Citizen Kane (1941) User Reviews (1,687)

Is a childhood worth sacrificing for wealth

[The-Sarkologist · 9/10 · 12 November 2011]

I think the quote that my friend made about this movie sums it up pretty much: it is a modern day work of literature. I agree with him precisely on that point. I do not give it a 10 because at places it is slow and dull, but one does not appreciate the brilliance that is this movie until after one has sat down and thought about it. Citizen Kane is not a movie is simply watch, it is one to think about and mull over the ideas that come through it. Another friend stated that it was the most boring piece of crap that he has ever seen, and though that might be his opinion, I feel that he missed the entire point of this movie.

Citizen Kane is about a man named Charles Foster Kane who is a US newspaper magnate. I will not delve into the plot because that is not the purpose of the movie. Rather it is a character study on Kane and it is also a tragedy for we see how Kane's life not only slowly disintegrates to its inevitable conclusion, but also we see how his life ended up as it is.

There has been a lot of discussion over the precise meaning of Rosebud, the word that he mutters on his deathbed. At the end of the movie we discover that Rosebud is the name of his sleigh, and we see this as it is thrown into the fire. A journalist spends the entire movie trying to find out the meaning of Rosebud, but he fails to do so, walking out of Kane's manor, Xanadu, behind a huge amount of possessions packed away in boxes. We learn that the answer to the Rosebud question is an insignificant item amongst all of these meaningless possessions.

What does Rosebud mean? It may be the name of the sleigh, but what does it really mean. I guess to answer that question we must look at what Kane had, and what he did not have. At the beginning of the movie we are told all about Kane, or what the media knew of it, but as we follow the journalist we slowly come to learn more about the more intimate and personal period's of Kane's life. We are allowed into Kane's personal space and into his mind to try and understand how he thinks, and by doing that we are given clues as to why he mentioned Rosebud.

Charles Foster Kane was incredibly rich, having almost everything that he could want. Xanadu, his palace in which he died, was a tribute to his wealth. The palace was not finished, but that only says something minor about his character which I will not address. What I wish to draw out of that is that Xanadu represents his wealth and his ability to claim whatever possession that he wants. I use the word possession because there are three things in the movie that his money cannot buy: the presidency, love, and his childhood. The presidency is a minor thing, and love becomes more important after his first divorce. It is important because he uses his money to make his second wife famous, but one thing that this does not do is make her truly love him. He dies in bed a lonely man.

I believe that the major thing that Charles Foster Kane could not buy was his childhood, and we see evidence of this throughout the film, and tied together at the end where we see his sleigh, Rosebud, burning in the fire. His actions and his attitudes all show signs of a little boy trapped in the body of a man, trapped since the days he was sent off to boarding school.

The first instance is when Kane's mother decides to send Charles Foster Kane away. His father is against this, but his mother is adamant that Kane has a good education. When Kane learns of this his first reaction is to lash out at Thatcher, his trustee, with his sleigh. For the rest of his life he hated Thatcher with a passion. He refused to listen to him, and made his job incredibly difficult. Even though he was sent to the best schools, he reacted violently against them and was never able to last long. In the end he purchases a Newspaper because it seems like a good idea.

He hated Thatcher because Thatcher was the man that stole Kane's childhood. When Kane came of age he was able to dissolve the trust, and as such remove Thatcher from his life. He reaction to the schools is his hatred of having his childhood stolen from him, and the newspaper was him trying to reclaim the childhood that he had lost. In the end he is too old to live out a childhood, but tries to anyway.

The final thing that I wish to discuss is the reaction by Randolf Hurst against this film. It is a reaction that I really do not understand because I do not see Kane as an unflattering character. My friend described Kane as being a real and a repulsive character. I did not find him that repulsive, rather rash and unthinking. He actions which lost him the presidency was not due to any immorality, but rather due to lies fostered by his opponents. The divorce of his first wife is never explored, and it is doubtful that it was because of this because she knew the truth. Maybe it is because she did not really love him, but because she loved the fact that one day he might be president.

The Man Who Would Be King...

[Xstal · 9/10 · 21 March 2023]

There's a man who had the world within his grip, he was the captain and director of his ship, built an empire through the news, no one challenged or refused, but such ego is quite blind to slips and trips. It all began when a young child was pulled away, from normality, from sanity, from his play; to become manipulator, fabricator, a dictator; and every day, people would pay, for what he'd spray. Without distractions he may well have been crowned king, taking everything and more that he could win, but the heart can override, lead to diatribe, broadside, and a palace becomes a prison, and he's locked in.

All That Ballyhoo!

[WriterDave · 8/10 · 5 May 2008]

On the Criterion Collection DVD of Orson Welles' classic "Citizen Kane" there is an original theatrical trailer where Welles cleverly advertises the film by introducing us to the cast including the chorus girls, whom he refers to as some nice ballyhoo. That pretty much sums up my opinion of the often over analyzed film that always shows up at the top of the list of greatest films ever made. Even though this was the first time I sat down to watch the film as a whole, I knew everything about it from studying it in film class and from the countless number of essays, homages, and parodies that have come down the pike over the years. It seems impossible now to judge the film against a blank slate, but with great ballyhoo comes great scrutiny.

Released in 1941 by RKO as a Mercury Theater Production, "Citizen Kane" is the tale of an influential and shockingly wealthy newspaper tycoon (Welles) inspired by the life of William Randolph Hearst. The story follows the investigation into the origins of "Rosebud"-the mysterious word Kane utters on his deathbed. Following newsreel footage announcing Kane's death, we are then thrust into a series of flashbacks through interviews with various people who knew Kane that reveal the nature of his character.

From a technical standpoint, Welles' film is as innovative and engrossing today as it was yesterday. Every single piece of cinematic trickery, every dissolve, every long tracking shot, every seamless edit, every play with chronology, every special effect is perfect. Welles was audacious and inventive with his art, and it is for these technical aspects that "Citizen Kane" will always stand the test of time.

However, the story of "Citizen Kane" remains cold and distant. I didn't instantly connect with the characters and the plot the way I did with other classics from the period like "Casablanca" or "The Third Man" or even more recently, "There Will Be Blood." Often, the supporting players over-act, and the flashbacks are tedious (especially the one detailing Kane's second marriage) or emotionless (like the scene showing Kane's snow covered childhood). There's a certain smug arrogance to the whole production that makes it seem like perhaps Welles was secretly making a comedy. It leaves one wondering how it would've come across had Welles actually been allowed to do a straight up biopic of Hearst.

Is it any wonder that so many critics today hail this as THE all time great? Much of today's cinema is geared towards style and technique over substance, and way back in 1941, Welles was the first to author this very modern brand of cinema where the art is not in the story but how it is told and shown to the audience. His "Citizen Kane" is technically rich, layered, and enthralling but narratively vapid. Did I ever really care about Kane or Rosebud? No, but it was fascinating to watch. It's some very nice ballyhoo indeed.

It may not even be the best in history, but it sure is the most revolutionary.

[eagandersongil · 10/10 · 1 August 2016]

Citizen Kane is a film with epic characteristics, and was at least 30 years ahead of his time, let's start by spectacular Gregg Toland photography, which for me is one of the top 5 best film photography, all the camera angles, metaphors, editing, close-ups, the use of natural and artificial light, mounts scenarios are something inexplicable (Remember Kane's speech), J. Mankiewicz script is great, using flashbacks (something new in time) and the timeline in your favor, I really can not say if this film was the first film to use these narrative resources, I think not, but it sure was one of the first to use a magnificent way, the soundtrack it is accurate, and the performances are very good, especially the Orson Welles doing a magnificent job, as director and actor, worth a reference scenes "Post credit" which explains that all the actors are new, cool also speak the name the cinematographer Gregg Toland is credited alongside Orson, Citizen Kane marked the history of cinema as we know it, so you go to see the movie today will notice that most of the "things" are very common nowadays and did not understand why the film is so prestigious, but remember that citizen kane invented this pile of "things."

tough sledding

[fronteraIX · 7 February 2005]

I have an observation concerning Rosebud (and I don't mean that story about Marion Davies). Everyone seems to assume that Kane saying "Rosebud" means he was thinking of the one time in his life when he was totally happy and had what he wanted. For years I have also assumed that. The other day something occurred to me and I am curious to know if it has occurred to anyone else.

When Kane first meets Susan Alexander he says he is on his way to (or coming from? I don't recall which) a warehouse where his childhood belongings are stored which he has not seen in many years. He doesn't mention the sled, but presumably that is the one thing which drew him to the warehouse. Kane is splashed and Susan laughs at him and one things leads to another. But my point is this: Kane would never have met Susan but for Rosebud. If Kane never met Susan he would never have been caught in the "love nest" with her and lost the election for governor. Kane might have had another mistress, but this seems unlikely. Kane is not very interested in sex - perhaps because he feels he is making love to the whole world. His interest in Susan is primarily idealized and not physical. So but for the meeting Susan, Kane would likely not have had a scandal and would have been elected governor. We are told he would then have almost certainly been elected President. Also he would not have lost his wife and his son would not have been killed in the car accident. As President, Kane could have been the most powerful man in the world. Instead he loses this chance, loses his wife and loses his son - all because he happened to be on a certain street at a certain moment. And the reason he was on that street at that moment was Rosebud!

So maybe when Kane says "Rosebud" he is not thinking of when he was a carefree lad playing in the snow. Maybe he realizes that because of Rosebud his whole life went spinning in a completely different direction from what it otherwise would have taken. By pure accident Rosebud ruined his life and shut him off forever from everything he otherwise could have been and could have accomplished. And maybe that is why "Rosebud" is the last word he speaks.

But if this is true (and it seems quite logical to me) then why does no one else comment upon it? Why has no one spotted it? Or has someone I just don't know it? Or could it be that this is the kind of truth that no one wants to face? That all of our lives are determined more by blind, idiot accident than by design or purpose.

why did Citizen Kane create such an impact upon its first release?

[elleglw · 10/10 · 31 August 2006]

Well as a media student myself , i have come across this question many times in books and during lectures. There are simply 3 reasons the film, which was considered as the "Mona Lisa of all films" , created such a legendary appeal upon release in 1941: 1) This was Orson Welles first cinematic debut , even though he had been a huge star in theater , he was given an opportunity few first time directors were permitted to having. He had full artistic freedom and above all power, to direct , produce, write and even star in his own picture. Therefore the film industry and RKO pictures had absolutely no influence in the making of the film and were not to know what was happening on set .Of course this was bound to generate a number of problems as businessmen were curious about the nature and plot of the film , which takes us to the second reason the film caused controversy.

2)One of the main reasons the film posed contentions was because the main character , Charles Foster Kane(Orson Welles), featured a range of similarities with real media mogul and newspaper journalist William Randolph Hurst . Therefore the film was seen as depicting the life , problems and personal relationships of a real person thus fictionalizing his life. Some of the similarities between the two persona's are:

KANE: newspaper tycoon , worked for New York Inquirer , known as the Kubla Khan of Xanadu ,married talentless singer Susan Alexander Kane, he was a political aspirant to presidency by campaigning for governor, bought his wife the Municipal Opera House, Financier Thatcher, and threat Getty's. Hurst: yellow journalist , worked for New York Journal, political aspirant to presidency by becoming governor, married acress Marion Davies, bought his wife Cosmopolitan Pictures, financier JP Morgan , and threat Tammany Hall.

-differences: Susan Alexander Kane( Dorothy Comingdore) leaves Kane later in their life however there was no marriage breakdown for Hurst and Marion.

3) The last reason and most pivotal of all to why the film was regarded the way it was , was due to its technical and stylistic innovations . The film upon its release was misunderstood and unappreciated by critics as they couldn't comprehend many of its elements and were too concerned with its dark and mysterious nature which is one of Welles's characteristics in his films. The film after all was 20 years ahead of its time and was only regarded as a triumphant success upon its second release after the American Film Noir era in the 1950's. His most prominent artistic inventions were: -the low angled camera movements -extreme facial closeups -long uninterrupted shots -chiaroscuro lighting -overlapping dialogue , giving a realistic effect to conversations -subjective camera angles -deep focus shots and depth of field -flashbacks that make up most of the film All the above and more constitute to why the film is so influential to all would be film directors and for why many people regard it as the best film of all time. Lastly we musnt forget the exceptional score by Bernard Herrmann who had collaborated also with the best known director of all time, Alfred Hitchcock , and made him the chillin sounds of strings in Psycho and Vertigo to name a few . In addition the superb photography of Gregg Toland in regards to Welles's unique eye on details. After all he wanted to put in each shot everything the human eye can see if they were present.

There are many areas of the film which are crucial , these are some of the most important , and as you can see there is never too little or too much that you can add to this masterpiece .

The Citizen Kane of Movies

[Cineanalyst · 10/10 · 6 December 2020]

The most frequently acclaimed "greatest film ever," idiosyncratic in its day yet massively influential, a cultural staple, a narrative and technical tour de force, and there's the whole thing of the wunderkind granted carte blanche for his debut to the machinery of classical Hollywood at its peak--the expectations for "Citizen Kane," to say the least, are high. Indeed, it's a marvel of cinematography and plot. In both senses, there's a deep focus from various angles. The plot is a jigsaw puzzle of flashbacks from multiple sources--the "News on the March" film-within-the-film, the dead man's memoir, a reporter interviewing characters for the meaning of "Rosebud"--linked by an also-layered sound design and framed by a curious camera violating the "No Trespassing" sign in entering and exiting the Xanadu estate. Moreover, the story is about a powerful storyteller notoriously based on William Randolph Hearst (and other famous rich guys, if not also a bit of Orson Welles)--a newspaper man, populist politician, overseer of his lover's career, and who even dictates the story beyond his grave with his final word. The picture constantly exploits a deep depth of field, with figures in the foreground and background in focus, to show it off. Much of this was accomplished by composite photographic effects. While "Kane" is famous as an arty old black-and-white film, which it is, it belies that it was genre-mixing popular entertainment and a special-effects extravaganza of its day: the virtuosity of the editing and sound design in addition to the matte paintings, miniatures, multiple-exposure photography, rear projection, and the most significant use of the optical printer in between "King Kong" (1933) and "Star Wars" (1977). The difference is that the effects here are realistic as opposed to fantastic.

Outside of co-writer Herman Mankiewicz, cinematographer Gregg Toland and Welles, arguably the most important contributions to the production came from Linwood Dunn and his optical printer, and that's not even to mention a score by Bernard Herrmann, editing from Robert Wise, and contributions from a host of less well-known technicians doing career-best work, including lead matte painter Mario Larrinaga, the special-effects team's boss Vernon Walker, and art director Perry Ferguson. More than half the picture has been guessed to be effects shots. According to Dunn, "Once Orson Welles learned about the optical printer he just went hog-wild with it."

From the start, there's a miniature for the gate with the matte paintings of Xanadu in the background, and dissolves--lots of long dissolves in this one (and wipes and a few more dazzling effects)--transition between ever-closer views of the lit window, always matching the same frame position, until a reverse angle shot inside followed by an extreme close-up of Kane's lips, with the added snow effects, as he mutters the dying word. The reflection of the nurse in the broken snow globe was created with Dunn's printer. There are many such marvelous compositions throughout. In the "News on the March" reel, a terrific film-within-film newsreel parody overall (including intentional scratches and, reportedly, edited by RKO's newsreel department, to make it look authentic), a shot of construction of Xanadu is cobbled together from an actor in the foreground, stop-motion trucks in the middle plane, and the matte painting of the mansion atop the hill. There's also the pre-"Forrest Gump" (1994), pre-"Zelig" (1983) insertion of Kane into archival footage. Other treated shots include the camera moving through the window of the El Rancho nightclub for Susan Alexander Kane's scenes, the downward tilting shot from the miniature statue of the Thatcher library, the tilt upwards to the rafters of the workers reacting to Susan's singing, and rear projection and multiple-exposure compositions being employed where the deep, or pan, focus was otherwise impractical, such as when there were figures extremely close to the camera and in the extreme background with another plane for the middle action--the shot of young Kane through the window playing in the snow, the three-tier composite of Boss Getty observing Kane's campaign rally, Leland's firing, Susan's suicide attempt, the shot with the parrot, e.g. Of course, these effects were in service to what was already a uniquely-photographed picture.

With good reason, Welles shared the final screen credit with his cinematographer. According to Toland, the demands of deep focus and stagings and camera angles that included ceilings necessitated some unusual lighting setups, and the film has also been credited for the first extensive use of coated lenses and a new film stock. Kane walking back to the windows before sitting down in one scene is a standout that plays with perspective while also underscoring Kane's metaphorical position in the world (i.e. he feels small or distant and is literally so in the image). Similar setups are repeated for when Charles walks up to Susan practicing or in their distant exchanges of reverberating dialogue in the large mansion as she puts puzzles together. Shadows act the same way, such as when she's figuratively and literally in his shadow when he insists she continue her career. The effect is a staggeringly unique picture--not only in a showy manner, although there's an undeniable bravado to it all, but also in a way to explore figures in space in the same way as the narrative investigates characters and their perspectives.

The long takes in deep focus to keep all the figures staged in depth in sharp relief--pan focus--as assisted by the optical printer when wide-angle lenses weren't enough, in addition to the unusual angles--especially the low ones featuring ceilings--function to visually depict a plot that is also all about focusing on every character and from every angle, while much still remains in the dark. The visuals are as ambiguous and complex as the narrative: multiple perspectives, with some scenes repeated but appearing differently depending on the narrator, pan focus with figures often obscured, or just turned into silhouettes, by the harsh shadows of the chiaroscuro lighting. We never quite get a good view of the reporter Thompson, e.g., his back usually to the camera and his face in shadows when not, such as in the screening-room scene, which is apt given that he's our surrogate, the unseen spectator within the film. He even wears glasses; he sees through lenses, as we do through the camera. And, in this case, that camera is even more curious than and as much a character as Thompson and isn't slowed down by closed doors or windows and goes through a desk during one point at Kane's childhood home.

Besides Toland, Welles shared credit with co-writer Mankiewicz. The non-linear, kaleidoscopic, sometimes restricted narration and sometimes not, flashback-structured plot, with events repeated from different points of view, including a newsreel overview that mirrors the film proper, remains one of the most wonderfully convoluted film narratives. One may get overly caught up in the story and characters, but as with the imagery, it's the structure of the thing that's brilliant. The Rosebud mystery is merely a device to drive the plot. Kane isn't a character trapped in a snow globe by a single word. Everything here is multifaceted. "You're talking to two people," as he says at one point. He has two wives, two friends, two sleds, scenes are doubled and framed and reflected in visual motifs--glass, windows, doorways and mirrors. Near the end, we get the iconic hall-of-mirrors shot: the film in a nutshell.

Rosebud is also part of but one or two genres in "Kane." It's a detective mystery, but as investigated by wisecracking newsreel reporters, like those who work at Kane's newspaper, it's an entry in the journalism films of the era--"His Girl Friday" (1940) meets noir. It's a fictional biopic, as well as part musical (Susan's opera, the dance number at the newspaper's party), political thriller, Shakespearean tragedy and lighthearted comedy. Welles and the rest of the Mercury Players' background in radio was surely instructive, as it's the sound design that underscores these tonal shifts, equal measure playful and ominous and continually serving as transitions between scenes. The score fits seamlessly, and the editing is often inspired (e.g. the table sequence for the first marriage, or some nice match cuts throughout, as well as managing the mixture of long takes and quick montages), but there's also techniques such as overlapping dialogue and sound bridges used extensively and informed by radio practices. The shocks cuts where shot transitions are accompanied by sudden changes in sound and score may be the best, and there's a visual equivalent with the reveal of background by the sudden removal of foreground objects, such as with the newspaper in Welles' first scene.

Welles and company were already famous for the "The War of the Worlds" radio drama, as well as theatrical productions, so it's no wonder the makeup-enhanced acting from actors new to film was already better than the acting in most films. Like "The War of the Worlds," made infamous as a catalyst of mass hysteria, its reputation only enhanced by fabricated newspaper reporting and inflated mythology, "Kane" demonstrates the power of storytelling, effects, genre and plot--the radio adaptation was so effective, after all, because the fictional news interrupted additional staged programming, not unlike the "News on the March" and other narrative tricks in the film. With the control and freedom granted from the radio-based RKO, Welles and company were able to do something even greater with the recruitment of some of the best talents in Hollywood for the primarily visual art form of cinema. There are reasons it's remained in the conversation as such, whether or not one considers it the greatest film of all time.

An Expert On What People Will Think

[bkoganbing · 10/10 · 25 April 2007]

The problem with writing about a film like Citizen Kane is that with 809 previous comments on the boards here, there is little that hasn't been said already. The best you can do is not look at any others and express your own thoughts your own way.

I've always felt the real reason that William Randolph Hearst so bitterly resented Orson Welles's masterpiece is that it got really too close to his own soul for him to be easy. Most folks who talk about Citizen Kane go for the obvious target, Welles's depiction of Marion Davies (Susan Alexander) as a no talent gold digger. In fact Welles himself in later years said he thought he was unfair to Davies then in Dorothy Comingore's performance.

What Welles showed in Charles Foster Kane was the insincerity of his beliefs. The key line in Citizen Kane I've always thought was what Joseph Cotten said that his friend Charlie Kane had a lot of opinions, but didn't believe any of them. To this day serious biographers of Hearst still wonder exactly what he did believe when the day was done.

Citizen Kane came up with a host of Oscar nominations, but only took home one award for original screenplay for Welles and Herman Mankiewicz. Original it certainly was in concept and execution.

The role that was written by Welles and Mankiewicz and directed by Welles for Welles is one of the greatest roles ever written for any film actor. The technique of Citizen Kane is always discussed, the flashbacks told from many points of view for the audience to get a grasp of what the title character was all about. What's not discussed is Welles himself.

What he does in fact is give several performances of the same man in one film. Welles reinterprets Kane five or six times depending on whose flashback we're seeing. He's a scared child being taken from his parents, he's a rich frat boy and incorrigible scamp as seen by George Couloris the J.P. Morgan like banker, he's an idealist and crusader as seen by his business manager Everette Sloane, a man with no core set of beliefs who will do anything to bend the public to approval by his closest and maybe his only real friend Joseph Cotten, a lonely man with a compulsion for real love by Dorothy Comingore, and as an aging tyrant by butler Paul Stewart. Welles makes every one of these Kanes come alive and each relates to the other.

The names of all those I've mentioned in the cast before were from Welles's Mercury Theater Company, nearly all went on to substantial movie careers. Others from the cast who did are Ray Collins, Agnes Moorehead, Ruth Warrick, and Erskine Sanford. I don't think any other film comes close to introducing so many talented players to the screen.

The film begins with the aged Kane's death and that single word 'Rosebud' which sends everyone scrambling to find out just what he had on his mind in his final moments on earth. Those searching never do find out, but you the audience does and the unveiling of Charles Foster Kane's inner soul is something once seen and never forgotten.

Why Is "Citizen Kane" the Best Film of All Times?

[ilpohirvonen · 10/10 · 31 October 2015]

Anyone who sees "Citizen Kane" (1941) for the first time today does so because he or she has heard that it is the greatest film ever made. One simply doesn't come across the film by accident on TV, watching it "for what it is," so to speak. The common approach of seeing it to believe it can be at best exhilarating and at worst hostile. Unfortunately, the latter is usually, although quite understandably, the case. For how can one do anything but look down at a film that elitist snobs have praised for years and years? One simply must prove oneself right by falsifying the critics' claims, leaving the theater or the living room with a shrug and a condescending comment: "it was okay." This will not do. It is a great tragedy if "Citizen Kane" suffers from these kinds of incidents since it ought to be treated with the same kind of respect as Shakespeare's "Hamlet" or Beethoven's "9th Symphony". In order to make this happen, or perhaps enhance someone's viewing experience, I would like to try and explain not why "Citizen Kane" necessarily is the best film, but rather why people have considered it to be. There are over a thousand reviews of the film on this site, and mine will probably drown in the vast sea with them, but hey what can I lose, and who doesn't love talking about Welles and "Citizen Kane"?

One might begin with the basic fact that "Citizen Kane" wasn't immediately praised and considered the best film that has blessed the silver screen. It was a financial risk for the RKO studios to give free hands to the novice prodigy Orson Welles, who had gained quite a reputation with the radio show of H. G. Wells' "War of the Worlds", and not surprisingly it didn't pay off. Despite the praises of a few critics, "Citizen Kane" was soon forgotten, and the film wasn't, for example, screened at American cinemas during the late 1940's and early 50's. In France, however, the film was just discovered after the war, and the leading critic of the country, André Bazin hailed it as a masterpiece of the postwar stylistic tendency he characterized as spatial realism. Bazin's disciples, who we all know now as the nouvelle vague directors, followed and adored Welles' masterpiece. François Truffaut proclaimed that "everything that matters in cinema after 1940 has been influenced by 'Citizen Kane'." Thus the film's reputation grew and its new found reputation slowly found the other side of the Atlantic as well. But why did this happen? Why wasn't "Citizen Kane" forgotten, and why, for one, did it arouse the interest of Bazin?

First, it ought to be highlighted that the story of "Citizen Kane" is excellent. Loosely based on the life and times of media mogul William Hearst, "Citizen Kane" tells the story about a lonely giant who conquered the American media. It's a story about a man who dedicated his life to possession, but tragically became to be possessed by it himself. As one might have noticed, I am using the past tense, and such is the nature of Welles' narrative in "Citizen Kane". The film begins with the protagonist's death, and then portrays the attempts of a journalist trying to figure out the meaning of his last words -- "Rosebud" -- by interviewing people who knew the man. "It will probably turn out to be a very simple thing," he supposes. This kind of structure was not considered the done thing back in the day. Although the basic structure of finding out a person's past goes back to Sophocles' "Oedipus Rex" as well as numerous detective stories, the uniqueness of "Citizen Kane" lies in the use of different perspectives, creating a non-linear narrative that has echoes from ancient drama and epistolary novels.

Yet it wasn't really the intricate story that most fascinated Bazin. What Bazin emphasized was the film's style. Although all scholars have given up on the phoenix myth of "Citizen Kane" and its innovative use of various cinematic means, it is simply a fact that the film made the style public, thus standardizing it for Hollywood. The aesthetic features of the so-called spatial realism, which Bazin adored, supported by the technological innovation of the BNC camera, include deep-focus cinematography, sequence shots, and deep-space composition. These had been used before, but hardly with similar, dare I say, philosophic unity. This stylistic tendency is enhanced by Welles' relentless use of heavy low-angle shots and dynamic montage sequences. There are innovative cuts that spark imagination and soundtrack solutions that open the story and its characters to new dimensions. "Citizen Kane" is often celebrated as a bravura of the art of mise-en-scène since it puts a lot of emphasis on pre-filmic elements such as setting and lighting, but the real gist of the film's brilliance lies in the unity of these together with cinematographic and post-filmic elements.

More remains to be said, but space is running out. The end of the matter is, I guess, that none of the individual elements of "Citizen Kane" are, precisely, individual. They have not been distinguished from one another, but rather resonate luminously together in a unique fashion. Technological innovation goes hand in hand with aesthetic inspiration and both support the whole of story, theme, and style. Such unity may not have been present in Hollywood before 1941. From the groundbreaking use of the BNC camera to themes of power, loneliness, and defeat, which are reflected on the level of style, using setting and editing, for one, to reflect the emotional distances between the characters or their existential experience of emptiness, "Citizen Kane" remains a gem to any lover of cinema. It's up there with immortal works of art from poetry, music, and painting. It is, like all great art, a tightly and beautifully sealed original whole which is why (instead of one big nameable innovation) the film has been considered to be of such magnificent proportions.

A great piece of cinema, a magnificent example of storytelling

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 10/10 · 21 October 2004]

I've heard so much told about Citizen Kane and Orson Welles, so I finally decided to get the film, and find out if it really is all that it's cracked up to be... I must say, it's great. The plot is great, and the way it's told is amazing. The story is first summed up in a matter of minutes, about 15, to be more accurate, and then the rest of the film has characters telling the story through flashbacks and retelling. We hear just about every opinion about Charles Foster Kane, apart from his own. The story is told after his death, and we see everything important that leads up to it, and only in the very end do we understand him, only then do we fully understand who he was, and what made him so. The ending also reveals one of the very most important things in any man or woman... one thing that everyone needs and knows of. I won't reveal it here, as it would almost be a crime to spoil the experience of this film to anyone. The acting is excellent; Welles himself is stellar as Kane, and his impressive appearance, along with his commanding voice, makes the character a forceful sight, nay, experience. The characters are well-written and credible. The character of Kane is probably the most well-rounded and perfectly built up I've seen in a movie, ever. The cinematography is excellent... the editing is great. I can't praise the angles, pans, zooms and transitions enough... it just has to be experienced. Now, for the one thing I can criticize in the film; the pacing. It's only two hours long, but it feels like much, much more. There were portions of the film where it felt like it didn't move at all. When there weren't great dialog or something equally as good in the film, it dragged terribly. There were too many scenes where the dialog seemed pointless, as well, I think. It didn't seem to be leading to anything. However, this criticism is so minor, due to the ending more than making up for it, that I still give this film a perfect score. I can't do anything but agree with its placing at the top of the top #250 films of all time, here on IMDb. As I'm writing this, it's #11. That's pretty much what it deserves, in my opinion. Not higher, not lower. Not the greatest film of all time(that pretty much still belongs to The Godfather, I think... at least, I haven't seen a better film than that, yet), but definitely far up there. I recommend this to any fan of film in general, and anyone who thinks they can understand it; it has a truly profound point that any man(and woman) should know of(preferably through seeing the film for themselves). Don't let the fact that it's old and black & white deter you from seeing this masterpiece. A true cinematic masterpiece, in every sense of the word. 10/10

See it for what it is

[gobosox · 7/10 · 21 April 2004]

OK look, let me settle something between those who love and hate this film. A lot of people hail this film because it is technically brilliant and ground breaking. Director Orson Welles did a lot of things visually that no one had ever done before. Nearly every film maker was in some way influenced by this movie. This movie also had a great impact in its time. The title character was based on media giant William Randolph Hearst. He was that generations Donald Trump. He opposed this film so much he did everything in its power to stop its release and almost succeeded. Lastly this film contains some of the strongest and most common themes in literature; Life versus death. It is for these reasons why this film is so revered.

On the contrary people who hate this film mainly complain that it is boring. Which is a legitimate complaint. The story is slow compared to today's standards, and there is no real Hearst character alive today in which to relate. So yes, the story on the surface is outdated. However, this does not make it a bad movie. It was not made as a Matrix/Star Wars type of movie which can be enjoyed even at surface level. This is not pure entertainment. Remember there is more to film than storytelling. This film was designed to be cinematically beautiful and to tell a basic story of love and redemption. There is much more to the story than the thinly veiled attack on Hearst, one just needs to look deeper. Look at Shakespeare or Hawthorne for example, their literary works are universally loved. Yet, many people blow them off because they refuse to look past the outdated language into the beautiful prose and simple ubiquitous themes. Just because something is outdated does not mean it lacks worth in today's world.

My advice to those who did not like it the first time or have not seen it yet is simple. Watch it again for what it is. Do not expect to be on the edge of your seat for two hours. Watch it for the cinematography that alone makes this film among the best (I don't agree with AFI's number one ranking but I think it still ranks high). Look deeper into the story and try to connect with it on some level. At the very least appreciate how influential this film was and where the industry would be without it. If you can do this, then maybe some of the naysayers will change their minds. Again, you do not have to love Citizen Kane, but at least respect it for what it is.

While it is an example of a film I admire rather than adore, I can see why this film is seen as a classic

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 27 September 2010]

That is not to say I didn't love it, this film is absolutely brilliant in every respect. I just more admire it rather than adore it, but I completely understand its reputation as a classic. The cinematography is enough to earn the film's reputation, every shot, every angle is exemplary and has so much visual drama, and you never know from looking at Citizen Kane that it was made on a shoestring budget. That is not all though. Bernard Hermann's score is superb, the story while not easy to understand at first is interesting and the screenplay is thought-provoking. Not only does Orson Welles direct impeccably, he turns in a magnificent performance as Charles Foster Kane, while the supporting acting is excellent too. People may dismiss Citizen Kane as boring and dull, and I have known people outside of IMDb to say that, but I have yet to hear any of those people to say it is not well-made or directed. As for me, I loved this film very much, and while my praise doesn't completely go beyond sheer admiration I cannot deny it is a great film. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Wonderful Cinematography

[Lechuguilla · 6/10 · 29 June 2008]

If ever there was a film that I had a love-hate relationship with, "Citizen Kane" is surely it. Some of the non-script elements are as good as what one would find in any other film. Yet, the story of Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), an early twentieth century newspaper tycoon is terribly dated and painfully boring.

The film's B&W cinematography is arguably the best in film history. DP Gregg Toland uses high-contrast lighting and murky shadows to create a wonderfully noir look and feel. And in some scenes bright back-lighting puts foreground characters in stark silhouette, creating an authoritarian and oppressive tone to the story. This is true especially in the film's first thirty minutes. Throughout the film, frame compositions are clever and interesting, like one scene in the second half wherein a woman, with her back to the camera, blares out an operatic aria on stage to an audience that we viewers cannot see, amid murky, shadowy lighting; it's like something from a nightmare.

And the film's visuals are laced with strange optical illusions, as a result of Welles' use of deep focus camera techniques. In one scene, for example, background windows appear normal in size relative to characters in the foreground. But when a character walks back to the windows, we see that the windows are actually much larger and higher than first appeared, and that renders the character small, by comparison. The same optical effects show up in the Great Hall of Xanadu, with a fireplace that appears average in size, until a character walks back to it; at which point the fireplace is seen in its true size; it's so big and high as to overwhelm the human figure.

Sound effects amplify these optical effects. For example, in the Great Hall, the cavernous, mostly empty, room strongly echoes human sounds, creating the impression of some huge, dark cave. The whole feel is one of oppression and death. Just terrific.

But the film's story, about a corpulent newspaper tycoon, is so dated as to be largely irrelevant in the twenty first century. Kane starts out with noble intent to help the lower classes. But over time he changes. And throughout, he is egotistical, overbearing, bombastic, loud, and generally too full of himself. His only real belief is in himself. He is fond of possessions, but is emotionally empty. In addition to an unlikeable protagonist, the script's dialogue is very talky.

The film's acting is generally quite good. I particularly liked the performances of Joseph Cotten, Dorothy Comingore, and Agnes Moorehead. Special effects are good too and, when combined with lots of stock footage, create the visual illusion of a cinematic epic.

Some viewers love this film; others loathe it. I love the cinematography and sound effects, but loathe the story. "Citizen Kane" should have won several Oscars, including especially cinematography. That it did not has caused Hollywood endless guilt, and to compensate, they routinely vote the film as "the number one greatest film in history".

But it does not deserve that lofty title. Hollywood needs to give the film several postmortem, but well deserved, Oscars, especially for B&W cinematography. Then, they need to let go of the guilt.

Rate According To Your True Feelings.

[Alexandrspyr · 4/10 · 17 March 2015]

Yes, this title is a classic and we can all agree that it has been critically acclaimed by many to be a masterpiece. This movie pops up in so many lists of the greatest movies of all time that watching it at least once in your lifetime becomes a must. So I prepared myself for at the least a good movie. Is it a good movie? Well, yes and no.

See, it depends on why you are watching movies in the first place and where you derive pleasure from. For me watching movies is a way of entertainment and enjoyment, I want to have fun, I want to laugh, I want to cry, I want to think, I want to be engaged, I want to guess what is going to happen, I want characters that I can relate to and be attached to. Now all those things don't mean that I want MINDLESS fun,I do prefer intelligent plot with great characters and development but I want the movie to incorporate entertainment value as well. Citizen Kane was a character study, it was like an assignment for my university where I had to critically evaluate the title to get a good grade.

Yes, cinematography was amazing and to think it was a movie from 1941 it is just jaw dropping. Yes, the character of Kane was complex and it was a good character study. Yes, the symbolic nature of "Rosebud" and what it represents was brilliantly done, especially when we see that Kane's romantic life with his women was screwed up. But all those things are meaningless to me when I don't enjoy the movie and I am ready to die from boredom. I literally forced myself to not fall asleep, all the time I was thinking "There must be something wrong with me, this is the greatest film of all time. Get your sh*t together, wake up and pay attention. This is awesome, right?". At some points I even thought that I must be stupid for not liking this film, but if people choose to name me stupid I don't care, at least I am honest with my feelings. What matters is that I consider myself to be fairly intelligent and I didn't see the appeal of this movie unless you are watching this for critical purposes.

Now why this movie is in the top 250 and is considered a classic? That's probably because of the technical aspects of the movie and in this sense it might be a masterpiece, but I just can't see people enjoying this so much to have it so highly rated because of the entertainment factor.

CITIZEN KANE may let some people down, but it's still worth seeing.

[Cowman · 2 May 2004]

It's a difficult undertaking for someone of my generation to watch a film like CITIZEN KANE. Not because it's "too old" or "too boring", but because it has been hailed--almost universally--as the single best motion picture ever made. And while the anticipation of seeing a film with such overwhelming acclaim may be quite exhilarating, actually watching it is ultimately an intimidating and somewhat disappointing experience.

This isn't to say that I thought CITIZEN KANE was a bad film; in fact, I thought everything about it was downright brilliant. From the enchanting performances right down to the meticulously planned camera movements and clever lighting tricks, there isn't a single element of CITIZEN KANE that isn't a stunning achievement in all areas of filmmaking.

CITIZEN KANE's storyline is deceptively simple. Even though the plot unfolds by jumping in and out of nonlinear flashbacks, it is surprisingly easy to keep track of. The straightforwardness and relatively fast pace of the story are what make it seem intimidating. Because everything moves smoothly along without any standstill, it feels like we are being fooled-like there is something much greater that we just can't seem to grasp. As a first-time viewer, I knew from its reputation that there must be *something* that separates this movie from all the others; something buried within its simple plotline that everybody else has seen, but that I just could not seem to get a handle on. And then, during those final frames, that something was revealed, and it all began to make sense. To me, it was these moments of confusion and uncertainty followed by a sense of enlightenment and appreciation that made watching CITIZEN KANE such a meaningful experience.

But no matter how great of a movie CITIZEN KANE really is, it can never live up to one's expectations. Although I do feel that it is deserving of its acclamation, the constant exposure to its six decades worth of hype and praise will invariably set most modern viewers' standards at a height that is virtually unreachable--even if it really *is* the best movie of all time.

Citizen Welles

[murtaza_mma · 10/10 · 24 April 2009]

Citizen Kane is probably the best that American Cinema has ever offered, nigh perfect from the start till the end. Often competing with The Godfather, to be numero uno, Citizen Kane is in a league of its own and nonpareil on countless number of fronts. The creative innovation and the technical advancements implemented, can be least regarded as incredible and astonishing, for a 1941 movie. The movie pioneered the phenomena of time switching and special effects in the world of cinema.

Citizen Kane has stood the test of time for well over six decades, serving as a benchmark and source of inspiration to the film-makers of different era. Citizen Kane is an obituary about a fictitious Charles Foster Kane, a business magnate and a newspaper tycoon. Through this movie, Orson Welles, not only immortalized Charles Foster Kane but also proved his mettle, as a writer, director, actor and most importantly as an auteur. The scenes presented as flashbacks, not only display his versatility as an actor (taking care of the nuances and the subtleties needed to portray the different stages and aspects of Kane's life), but also his story-telling brilliance. Kane's murmuring of the word 'rosebud' at the time of his death and him publicly annihilating his election opponent, Jim Getys, represent the two extremes of human life, the very low and the very high, respectively.

The scenes between Welles and Joseph Cotton are an absolute treat to watch, the latter being at his sarcastic best, depicting contrasting emotions of sympathy and disgust towards his childhood friend, owing to the dichotomy that he suffered, simultaneously taking care of his duties as a journalist, and his friendship with Kane. The movie is studded with numerous mesmerizing and unforgettable scenes and moments, which immensely contribute to the apotheosis that it so deservedly enjoys. A true cinematic magnum opus, without an iota of a doubt and a must for every cinema lover.

A textbook I would have liked to study in school...

[jem132 · 10/10 · 9 February 2007]

Orson Welles' CITIZEN KANE (1941)was perhaps the first American film since the silent era to fully demonstrate the possibilities of the film medium, and the role of the camera. Welles' camera is mobile, no longer the static device used to merely show faces, and Toland's deep-focus cinematography revolutionary. Welles tinkers with traditional filmic narrative conventions to craft a work that is now often termed a 'textbook' of the cinema.

Welles himself plays Kane in a remarkable acting performance that requires him to age progressively (which Welles does very convincingly) over the decades. Welles draws significant parallels between Kane and media mogul William Hearst in a statement that probes wealth, power figures and what we perceive as 'truth'.

Kane is presented to the audience as an enigma- we never do get a full-bodied portrait of the man, only snippets of highly subjective memories from those who say they "knew him". In the newsreel, a montage of images that details Kane's life and eventual decline, a variety of viewpoints are established. He could be both a Fascist and a Communist- a megalomaniac manipulating power to his advantage or, indeed, being manipulated himself. It is ironic that the true meaning of 'Rosebud' is never discovered by the on-screen reporters, just as the true essence of the man Kane is never fully revealed to the audience. What is Kane searching for? Is it the untouched youth and innocence symbolized in 'Rosebud', or something he himself is not aware of?

Kane is never truly sympathetic, yet he is wholly fascinating. He seems to lament the status and power that wealth has given him ("If I hadn't been very rich than I may have been a very great man"), then buys another load of cold statues and ornaments. His cruel treatment of second wife Susan Alexander in his insistence that she train as an opera singer suggest his unwavering persistence, and unwillingness to accept defeat. Kane is willing to stand alone ("I am Charles Foster Kane!") yet seems to crave a filler to his loneliness ("I know too many people. I guess we're both lonely"). Kane is ultimately indefinable; a jigsaw puzzle that both Susan and the audience struggle to piece together into anything whole or real.

Welles used actors from his Mercury Theatre to populate this story of greed, corruption and vanity. Friend and close confidant Joseph Cotten becomes friend and observer Jebediah, who is a witness to Kane's slide into moral decay. Dorothy Cormingmore portrays Susan Alexander, a thinly veiled take on Hearst's real-life mistress Marion Davies. She possesses a similar honking Bronx whine and limited talent in her master's chosen area of success (For Davies this was dramatic roles in films; her talent lay in comedy). Distinguished actors Moorehead, Sanford and Sloane also feature in support.

One aspect that is perhaps ignored in favor of focusing on the technical innovations is the truly amazing screenplay, one which offers just as many quotable snippets of dialogue as a 'CASABLANCA' or 'ALL ABOUT EVE'. Welles' understanding of the soundtrack is often overlooked. A memorable scene involves a bored Susan Alexander whining to Kane that she "never gets any fun" because they "live in a castle". The visual portrait is fascinating, with Alexander perched on a seat as a princess, complete with tiara in her hair. The echo of her words and Kane's mechanical replies in the huge, yet empty, room speaks volumes for Welles' understanding of the film as a sum of all parts. Here, the sum adds up to perfect- direction, acting, writing, photography and music.

The imposing, haunting Xanadu is similar to Hitchcock's Manderlay in REBECCA (filmed the previous year) in that the mansion operates as a both a character and a symbol of the protagonist. Kane's half-finished palace seems to come the closest to suggesting his character- grandiose, larger than life, powerful...yet strangely empty and unfulfilled.

A must film for any film maker

[caspian1978 · 10/10 · 15 April 2001]

There's something worth stealing from Citizen Kane if you're a film maker. What else can you say about this film except for it being the greatest gift one can give to the film industry. Having it have been a box office bomb when it opened in LA in the 1940's only adds to the films greatness. Citizen Kane was before its time and still remains today a movie marvel. There is not a single film school in the World that will not show this film at least twice to its students. A perfect film to watch and discuss for the entire class period. Citizen Kane has more examples of modern movie making than any other film made before or after.

The Role of Sheer Chance in Life

[Tobias_R · 10/10 · 16 August 2006]

One commentator made the original point that Kane may have uttered "Rosebud" as his dying word not because he was nostalgic about his childhood but rather as a symbol of sheer chance in affecting and changing his life. As the commentator pointed out, Kane would never have met Susan Alexander, his mistress and later his second wife, if he hadn't been at a warehouse looking over things from his childhood home. If Kane hadn't met Susan, his life would have turned out quite differently. Indeed, if one looks carefully at the childhood scenes of Kane's life, one would see little that Kane, as an adult, would be nostalgic about. There are strong suggestions his father beat him and that, however caring about Kane's welfare his mother was, she seemed emotionally cold and distant. Indeed, Kane's association of his sled Rosebed with the role of chance in his life would be reinforced by the fact that he was interrupted playing on Rosebud and told by his mother and Mr. Thatcher about the radically different turn his life was taking from that of a poor boy to a quite wealthy one really overnight. Indeed, by subtly showing the decisive role of chance in Kane's life, the filmmakers were undermining the powerful American myth of the self-made man. Hard work didn't make Kane's fortune, it was the result of his mother inheriting the title to a mine thought to be worthless but wasn't.

A very solid movie with some mystery

[851222 · 9/10 · 15 September 2015]

Greetings from Lithuania.

"Citizen Kane" (1941) isn't the best or most important movie ever made in my opinion. As there one word cannot explain man's life, one movie can not influence flow of cinema itself. That said "Citizen Kane" is a very good picture, while it's opening ~17 min are nothing short of brilliant and next 40 min are superb, the movie felt short a bit during the end, with to much being focused on "the singer" rather on Kane's life itself.

There are some truly brilliant camera shoots in this movie, which i suppose was one of the first camera tricks at the time. Acting is very good, especially by Orson Welles - he should have won Oscar for Best Actor in a Leading Role. Script is great and directing is also a tip notch, that is why this movie barely drags.

Overall, "Citizen Kane" is a very good movie about with some mystery. I kinda guest the meaning of this word during the end, and last scenes confirmed my guess - it is a good mystery but maybe a bit over-hyped (no spoilers). This movie definitely worth seeing once (even as i'm watching for the first time just now in 2015).

A true original

[Red-Barracuda · 9/10 · 9 July 2012]

RKO was the smallest of the Big Five Hollywood studios and the purveyor of mainly undistinguished genre pictures. For this reason they hired a young theatre producer called Orson Welles to make a prestige film. Welles had just shook up radio with his production of The War of the Worlds, a broadcast that was so innovative and realistic it caused widespread panic throughout the United States with some people really believing that Martians were attacking. Welles was given free reign to make the film he wanted. This was unprecedented for an untried film-maker. The film's central character resembled newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. The film was delayed several months while RKO tried to appease Hearst's lawyers. It was well received by the critics but not a popular success. It would remain the high point of Welles career and the one time he enjoyed such complete control. This led in part to the auteur theory where masterpieces of cinema were attributed to the director's genius. However, this is too simplistic as Welles had great collaborators here such as screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz and cinematographer Gregg Toland. The former provided a disciplined structure for Welles to work off and the latter the deep focus photography that allowed him to manipulate cinematic space in a way that strengthened the story. The combination of deep focus and long takes allowed for scenes where characters moved around the cinematic space in ways that heightened the drama considerably.

Citizen Kane is often considered a triumph of technique but it's really the way in which the technique was used and controlled to strengthen the story that makes it so notable. It wasn't the first film to utilise deep focus or long takes but it was the first one to use them so systematically. It combined many opposites – social comment / surrealism, European art film / Hollywood entertainment, comedy / tragedy, realism / expressionism. Kane himself is presented in a variety of ways – dreamlike images of him dying, a remote public figure, a man known by wife and friends and finally a detached being. This reality is expressed by a combination of objective fact and subjective opinion. The beginning of the movie illustrates opposites of approach. We begin with a subjective dreamlike death scene and immediately are thrust into the objective 'News on the March' segment that mimics the news documentary in a similar way to how Welles mimicked the radio news in The War of the Worlds. In this part we are told the whole narrative in summary. It's a microcosm of the film as a whole. After this we then piece together the story of Kane's life via the accounts of various people who knew him, all interviewed by Thompson, a man whose face we never see because he really represents us. The use of flashbacks, multiple narrators and an ambiguous conclusion was a very innovative one for the time. The film as a whole resembles one of the jigsaws that Kane's second wife Susan works on, each piece contributed another truth but some pieces are missing. To add to the complexity of the film, different people offer contrasting judgements that make up the differing periods of his life. Welles once remarked that 'the point of the picture is not so much the solution of the problem as its presentation'.

Thompson realises that no single word can 'explain a man's life' and so it proves with 'Rosebud'. The sledge and paperweight represent the time when Kane was happiest and the love he lost but it's left essentially ambiguous and is never fully explained. Kane seeks to regain the love he lost for the rest of his life but always on his own terms, this leads to the ruin of his career and relationships. He winds up in Xanadu his very own pleasure dome with caves of ice. The final tracking shot moves slowly over the expensive rubbish that Kane has accumulated; as we pan forward we see items from further and further back in the story until we find the fateful Rosebud sledge. The 'answer' to our quest.

Why?

[b_havag · 7/10 · 2 February 2009]

Okay. First of all, I DO like many old movies. 12 angry men, Casablanca, Where Eagles Dare, Psycho, The Treasure of Sierra Madre, The Great Dictator, Some Like it Hot and more. They're all brilliant and I enjoyed them throughout.

But Citizen Kane...I just can't see what's so great about it. It made no impression on me whatsoever. When it comes to plot, camera-angles, themes, characters, acting and such, it seems like few movies are as praised as this. Still, when I read reviews on other classics, for example Casablanca, it feels like they say many of the same things.

I'm not an expert on what makes some films objectively better than others, but if the other classics with most of the other "greatnesses" actually ARE interesting and fun to watch, then Citizen Kane should also be able to entertain as well as just being "great".

You can say what you want about movies, but no matter how well they're made, they should also entertain in some way or another to be classified as great. And I'm not one of those guys who only like action movies. An example of a great movie is Requiem for a Dream. It's disturbing, repulsive and scary as h*ll, but I couldn't keep my eyes from it, and it made a brutal impression. Other examples of movies that are deep, makes an impression AND are entertaining could be One flew over the Cuckoos Nest, The Visitor, American Beauty and Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind.

But entertainment isn't all. I see that. If Citizen Kane had made an impression it wouldn't fail no matter how uninteresting. Taxi Driver is another movie I bored me through, and don't want to see again, but still I find it good because I couldn't stop thinking about it afterwards. It made an impression. Citizen Kane doesn't do that either.

And to all you die-hard-fans who hate me, wants to disgrace me, and finds it horrendous to call a classic "not entertaining" I'll just quote the great Ingmar Bergman: "Citizen Kane is a total bore!" To call me retarded or something like that would be to call one of the greatest directors of all time the same. In addition it's clear that many more agree as well. It's not long since the feature was in the top 3 on IMDb. Today it's number 29.

So all in all, I may not know how to judge objective qualities of movies, but I'm certain that movies that doesn't leave any impression whatsoever AND isn't entertaining at all aren't great no matter what. And that's why "the greatest movie ever made" fails for me. 3/10

Undoubtedly the greatest American film ever created.

[QulkSiLvR · 10/10 · 19 July 2001]

Citizen Kane, the film, is many things. It is a brilliantly crafted series of flashbacks and remembrances. It is an engaging story of a dynamic man in a dynamic world. It is a remarkable statement for the wide range of time periods that it covers. It is a deceptively simple story centering on perhaps the most meaningful word in all of moviedom. Behind all that, Citizen Kane is the American cinema. There is not a major director today who has not been influenced by the genius Orson Welles put forth in his debut masterpiece. The film centers around a group of reporters investigating the origin of the dying newspaper tycoon (loosely based on William Randolph Hearst), Charles Foster Kane's last word: Rosebud. The movie begins with an unforgettable newsreel montage summarizing the man's life.

From there on, the viewer is thrown into a gloriously chaotic world of flashbacks upon flashbacks, in which the viewer slowly learns just about everything about Charles Foster Kane's enthralling life. From his trying childhood to his rise to power to the pinnacle of his success to his marital difficulties to his fall from grace, the story of Charles Foster Kane is presented for the viewer in a way that few other movies can offer: magically. Citizen Kane, undeniably, is THE triumph of the American cinema, and one of the greatest films every created.

Gaudy Reputation, But a Dull Film

[DaveDiggler · 6/10 · 11 August 2010]

I really can't find anything in "Citizen Kane" worth liking. Do I see what the big fuss is about? Sure. And it is one of the best looking and most well made film of the 40s (from what I've seen. I admittedly don't watch many films from the 40s, because of bad experiences with "great" films such as this). "Citizen Kane" is a monumental achievement because of some of the technical aspects. I have no reason to watch "Citizen Kane" ever again though. I don't particularly like any of the acting, and the story is just dull to me. I don't watch movies for editing, camera work, lighting or technical achievements. Those aspects of filmmaking certainly can greatly help or hurt a film, but without a good script, and without good acting, you just have a good-looking movie. That's the case with "Citizen Kane." Supremely directed and extremely well crafted for its time, but I just didn't care for the man or the exposition of most scenes.

A lot of directors can make a good-looking film, and a lot have. The remake of "All the King's Men" is wonderfully shot, but the movie is a complete mess that is just butchered by the director (most noticeably the atrocious casting and the shampoo commercial-esque editing). "All the King's Men" does have a good performance from Penn, but that's about it. Other than that? It is a terrible movie. "Citizen Kane" is not that bad and Welles' direction is far better, but I think it's a similar case were two movies look a lot better than anything that's happening between the characters, or within the story. The characters might be exquisitely framed, but I just didn't care what they had to say.

It is masterfully made for its time and it is a greatly influential film. That's what it is remembered for and what it was always be remembered for. Rosebud comes second. If you rate a movie purely on direction, then you probably give it a high score. If you don't, then your taste will dictate how effective it was. For me, "Citizen Kane" is another major disappointment to add to the heap of "disappointing classics."

The Great Cinema Swindle

[AphroditeVenus · 1/10 · 9 July 2007]

I know why you're reading this. You're smart, you have great taste, a passion for cinema, and you see CK near the top of every 'Great Movie' list ever compiled. So with great anticipation you borrow a DVD copy and sit down for a real treat, and... you can't get through the first half hour. You fall asleep.

Surprised, you think, 'It must be me, maybe I'm tired,' so a month later, you try again. But you don't even get as far as before, and wake up drooling out the corner of your mouth as a bloated Orson Welles, with really bad age make-up, groans 'Rosebud, Rosebud'.

It doesn't make sense. You're perplexed. You've watched other films on the lists... Casablanca made you stand up and cheer, cry, laugh, feel connected to all humanity. You even adore films on the list that some might consider oblique, like 8 1/2, which you reckon reinvented cinema language, weaving in and out of memory, dreams, psyche, reality, putting the human spirit up on the screen, making you cheer, laugh, and feel connected to all humanity.

So why does CK leave you so cold? You wonder, 'What's wrong with me? Am I stupid or something?'

Your borrowed DVD copy gathers dust (notice how the lender never asks for it back?), taunting your unquiet mind: "You must watch me: I'm the greatest film of all time!" But you shudder at the thought. Life's too short and, after all, there's more engaging things to do - like scraping plaque off the dog's teeth.

Years pass. Finally, you can take it no longer. You think, 'To be a serious film lover I MUST watch Citizen Kane! Maybe I was too immature before - yes, that must be it!' So you gird your loins and sit - awake! - through the whole thing. The whole turgid, ponderous, dull, vacuous, plodding, dank catastrophe. It's even worse than you feared. An emotionally and intellectually empty story. Your average six year old can invent a more complex, engaging tale.

Genuinely puzzled, you ask people who name it as one of the greatest films of all time why they like it, and with barely concealed superiority that phoneys are wont to adopt, they wax lyrical talk about the haunting mystery of the final words, "Rosebud, rosebud". You notice there's no feeling behind what they say. They also talk a great deal about Gregg Toland's cinematography, with liberal references to "deep focus", and you appreciate this, you really do, the cinematography was damned fine, best thing about the movie. That shot which started outside the window then tracked back into the room was really cool. But you just don't believe a movie is made great by cinematography alone.

In all your inquiries, you never once hear the following phrase, spoken from the heart: "God, I love that film".

So here you find yourself, reading IMDb comments.

Well, let me tell you this: There's Nothing Wrong With You! You Are Right! It's Overrated Flashy Unintelligent Rubbish!

One day, perhaps (one can but dream), the coolest, greatest, most admired film being in the world will point out the bleeding obvious nakedness of this bloated Emperor, and the assorted film critics, film studies teachers, and others who need to be told what to think by an authority figure, shall squirm, and CK shall drop off the lists once and for all.

Until that great day, don't be afraid to speak the truth.