Thoughts?
-
TwoThousandOneMark — 10 years ago(October 07, 2015 10:20 PM)
A+
the both of them Casablanca is my #2 all time, Kane my #3. Pretty much sums it up for me.
top 50 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/ -
TwoThousandOneMark — 10 years ago(October 08, 2015 07:36 PM)
Stand By Me.
My top 50 is a hybrid favs & bests. SBM is my #1 all time & it's not close.
top 50 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/ -
pfr_77 — 10 years ago(October 09, 2015 03:50 AM)
funny story, a few years ago I was on vacation and actually found both of them on VHS at a thrift store. I still haven't watched Citizen Kane (I remember trying to on an especially rainy day and fell straight to sleep, but that could have happened with any movie), but I finally got around to watching Casablanca last year and I'm still not over it. What a film.
-
The_Daig — 10 years ago(November 26, 2015 05:15 AM)
It really depends on what criteria you are using to choose between the two. From a technical perspective, I'd choose Kane. From a pure entertainment perspective, I'd choose Casablanca. I think Casablanca is arguably the most entertaining film ever made.
-
doug65oh — 10 years ago(February 05, 2016 08:37 PM)
I actually quite enjoy both, although for entirely different reasons.
Citizen Kane
(to me) is far more a psychological study than anything, while
Casablanca
is something else.
Kane
has a mysterious element to it. -
feodoric — 9 years ago(November 22, 2016 10:04 PM)
What a bizarre question! What is the point of asking between these two movies? That's what I'd like to know. The only basis that makes any sense would be that these two movies were released at around the same period (CK in 1941 and Casablanca in '42, so technically not even in competition), period. Otherwise, the OP's question is purely gratuitous. One could assume that the OP wanted to compare two widely acclaimed movies from around the same period, but if so, why these two? This was the heyday of Hollywood Inc., the acme of the flick-churning machine of the sound stages at MGM, Warner, Paramount, RKO, etc, and there is no shortage of highly acclaimed films based on critical consensus. A more sensible comparison could have been between CK and The Maltese Falcon (1941 in both cases), which were in competition- in principle. Or, if the exact date of release is less important, a much better comparison would have been between CK and Vertigo, because the latter has now replaced CK as the best motion picture ever made by critical consensus. Alternatively, if a comparison is to be made between films released at around the same period, why not picking up Gone with the Wind or the Wizard of Oz for a comparison with CK? At least, CK would be compared with another movie belonging to the same league..
In any event, the question does not make much sense as far as artistic criteria are to be used gor comparison. On the one hand, we have a film replete with technical innovations at the story's service, where each shot, each plan was methodically planned -and meticulously executed by a superior mind at the peak of his creative energy, what the critics of the time labeled as "artsy" with disdain and contempt. On the other hand, a comparison is attempted with a technically average movie, i.e. Casablanca, whose main forces were the characters and the story, instead of the other artistic criteria, which were of paramount importance in CK.
Granted, Casablanca has currently far more appeal to today's film viewers than CK simply because most of the qualities that made CK such a major feat in the history of cinema have become almost standard features in modern motion pictures, therefore leaving modern sensibility with an ingenious allegory revolving around a historical figure of great magnitude but that is not relevant anymore.
In summary, CK's greatness has lost much of its actual impact today for mostly historical reasons, IMO, thus explaining why it has become a classic of the type whose genius and merit are recognized by everybody but that almost nobody actually sees for oneself. On the other hand, Casablanca is less fossilized than CK mainly due to the timeless aspect of its story. Personal tragedies as a result of love, deception and the fatal consequences of external conflicts that destroy one's dreams and hopes for a better life, are realities of any period of human history.
These two films cannot be compared because they belong to two vastly different categories. It's like comparing sex and chocolate: the answer to the question is largely a function of gender, age or other criteria that have nothing to do with the things compared. I'm still puzzled by the actual meaning of such an unfair comparison.- But you can't have her again as costume designer, Mr. Hitchcock!
- Really, Peggy? Give me Head!