Why do people love Citizen Kane?

[Pontus Hashis]

I just can't grasp it.
I saw the film minutes ago, and it wasn't that good. The plot-twist I guessed about 30 minutes befor it was revealed. The cinematography was good, but I saw flaws in it non the less. The acting was meh, not good nor bad.

So how can this be called " the best movie ever made"? I can say without any doubt that Eyes wide shut,A clockwork orange or even Fight Club is better by far!

So can anyone explain the love? (But then agian, maybe I shouldn't complain about love since it's always good ;P)

 

[emeraldrafael]

Soemthing about it being ground breaking. I dont know. I've seen it, didnt think it was special, but then again, I'm not one of those people that likes Atlus Shrugged type movies.

Then again, I didnt think eyes wide shut, a clock work orange, or fight club where all that special either.

 

[Uber Evil]

maybe I shouldn't complain about love since it's always good

False. Playing Alice: Madness Returns taught me this lesson very swiftly.

 

[Lukeje]

You guessed the plot twist? That doesn't really make any sense.

As regards your other suggestions for best movie, they seem flawed. I can't testify to Fight Club, having not seen it, but Eyes Wide Shut and A Clockwork Orange are regarded as Kubrick's worst works...

Long story short, is this an attempt at trolling? I found the movie fresh and original even though I watched it 60-odd years after it was filmed...

Edit: apparently A Clockwork Orange is considered on a par with the rest of Kubrick's good works. Who knew?

 

[Lateinos]

People love it because it pulls the audience in with its fascinating central character. The character of Kane is tantalyzingly close, yet we are never actually able to understand him, and there is something beautiful in that.

Also, the cinematography still stands out as excellent today, although it was a much bigger deal when it came out, when it truly was groundbreaking. I'm not one of the people who thinks that something being innovative when it was made is any reason to pretend to enjoy it now, but Citizen Kane really does still hold up.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I can say without any doubt that Eyes wide shut,A clockwork orange or even Fight Club is better by far!

Eyes Wide Shut('99): 77% - Ugh. Based on a novella.
Clockwork Orange('71): 91% - Major diversion from the book. (Two Kubrick films?)
Fight Club('99): 81% - Interesting twist but has been used often. Also diversion from the original book.

All three of your films are adaptations that didn't follow the plot of the original.

Citizen Kane('41): 100%. No-one, repeat NO-ONE, of the film critic studios gave it less than a stellar review. (Bergman famously called it boring, but his view on things is..interesting)

Kane works on many, many levels - with the music, storytelling, acting, choreography all working to produce a film that has more in common with opera than simple storytelling.

You can call it boring (Kubrick's 2001 often gets that, as does Dune), but it doesn't rely on sexual "deviance" to divert from the main plot (All three of your choices).

You may not agree it is brilliant, but it's built from layers that even Kubrick didn't quite manage. Also it has that timeless quality (like other greats) that allow Charles Foster Kane to appear as Randolf Hearst in the 40's, or Rupert Murdoch in the 10's.

 

[Lateinos]

I can say without any doubt that Eyes wide shut,A clockwork orange or even Fight Club is better by far!

Eyes Wide Shut('99): 77% - Ugh. Based on a novella.
Clockwork Orange('71): 91% - Major diversion from the book. (Two Kubrick films?)
Fight Club('99): 81% - Interesting twist but has been used often. Also diversion from the original book.

All three of your films are adaptations that didn't follow the plot of the original.

Is there an inherent problem in films not following the plots of their source materials?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I can say without any doubt that Eyes wide shut,A clockwork orange or even Fight Club is better by far!

Eyes Wide Shut('99): 77% - Ugh. Based on a novella.
Clockwork Orange('71): 91% - Major diversion from the book. (Two Kubrick films?)
Fight Club('99): 81% - Interesting twist but has been used often. Also diversion from the original book.

All three of your films are adaptations that didn't follow the plot of the original.

Is there an inherent problem in films not following the plots of their source materials?

An inherent problem, yes. It may work as a short term fix, but earlier/later points will have to be re-written to compensate, and that will cause plot-holes to appear. (CK also has a huge plot hole) From the three films mentioned, the audience is diverted away from the main point of the novel by the secondary point which is purely for the audience's titillation.

That's a problem, but doesn't have to be a film wrecker (as I guess you're implication was). It does make the adaptation weaker though, as it's trying to tell more than one stories at once.

 

[Croix Sinistre]

You we're born in the wrong time frame. Citizen Kane was and in legacy is a great movie in many ways, but to today's audience it's just some old movie.

It's akin to growing up with a PS2 and wondering why everyone gives DOOM so much credit, its graphics are shit, the music is bland and its not scary in the least, but when it came out it was groundbreaking, scary and controversially gory.

 

[Lukeje]

It's akin to growing up with a PS2 and wondering why everyone gives DOOM so much credit, its graphics are shit, the music is bland and its not scary in the least, but when it came out it was groundbreaking, scary and controversially gory.

Really? I think Doom is a bad example; it's still fun to play today (and that's without nostalgia goggles). The same can't really be said of Wolfenstein 3D however.

 

[Dr Jones]

You guessed the plot twist? That doesn't really make any sense.

As regards your other suggestions for best movie, they seem flawed. I can't testify to Fight Club, having not seen it, but Eyes Wide Shut and a Clockwork Orange are regarded as Kubrick's worst works...

Long story short, is this an attempt at trolling? I found the movie fresh and original even though I watched it 60-odd years after it was filmed...

Attempt at trolling? Lol so much for personal preference?

 

[Dr Jones]

Also, the cinematography still stands out as excellent today, although it was a much bigger deal when it came out, when it truly was groundbreaking. I'm not one of the people who thinks that something being innovative when it was made is any reason to pretend to enjoy it now, but Citizen Kane really does still hold up.

Citizen Kane was no big deal when it came out. It was a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE blunder. It was barely covered by the press "which was because that Kane was somewhat based on Randolph something, he owned like EVERY newspaper, and forced em all not to write aboot it. So it didnt make alot of money. Was something like in teh 60'ies where a frenchfrog discovered it and said like "best movay evvah"

 

[Ursus Buckler]

You we're born in the wrong time frame. Citizen Kane was and in legacy is a great movie in many ways, but to today's audience it's just some old movie.

It's akin to growing up with a PS2 and wondering why everyone gives DOOM so much credit, its graphics are shit, the music is bland and its not scary in the least, but when it came out it was groundbreaking, scary and controversially gory.

I didn't much like Citizen Kane either, but I can see your point. Although, I find that I can appreciate some old movies; I liked Double Indemnity and The Third Man, but to me CK was just an overlong film about a character I didn't like very much. It's not even that I didn't understand it, because I understood the significance of how the twist is meant to represent his life before money corrupted him, but I just didn't find it enjoyable enough to warrant a second watch, let alone for it to be the 'best movie of all time'. It's kind of like The Great Gatsby, in a way... I understand it and I enjoy talking about the symbolism of it, but I just can't stand reading it.

 

[RastaBadger]

Most of the cinematography seen in Citizen Kane was the first time it was ever used. It completely changed the way films were made.

 

[Lukeje]

You guessed the plot twist? That doesn't really make any sense.

As regards your other suggestions for best movie, they seem flawed. I can't testify to Fight Club, having not seen it, but Eyes Wide Shut and a Clockwork Orange are regarded as Kubrick's worst works...

Long story short, is this an attempt at trolling? I found the movie fresh and original even though I watched it 60-odd years after it was filmed...

Attempt at trolling? Lol so much for personal preference?

You didn't answer any of my points. Thus I feel justified in my assertion.

Edit: Mistook you for the OP'er. Sorry. Thus, until he answers my points I shall feel justified in my assertion. Unless you care to defend him with something other than thinly veiled ad hominem attacks?

 

[theravensclaw]

I had to watch it about 30 times at university and I too never saw the brilliance. Also being made to watch it so much made me hate it more,

 

[standokan]

I think it's mainly because back in the day, it was groundbreaking, maybe it doesn't excite you as much because nowadays a movie like Citizen Kane wouldn't be as great as it was back then.

As I see it, we're from a different generation so we can't really judge since we don't really know how it was back then.

I myself didn't like it as much as the reviews but I liked the premise and the "twist" in the end.

 

[EvilPicnic]

I watched it for the first time recently and was actually surprised at how 'modern' the cinematography was, compared to similar films of that era which I struggle to get through.

I gather that it was a big leap forward at the time in terms of special effects and style, and was the actor/writer/director's first production. I would guess that the Orson Welles cult of personality is a big part to the film's enduring success, in addition to being a pretty damn well-made film.

To be honest I actually think it's kind of 'cool' at the moment to dismiss Citizen Kane as a film, simply as a reaction to the high regard it's held in by many critics. Which is why I was a little taken aback to find myself enjoying it when I watched it, as I was expecting a blandly average film.

Best film ever? Maybe, maybe not, I'm perhaps not informed enough to judge. But it is certainly a very very good one by both modern standards, and those of the time, and anyone who denies this (including Ingmar Bergman) is talking out of their arse, really.

 

[Croix Sinistre]

You we're born in the wrong time frame. Citizen Kane was and in legacy is a great movie in many ways, but to today's audience it's just some old movie.

It's akin to growing up with a PS2 and wondering why everyone gives DOOM so much credit, its graphics are shit, the music is bland and its not scary in the least, but when it came out it was groundbreaking, scary and controversially gory.

I didn't much like Citizen Kane either, but I can see your point. Although, I find that I can appreciate some old movies; I liked Double Indemnity and The Third Man, but to me CK was just an overlong film about a character I didn't like very much. It's not even that I didn't understand it, because I understood the significance of how the twist is meant to represent his life before money corrupted him, but I just didn't find it enjoyable enough to warrant a second watch, let alone for it to be the 'best movie of all time'. It's kind of like The Great Gatsby, in a way... I understand it and I enjoy talking about the symbolism of it, but I just can't stand reading it.

Then I guess your Citizen Kane is my Half Life 2, I can see where it's significant, I 'get it', but I still don't like it and don't see why it has the massive following it does.