It did make a great difference seeing it as it was meant to be seen. We tried to get there as early as we could & still
-
Jwink72 — 10 years ago(September 25, 2015 06:03 PM)
I think a huge, tragic situation with classic films such as citizen Kane is it's now stuck on a stupid computer or 40-60'' tv screen.
I recently watched psycho in theaters and now it feels like a crime to watch it any other way. Most people now who have their first time viewings of classics experience them in a very underwhelming, useless environment. There's nothing like a black and white on a giant screen. Although I came in too late for those days, I appreciate when I have the chance to see them. -
Xator_Nova — 10 years ago(September 17, 2015 03:56 AM)
I think that the average moviegoer wont be able to understand everything that makes the film so great, but it is enjoyable if one keeps an open mind. It has quite some sense of humor, the story is large in scale, and there is an emotional core with a devastating resolution.
"Citizen Kane" fan, "Frozen" fan, and "Boyhood" fan.
-
MsELLERYqueen2 — 10 years ago(October 08, 2015 12:00 AM)
Oh, that's it. I'm too pea-brained to get what a fantastic movie this was. It's not like people can have different tastes or anything of the sort. Thanks for letting me know!
By the way, I've had people annoy me because I have said that I dislike this movie. In response, I'll usually say something like,
"I'm just too stupid to understand this film. I should really stick to the Bugs Bunny cartoons"
or something along those lines. Works every timethey get off my back.Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen -
amyghost — 10 years ago(October 23, 2015 07:47 AM)
the "average" modern movie goer fairly evaluate Citizen Kane??
image for user MrsElleryQueen1976
by MrsElleryQueen1976 Thu Oct 8 2015 00:00:53 Flag | Reply |
IMDb member since June 2004
Oh, that's it. I'm too pea-brained to get what a fantastic movie this was. It's not like people can have different tastes or anything of the sort. Thanks for letting me know!
By the way, I've had people annoy me because I have said that I dislike this movie. In response, I'll usually say something like, "I'm just too stupid to understand this film. I should really stick to the Bugs Bunny cartoons" or something along those lines. Works every timethey get off my back.Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen Really? A look at your post history says otherwise. -
TwoThousandOneMark — 10 years ago(October 07, 2015 10:18 PM)
I think Kane deserves at least 2-3x viewings, spaced out, to fully absorb & appreciate.
Ebert's dvd commentary doesn't hurt either.
top 50 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/ -
steelysunshine — 10 years ago(October 26, 2015 03:09 PM)
No, the average movie goer can't fairly evaluate any movie. Evaluating things isn't an activity for average people. I think that the average viewer can understand the movie and enjoy the movie. But, I don't think they are nor am I prepared to go into the history of the thinly disguised main character, the history of the era, learning what all the camera shots were all about, taking a psychology class or two, and watching the movie no less than 3 times, but really it should be more than that to fully appreciate it.
I think part of the genius of Citizen Kane is that while it is dense with ideas and it's slowly paced at times. That it is something that appeals to a wide audience. I just don't expect that appeal to translate into the said audience actually being able to tell me all about the technical aspects, if I want that information I will have to find someone who has been through film school as I don't know anyone currently that is in or has gone through film school. -
Hythlodaeus — 10 years ago(November 21, 2015 05:35 PM)
I'm with you DarkLord. I didn't come from an educated or refined family in any way. I heard of this movie when I was around 16 living in a fairly small town in New York in the late 80s and I went to the library to get the video and watched it and loved it. But I didn't know anyone else my age who watched films like this and I didn't have anyone to talk about it with. Then years later I bought it on DVD and later than that, could talk about it here. Before that people I knew knew the movie but they didn't necessarily remember it or hadn't even seen it.
I'd say we don't know how to evaluate a movie like this. I wouldn't say it's really hard to get though - I guess it's just not something we want to get. We don't have the patience for it.
What hump? -
Horse_Caulk — 10 years ago(December 16, 2015 11:49 PM)
Wow. Some of you people are ignorant to the point of giving me diarrhea, whilst wearing a lovely pair of designer pants, in the springtime, which show off my curvaceous buttocks.
Or to put it another way,DAMN YALL IS STOOPID!
Your comical and child-like dislikes of this film are not terribly unlike someone watching Birth Of A Nation, and hating it because of the lack of sound and color, the rudimentary film making techniques, and the very unpolished quality of the film by comparison to films from 2015. That, is pretty overwhelmingly dumb. Sure, Birth Of A Nation sucked in those ways, but that is hardly the point. It came first. Umm..duh!
Or another lovely analogy, could be about how a buffoon with mind of a trailer park dweller might say that those 5000+ year old petroglyphs in France suck by comparison to Picasso, Rembrandt, or whatever other artists name they can remember at that moment. Of course they do. They arent significant because of the artistic vision and next-level painting skills of the artist, now are they? No one is applauding those because of the bold use of color and brush strokes in that stick figure of a bison getting speared by the naked hunters, or the ancient selfie being done by simply tracing around their hand. Ummduh!
CK frakking INVENTED a good number of the frakking storytelling techniques you frakking dolts are used to seeing in all your current films. Umm.duh! It came first, beeeeeeyatches! Your modern films rest on the shoulders of the cinematic accomplishments of that film, you all-you-can-eat-buffet lovin mouth-breathers.
The less people know, the more they like to boast about their likes and dislikes. Same old story.
Fancy pants.all of yez. -
Kevin_PSO — 10 years ago(December 22, 2015 03:06 PM)
This is a movie, not rocket science. You don't need to know anything going into it. You watch it and make up your own mind about it. You either find it entertaining or boring. You either get touched by the message or you don't. And no matter what you think about it, your opinion on the matter is as valid as anyone else's. This applies to all art really. Man, IMDb can be a pretentious place sometimes.
PSN ID: Kev_Cypunk
-
Strazdamonas — 10 years ago(December 27, 2015 11:56 PM)
Sure they can. There is but one requirement in order to fairly evaluate a movie. that is comprehending the movie from the beginning to the end.
looks like you got really upset when somone didnt like the movie you liked and are trying to postulate why you are smarter then everyone else. you are not.
And no, attention spans are not shortening, its just that we got far more information accesible nowadays than we did before and thus more options to choose from. thus people are more willing to jump from one information source to another.
Casablanca was great movie, this one however was a shallow husk of what it could be with unlikable characters and bad execution. this isnt a masterpiece, this is b-movie trash.
No, its more likely that the "Educated consensus" is detached from reality and is therefore staying with its head in the clouds pretending that what they think matters. when in reality it has zero bearing.
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually. -
adil-iqbal77 — 10 years ago(December 28, 2015 03:49 AM)
In Citizen Kane, the story unfolds beautifully and artfully. There is a tinge of morality in the movie's core. Even though i am not a big fan of CK, but i still believe that the movie would have stirred up societal emotions at that time. The camera work was great, acting was top notch. They could have shortened up the movie and maybe have a MORE meaningful ending. I said more meaningful as the real message (a man possessed with the love of ego, money and power and having no real love for the human nature) was not clearly delivered. Overall the movie rates a 7.5/10, saved mainly by its acting, direction and its artistic nature.
-
cornerstonemusicnv — 10 years ago(January 01, 2016 03:54 PM)
Good is Good Bad is Bad Average is Average That doesn't change and it doesn't matter if you are a "modern movie goer" or not actually if the "average modern movie goer" doesn't get it that should be a red flag! EXCEPTIONAL is EXCEPTIONAL by the majority regardless of background. The question for me is with something labeled "Exceptional" is it something you would regret if you never experienced it Citizen Kane does not meet that standard Period!
-
antanananarivo — 10 years ago(January 19, 2016 04:18 PM)
Citizen Kane always seemed to me like a book you're required to read in high school more for it's historical significance than anything else. Like "The Jungle" or something. Praised at the time for something really bold, and then over the years it was praised more because it had been praised in the past.
I'm not saying that it's a bad movie. It's just I fell that if I were to praise it, it would be coming merely from a desire to look smart or something. So I don't praise it too much. Personally, I respected it more than I liked it. Camera shots and stuff were all awesome. But I really just didn't care about the characters very much and I found myself getting bored and somewhat depressed, no matter how many times I saw the movie. I love black and white movies and even silent movies, but I gotta go with something that gives me more emotion than Citizen Kane. I'll take the Muppet movies, or Sunrise, or Life is Beautiful any day. -
vdipietro4 — 10 years ago(February 19, 2016 03:02 PM)
Yes and no. I think everyone is capable of evaluating this film. Like you said, you have experience with films of this era. The successful movie standard has changed a lot since 1941. It's like asking someone who's an avid reader of modern literature to give a fair review of the Canterbury Tales. They're not necessarily idiots if they don't enjoy said stories upon first reading, they just don't have the context to fully grasp why it may be good. This being said, just because someone is ignorant (not dumb mind you) doesn't necessarily mean that their rating is any less valid than anyone else. For example, I know nothing about architectural design, but I don't need prior studying to simply call a building ugly on the spot. Does that make me a bad person? No. But it says something about that building if 99% of the population finds it ugly.