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
-
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.
-
-
martincrothers — 9 years ago(April 17, 2016 02:00 AM)
i refuse to accept that the avengers is a great movie nor considered to be by any serious critic , it may be fun it may be entertaining it may even be ok to good, but great no never and having said that you are just a pretensious wanker, writng like you have not so much in defence of the movie but in support of your own brilliance bravo little boy bravo
-
CalibMcBolts — 9 years ago(September 06, 2016 01:11 PM)
No, most modern movie goers certainly can not. (Not all ofcourse)
If you want proof of this, watch the recent video CinemaSins (a very, very popular youtube channel with a lot of modern movie goers as followers) made on youtube, where they made a video called Everything Wrong with Citizen Kane, and look at the thousands of comments calling this movie boring, pretentious and overrated. It is shocking
Favorite films of all time list
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls031708001 -
LetThemEatCake01 — 9 years ago(October 25, 2016 09:22 PM)
I disagree. I'm not the average film goer obviously, but if you have to go back to 1941 to appreciate it maybe it wasn't that good in the first place. I seriously doubt anyone, no matter how ignorant, would be bored by Double Indemnity for instance, or be bored by Carrie.
-
LukeLovesFilm28 — 9 years ago(December 08, 2016 02:10 PM)
In my experience, the people closest to me refuse to watch Citizen Kane on the basis that the main character is an a$$hole. I think that's a sad and limiting way to approach movies. They're jumping on a bandwagon and judging this masterpiece far too quick. There is far more to appreciate in Citizen Kane than its characters and awesome screenplay. The craft alone is worth watching Citizen Kane for. But is that a reflection of peoples' intelligence or is that a reflection of the laziness in other, more modern films?? Since Blair Witch, filmmakers have been throwing out any heart and soul, any artistic merit for the cheapest thrills. As a result, I just think that modern audiences have lost a lot of respect and appreciation for film as an art. Why would you experience any piece of art - whether that's film, painting or music, and not simply enjoy how that piece of art makes you feel? It's a big part of the human experience - to feel.
Or they just don't care enough and all they do want are those cheap thrills.
Then again, sophistication in a movie may bore them because it goes over their heads.
Get off your soapbox while I play you a tune on the tiniest violin. -
Howlin Wolf — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 11:28 AM)
There's no such thing as 'proper evaluation' - you either like it or you don't and if somebody doesn't, that's their opinion, and they're entitled to it. (I do like it)
Movies should induce a gut reaction, not an academic one. If you like it, and you can offer substantial reasons why, then great - but don't expect your explanations to make other people like it any better Affinity with film is a personal thing. The joy of art is that it means something different to every person, and I for one would certainly not want free expression to be clamped down upon. You can be 'informed' and still arrive at an opinion that's different from the prevailing one.
Stop being so elitist. If people don't like this, it doesn't necessarily make them morons, and if we do, it doesn't make us sophisticated.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!" -
theuserformerlyknownasfrantruff — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 04:24 PM)
The thing that always bugs me about the "it's all subjective" argument is that it means claims that, say, that awful TMNT movie or similar tripe are just as artistically significant as all the Bycicle Thieves, Tokyo Stories and Days of Wrath of the world; or that whatever Jason Derulo has done recently is as valid as Bach's Goldberg Variations, Bob Dylan's Blonde on Blonde or even Public Enemy's It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back, can be correct. I just can't bring myself to accept that, and I suspect even their fans won't claim they are as good, just that they were entertained more by them. There must be some sort of objective standard with which one could judge art, even if after a point subjectivity starts taking precedence.
On another note, Howlin' Wolf is awesome. The best blues performer I've ever heard, capable of elevating almost any song through sheer force of emotion.