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
-
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. -
Howlin Wolf — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 04:37 AM)
I didn't say anything about 'artistic significance'; I meant that it's just as valid to enjoy TMNT as to enjoy Citizen Kane Of course there are objective standards for judging art, but the average moviegoer isn't required to judge - simply to feel. One can judge for pleasure - and indeed, I do, because I love all of cinema - but most people who watch movies are only looking for a diversion, and there's nothing wrong with that
If somebody is claiming to 'evaluate', then they'd better be prepared to build an argument, but if all they're doing is watching, it's enough to say that they liked or didn't like it.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!" -
theuserformerlyknownasfrantruff — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 03:58 PM)
That's something I can agree with, that entertainment is completely subjective while evaluations of art should have a bit more "objectivity" to them. And of course, I don't mean that people must be forbidden from enjoying TMNT (I mean, I went to the theater to see it).
-
Howlin Wolf — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 08:26 AM)
Yeah. I mean, TMNT isn't really my thing but if somebody else dug it, then I'm happy for them. Just don't expect me to like it, too!
That goes for pretty much anything.
I loved CK, but I don't expect everyone else to feel the same; I'm only interested in whether or not they can explain If they can't, that's cool too. It's only annoying when people expect you to agree with them, if they haven't given you anything to work with!
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!" -
archibald14 — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 10:24 AM)
Saying TMNT is better is not the same as saying it's more significant. The importance of a movie is objective to an extent. For example, it's a fact that a movie like Citizen Kane is important. But how good it is can only be subjective.
The point of art is to provoke a personal reaction in the viewer. If you don't get a reaction that makes you think a movie is good, then you are in no position to call it good, that would just be lying to yourself.
I want people to give their honest feelings on a movie, I don't want them in their reviews to just repeat things that supposedly make a classic good but that actually didn't work for them. They're writing a review to express their opinion, not that of others.
With all the objective rules we have theorized about the art of filmmaking, you will find movies that succesfully break them. That's because those rules are not actually objective, they are just devices that over the years have been proven to work well in general, but it's not an universal truth. -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 9 years ago(January 01, 2017 07:39 PM)
There must be some sort of objective standard with which one could judge art, even if after a point subjectivity starts taking precedence.
And who is responsible for coming up with this "objective standard"?Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = -
theuserformerlyknownasfrantruff — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 02:51 PM)
[pretentious]
I have no idea. Since it's an "objective standard", theoretically anyone could come up with it, and then would have to be able to make a strong enough case for it that everyone (and I mean everyone) could agree that a movie that fits it is better than a movie that doesn't fit it, even if it might not be more appealing to them (this would be the first highly questionable idea here: that "better" is different from "more appealing"). It would also have to establish what is the most important thing in a movie: plot? Visuals? Themes, characters and character development, performances, influence or innovation? And then would have to establish in what order of priority these things are.
Sounds more and more ridiculous the more I go on, but the "it's all subjective" argument taken to its logical extremes just sounds more ridiculous to me. I mean, can anyone truly argue (and I don't mean if someone could do this rethorically, I mean if there's actually someone out there who
would
) that a 2 hour recording of a dot in the wall is a better movie than "The Conversation"?
One idea I've been thinking about would be to assess a movie first by how it develops its ideas, without assessing the value of the ideas themselves, and then contrasting it with your own preferences and biases. The first part would be a somewhat "objective" appreciation (because it is possible to argue about the logic and methods used to communicate and develop an idea) and the second one would fully embrace subjectivity.
[/pretentious]