graphics are shit, the music is bland and its not scary in the least, but when it came out it was groundbreaking, scary and controversially gory.

I didn't much like Citizen Kane either, but I can see your point. Although, I find that I can appreciate some old movies; I liked Double Indemnity and The Third Man, but to me CK was just an overlong film about a character I didn't like very much. It's not even that I didn't understand it, because I understood the significance of how the twist is meant to represent his life before money corrupted him, but I just didn't find it enjoyable enough to warrant a second watch, let alone for it to be the 'best movie of all time'. It's kind of like The Great Gatsby, in a way... I understand it and I enjoy talking about the symbolism of it, but I just can't stand reading it.

The movie is not about the twist. Stop thinking about the twist or Rosebud. It's just a tool to get things moving. Rosebud is not central to the life of Kane, it was just a part of it. Like the reporter at the end says "A piece of the puzzle".

See Kane's life as a whole, and not just the twist. The interesting part is how at the end of the movie, the viewer, the reporter, the people who were part of Kane's life and Charles Foster Kane himself, find out how little they actually knew about the him. Everyone has their own sort of view of who the man was. Every individual flashback, shines Kane in a different light, some view him as an egotistical man, a ladies man, a cynical, an idealist, a rotten bastard, a sell out a lost soul, etc.

The point of Citizen Kane is, you don't get to know who an individual is based on one act or a moment in his life, but the sum of all his acts and moments define and shape the individual. That's why Rosebud in the end is pointless. The reporter was looking for it's meaning cause he believed that was the key to unlock Charles Foster Kane, but in truth it wasn't. It was just another part of Kane's life. Rosebud didn't shape Kane. It was just his sled, a memory of a long lost life.

There are a lot of other things that make Citizen Kane good, and the greatest movie of all time. It was a movie that changed everything about cinema, since the camera work, the editing, narrative and story. It's not exactly an easy movie to fully understand, I recommend watching the movie with the commentary by Roger Ebert, it gives a whole different perspective on the movie. It also shows that there was a lot of silly stuff in it, like Pterodactyls flying in the background of one scene.(Really)

Edit: Orson Welles did better movies by the way. Touch of Evil, F for Fake and The Trial for instance. Though Citizen Kane was a groundbreaking movie and changed everything. The most recent example of a movie that changes the laws of cinema is There Will Be Blood by PT Anderson.(Which funny enough, is considered the Citizen Kane of the new generation)

Lukeje:
Eyes Wide Shut and a Clockwork Orange are regarded as Kubrick's worst works...

A Clockwork Orange regarded as one of Kubricks worst works? First time I have heard that one. It is usually considered one of his best, alongside 2001 and Dr. Strangelove. Usually, his worst works are considered to be Full Metal Jacket (the second half), Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut, from what I have gathered.
As for Eyes Wide Shut, it is funny that his "weakest" film was seen by him as his greatest achievement.

Also, read up on what Citizen Kane pioneered. You will be surprised. Citizen Kane made exposition scenes interesting, FFS.

slackboy72:
A Clockwork Orange is also very good but loses out by omitting the 21st chapter which drastically alters the end of the story.

That doesnt make it a flaw. Going by that logic, The Shining sucks.
I like that there are two endings of A Clockwork Orange (the book and the film). It offers two viewpoints on the subject.

Lukeje:

Croix Sinistre:
It's akin to growing up with a PS2 and wondering why everyone gives DOOM so much credit, its graphics are shit, the music is bland and its not scary in the least, but when it came out it was groundbreaking, scary and controversially gory.

Really? I think Doom is a bad example; it's still fun to play today (and that's without nostalgia goggles). The same can't really be said of Wolfenstein 3D however.

I recently picked up Duke 3d from GOG and the controls are fucking awful. I get that it came out ages ago and stuff but, if you use the mouse, you have to use the D buttons. If you use the D-buttons to aim then it is hard as hell to look up, and changing weapons is like pulling teeth...

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Lukeje:
Clockwork Orange are regarded as Kubrick's worst works..

What the fuck are you talking about? Clockwork Orange? Considered one of his worst works?

What is this I dont even... How... I... Just... Let me quote a great movie because I cant find my own words for this. What in gods name are you blabbering about? Thats not just wrong, its so false it mindfucked me to the point where... What critics, or whatever, are you thinking of, when you state that CLOCKWORK ORANGE is considered one of his worst movies?

That was unnecessarily bileful.

Here's an example:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19720211/REVIEWS/202110301/1023

There's also the fact that with Kubrick such things are relative; a quick check on e.g. rottentomatoes.com shows that it has only 91 % as compared to most of Kubrick's works (which have > 96 %). This of course excludes EWS and Barry Lyndon in the `most'.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked