Not trying to be "that guy", but how many times have you seen Fight Club? I shared the same opinion about it the first time I watched it, but fell in love with it the second time. It is currently in my Top 5. Danny Boyle and David Fincher are truly modern masters of film.Jegsimmons said:
Why do people love Citizen Kane?
- Thread starter Pontus Hashis
- Start date
Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly.Mr Somewhere said:
Not even some sort of hybrid between Robert DeNiro and Daniel Day Lewis, could deliver those lines like Orson Welles. The man's acting, just like his directing, is unique and something to behold.
But don't you think that apparent lack of audience involvement was subverted in the final scenes, where...Lateinos said:
...the child killer is put on trial by the assembled criminal underworld, effectively rendering the viewer complicit in an ironic and inherently immoral condemnation of the character? In a lesser film, the child killer would have been portrayed as a soulless monster, but that is not the case in "M". Beckert is strangely the single most fleshed-out character.
The Third Man was also my first exposure to Orson Welles, still one of my very favourite films.oliveira8 said:
that i believe is an excellent point/argument w/ a lot of posts i read of the same nature.....ive noticed there is a large "younger" crowd on this site (and no there's nothing wrong w/ that in the slightest)Croix Sinistre said:
as you pointed out w/ the ps2 thing.........Kings Quest, Space Quest, Police Quest (and i mean the origional ones not the revamps)for my tandy 1000 ex we're ground breaking and awsome for their time, and you just cant let that go.....i would watch old western movies w/ my dad back in the day, and yes while i was entertained and grew to like them, they didnt hold the same flame for me as they did my dad.........and for the record.....i miss txt adventures like Zork
You're probably right; it's telling that wikipedia cited only two bad reviews as evidence of controversy between reviewers: that one, and one that was more overt about a feeling that the film was `morally depraved'. This is why I added an amendment to my original post after such was pointed out by a poster above.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
It is above average[footnote]At least in a modal average (which avoids having to provide exact numerical weights to amount of bile) when you consider that the vast majority of posts are inoffensive.[/footnote], but I appreciate that you were civil in this exchange.
I'm glad and not a little bit relieved that someone said it. With the lack of great modern tragedies in recent mainstream movies (the best fucking movies these days seem to be whatever Pixar releases that doesn't involve talking cars), it's easy to call Kane an old movie that doesn't live up to its billing if one has never seen or been exposed to tragedy before, but it's probably a better excuse to figure out what all those writers were raving about the last couple millennia than to write off a classic tragedy as a movie who's critical appeal you "don't get."GrimTuesday said:
EDIT: Also, referring to a conversation in the thread, I think Kubrick improved on the book with A Clockwork Orange. It didn't need the last chapter and the movie made more sense without it.
I knew CO and FC were based on books, but not EWS... Good to know =DThe_root_of_all_evil said:
Anyways, I don't think it's a bad thing when something gets addapted. Wasn't Hitchikers guide to the galaxy a radio-drama at first?
Clockwork Orange misses something vital out though. Alex repents in the end. He rejoins society.Lateinos said:
The film makes him succumb to his darker desires. That totally alters the entire story.
Fight Club also makes Tyler accept his alter-ego rather than struggle with it.
Eyes Wide Shut? Acceptance rather than struggle. That's indicative of the film audience rather than the basis of the books.
Citizen Kane? Struggle right to the end.
It's a better film, imho, because it doesn't take the comforting "heroic" way out. Charles Kane suffers due to his excesses, rather than revels in them - like Alex, Tyler or Bill Harford.
The Picture of Dorian Gray wouldn't be the masterpiece it is without Dorian's decline into madness. Same with Frankenstein, Gone with the Wind, Bladerunner, 2001,Dr Jekkyl and Mr Hyde...
I'm not trolling, guess I just had to high hopes... And EWS is a great experience.Lukeje said:
Also, didn't mean they were best movies ever (That would be MP: Holy Grail) , just top of my head best movies I've seen.
It's not always a bad thing, but the original message is usually lost. That can turn it into a vanity project.Pontus Hashis said:
God, H2G2 was originally part 3 of "Ways the World Ended" (I think), then it grew into the radio play, then the stage play, then the novels, then the TV series, then the computer game, then the extra novels, then the extra radio, then the film, then the final novel...I think.
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
And WOE betide you say that one version is better than the others - mainly because Douglas Adams didn't even agree on which was the best.
But, if we're talking Adams, the BBC's version of Dirk Gently was bloody awful - which goes back to my original point - don't try and re-write what the author's sweated blood over.
I'm not sure if OP is also in Sweden, baecause it might explain why I also just saw Citizen Kane with my Grandmother (I semi-watched while playing Hitman: Blood Money on my laptop).
The main problem I have with the movie being called "the best movie ever" as it was presented here on Swedish state television, is that it's NOT timeless or universal. I found it to be heavily american, with dated ethics and rationale (Attitude towards women, non-whites, poor/uneducated) Along with a very unlikable central character.
I get that it is very well filmed. The atmosphere and cinematigraphy is something that we unfortunatley don't see much more of today (Am I the only one who hates the current trend of shaky close-ups of actors faces during fights?). I get the point of the story that tells about the life of a man from the outside, post-mortem. It would have been great if I hadn't seen similar things done better (Probably inspired by this movie), and if the character they centered on was actually likeable or even interesting.
Like several ppl on this thread have said: it was groundbreaking at the time, and very well filmed. Unfortunatley the story is NOT timeless nor universal, which, as far as I'm concerned, makes it impossible to even nominate it as a candidate for "best movie ever". But it is clear throughout this thread that I'm not the only one who thinks that this movie has lost it's relevance and "greatness" as time has moved on.
Also, like the OP I got the "Rosebud" thing before they revealed it at the end. The "complex" character of Kane was summed easily by my grandmother and me: "A boy torn away too early from his mother, the only one who showed him love, was always searching for that love from someone, anyone, throughout his life."
Eh, if you want a good character-driven movie, that will affect you deeply both emotionally and psychologically, then watch Rainman. I have been unable to watch it again, but I don't think I will ever forget it (unlike Citizen Kane).
The main problem I have with the movie being called "the best movie ever" as it was presented here on Swedish state television, is that it's NOT timeless or universal. I found it to be heavily american, with dated ethics and rationale (Attitude towards women, non-whites, poor/uneducated) Along with a very unlikable central character.
I get that it is very well filmed. The atmosphere and cinematigraphy is something that we unfortunatley don't see much more of today (Am I the only one who hates the current trend of shaky close-ups of actors faces during fights?). I get the point of the story that tells about the life of a man from the outside, post-mortem. It would have been great if I hadn't seen similar things done better (Probably inspired by this movie), and if the character they centered on was actually likeable or even interesting.
Like several ppl on this thread have said: it was groundbreaking at the time, and very well filmed. Unfortunatley the story is NOT timeless nor universal, which, as far as I'm concerned, makes it impossible to even nominate it as a candidate for "best movie ever". But it is clear throughout this thread that I'm not the only one who thinks that this movie has lost it's relevance and "greatness" as time has moved on.
Also, like the OP I got the "Rosebud" thing before they revealed it at the end. The "complex" character of Kane was summed easily by my grandmother and me: "A boy torn away too early from his mother, the only one who showed him love, was always searching for that love from someone, anyone, throughout his life."
Eh, if you want a good character-driven movie, that will affect you deeply both emotionally and psychologically, then watch Rainman. I have been unable to watch it again, but I don't think I will ever forget it (unlike Citizen Kane).
I loved Citizen Kane within the first few minutes, the music that was written for it stirs something up inside me.
The character of Kane is far more complex than what I'd been used to from watching modern Hollywood films. He's very witty, and the odd combination of forceful but guarded...perhaps hiding behind humour. I kinda liked the character, but I didn't feel like I ever got to know him or what made him tick, I get the feeling that the other characters in the film didn't really have deep relationships with him either, his relationships with women seeming particularly baseless.
I dunno...it was completely engrossing though.
The character of Kane is far more complex than what I'd been used to from watching modern Hollywood films. He's very witty, and the odd combination of forceful but guarded...perhaps hiding behind humour. I kinda liked the character, but I didn't feel like I ever got to know him or what made him tick, I get the feeling that the other characters in the film didn't really have deep relationships with him either, his relationships with women seeming particularly baseless.
I dunno...it was completely engrossing though.
Think of it as letting someone who has only played Wolfenstein his entire life play Condemned: Criminal Origins. The sheer jump in quality when compared to it's predecessors was what made Citizen Kane so famous. Yes it's nostalgia got stale by the 90s when better cinematography and scripts were available, but if you hold it against the other movies of it's time it earns it's praise.
...mostly. It certainly doesn't belong at the top position of AFI's Top 100 Films List.
...mostly. It certainly doesn't belong at the top position of AFI's Top 100 Films List.