or just true.
-
dsliquid — 9 years ago(August 24, 2016 09:15 AM)
"we common men supposedly want to believe that all rich people are missing something vital to character and a good life."
Hmmm, no? It's the complete opposite, which is why movies like these are important! Most people think that wealth, status and power are what make us happy, which is why "we" strive so hard to get those things.
The truth is that they don't make you happy at all. Sure, some very wealthy people are happy, but that's not because of their wealth. There are completely different things that really matter! -
bruce-129 — 9 years ago(July 24, 2016 04:51 PM)
I remember liking it the first time I saw it in the 70's in school as a teen.
It is a teen movie, with fairly quaint simple ideas. But I could not ever sit
through it again, and even find it annoying for its simple-mindedness and
a kind of coldness. It catches something well,
I love classic movies, but to me this may well be classified as a technical
classic, but in terms of emotion, I agree, it is hard to love. We have a local
theater that plays only old movies, from the 20's to the 50's, maybe a 60's
once or twice a year. They change their films twice a week. So I have seen
a lot of old movies that are all very good. The older movies have a heart,
consistency and focus that is completely absent in today's movies. So,
part of being a classic would be hitting that note. I think young people of
today do not know what they are missing, or what a classic even is in some
cases. Sorry to be condescending, which I am sure that sounds like. -
TheArtOfBeingRandom34523 — 9 years ago(July 24, 2016 09:52 PM)
Well yes, Citizen Kane is shot in a rather cold way, but this might be intentional.
Your definition of old movies is simply spot-on, althogh it's not always true, old movies just have that magic and that charisma that gets you into the movie even if you've seen it 10 times.
I also find this to happen with 80s movies, but in a different way. -
Symarip — 9 years ago(January 08, 2017 11:41 PM)
I think young people of today do not know what they are missing, or what a classic even is in some cases. Sorry to be condescending, which I am sure that sounds like.
Yeah, there's that, and then there's the fact that your post is nothing but a bunch of generalizations. -
bruce-129 — 9 years ago(August 24, 2016 12:03 PM)
You like the movie, that is fine.
I am just saying that to me, it is more historically memorable, like an old building
that was revolutionary in its day, but that would not serve a useful purpose today.
For theme and story, cinematography, score, etc I would give it a 6/10, but it is
a classic, in the sense of "Birth Of A Nation" that one might want to watch once
to have seen it, but as things progress that becomes more and more of an effort. -
CapnKaos — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 06:58 PM)
While I'll admit it's cliche to say it's one of your favorite movies or it's in your top 10 of all time simply because you've heard it's so good, it's not cliche to say it's one of the finest movies ever made. Simply because it's true.
Citizen Kane is one of those rare movies that I've given a perfect 10 to in terms of score. Part of this is due to the technical side of things as Orson Wells pioneered certain film making techniques in this movie. Things like deep focus were first used in this and now it's used everywhere. The use of high, medium and low angles. Tracking shots. Montage editing. POV shots. The masterful use of sound. The lighting. The list goes on. And that's not to say that he created all of these but he was the first to use them in such a way as to bring them to the people.
Then there's the dialogue. It's not the "theater" dialogue as you'd see in a movie during that time. If you've ever seen a movie from the 30's or 40's the characters have a way of speaking that isn't completely natural. I've always called this "theater acting" as that was what movies were up until that time. They were plays put on in front of a camera and they felt and sounded like it. The dialogue in this movie is sharp. It's fresh at least for the time. It feels a little dated today but remember, this was almost 75 years ago. It was a paradigm shift back then.
Orson Welles was not only the director, but the star, producer and writer of the movie. Can you name me one person today that is capable of all four things
at the same time
? That's a lot of work. The man was a perfectionist and it shows.
So no, it's not the most overrated movie of all time. -
bruce-129 — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 07:06 PM)
The problem with this movie, and the reason that, according to modern American
culture and beliefs, that this movie is cliche is that it is a simplistic story told with
too much drama. Everyone likes to think that really rich people are miserable and
yet look who we just elected President. That is why this movie is meaningless, except
for its historic value, it panders to the simple American people, who used to be nice
and are not more or less very ugly all around the world. -
theuserformerlyknownasfrantruff — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 07:57 PM)
I've always thought that the true "message" of this film is that you can never truly know a person, that everyone plays the part of several different people depending on who they are interacting with, and that once you are dead only those impressions remain, regardless of how wrong (or accurate) they may have been. The "lonely at the top" story has never been the main appeal for me (although I do like it).
-
bruce-129 — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 08:36 PM)
that is a valid impression, but then why was the movie about a super rich successful guy, contrasted with the people around him? Who cares if he was just a little kid inside if no one xould stand him. I think you cannot ignore the larger aspects of a movie. By the way did you know that Donald Trump said this is his favorite movie?
-
theuserformerlyknownasfrantruff — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 09:01 PM)
It was about a super rich guy because Mankiewicz wanted to write about Hearst and Welles loved the Shakespearean "giant destroyed by hubris" trope.
Kane's nostalgia for his childhood is not supposed to justify everything he did, just to offer a possible explanation (and, again, that's just how Kane himself saw his life, he may just have been trying to justify his actions to himself). By the way, Bernstein seemed to idolize the man, and Thatcher painted him as an idealist destroyed by the world, so not everyone hated the guy.
Yeah, I know it's Trump's favorite film. The man has got good taste in movies, at least
-
CapnKaos — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 09:58 PM)
The problem with this movie, and the reason that, according to modern American
culture and beliefs, that this movie is cliche is that it is a simplistic story told with
too much drama.
How is any of that cliche? Do you know what that word actually means because I think you don't.
Everyone likes to think that really rich people are miserable and yet look who we just elected President.
You might like to think that but I don't know of anybody that likes to think the rich are miserable. Honestly this sounds less like a critique of the movie than your own personal feelings towards the rich.
Speaking of which, what is "really rich" according to your criteria?
That is why this movie is meaningless, except for its historic value, it panders to the simple American people, who used to be nice and are not more or less very ugly all around the world.
You obviously don't get it if this is how you think.
There are three types of people that like Citizen Kane. The first are those, like in my original post, who say they like it because they heard how good it was and they know the meaning behind Rosebud. There are those that like it because it's a well made, well acted and well directed film. Then there are the film nerds who analyze everything about it and get off on how it was made.
With the exception of the first group, I wouldn't call the other two "simple". And you're also excluding everybody who isn't American. I'm sure there are Canadians who like it. I'd also be willing to bet that a lot of Brits, Kiwis and Aussies like it as well. Then the fact that it's been translated into just about every language in the world, I'm sure you'd be able to find fans of this from all over the globe.
Seriously. This is coming across more like you feel this way and you're imposing your reasons onto everybody. -
bruce-129 — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 10:04 PM)
How is any of that cliche? Do you know what that word actually means because I think you don't.
Grow up, you're too rude and low-brow to have a discussion with, without insults and hyperbola.
Good bye - ignored! -
TwoThousandOneMark — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 12:14 PM)
Ask a teenager in the year 2060 how influential the iPod was, let alone iPhone. They'll laugh in your face.
my essential 50
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/ -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 05:53 PM)
I wouldn't say that it's THE most overrated film ever. If I made a list of top 50 overrated films,
Citizen Kane
would make the list for sure, but there are others which deserve that title as well.Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 9 years ago(January 30, 2017 03:15 PM)
For example, I like quite a few Hitchcock films more than I like
Rear Window
. Yet
Rear Window
seems to be a favourite among many film instructors. Come to think of it, if a mystery/thriller wasn't directed by Hitchcock, I doubt that the majority of film instructors would consider showing it to their students.
But anyhow,
Rear Window
would make my top 50 list.
So would
Saving Private Ryan
, which I have never liked.Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = -
bruce-129 — 9 years ago(January 30, 2017 04:07 PM)
So, you're saying "Rear Window" is more over-rated than "Citizen Kane"?
It's not one of my Hitchcock favorites, compared to say, "Vertigo".
I never considered "Saving Private Ryan" a classic really, or "Rear Window"
either, those also-run Hitchcock movie are more notables or favorites.