Citizen Kane

[ER]

Beware, motion picture heresy doth hereafter blossom, though perhaps not flourish.

Strictly in my humblest opinion, Citizen Kane, for all its might and heft and seemingly unassailable reputation these eighty years, is the loftiest example I can think of wherein a movie is great (not the same as good) and bad at the same time.

Oh, I know Citizen Kane has tones of shadow and light to rival the best of film noir, and yes, its closing irony is up there with any twist of M. Night Shyamalan, and, yes, its special effects are overlooked, but Citizen Kane is simply bad in so many small irritating ways, from being slow and boring to being silly, to being falsely tragic, to being obese with melodrama.

It's also depressing but I think it was supposed to be, so that I don't hold against it.

I'm not knocking the movie to the point of saying it's terrible, I'm not denying it's great, and I'm not taking anything away from its legendary creator or his courage in making the film when he did, just saying....in a context I hope registers some resonance in another, that in so many ways this is also a ridiculously bad movie of nearly Ed Wood proportions because it wears a black hat as rigidly as any villain in a silent cowboy flick, and there are few shades of storytelling grays anywhere here.

Truthfully, I'd give it about a five out of ten, and after seeing it about three times in my life, doubt I'll ever watch it again.

[dean]

Worth a read in any case:

https://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/features/20-inspired-visual-moments-citizen-kane

[Svengoolie 3]

CK was a thinly veiled movie about William Randolph Hearst and had two aims:

1 to show how dangerous a media mogul with a personal agenda could be.

2 to show even the wealthy and powerful can have empty, unhppay lives.

2 for 2.

[Alex]

Alas many classic and worthy films (as well as books), can be terribly dull and dry too. I'd have to be honest and confess I have never actually watched this one.

[ralfy]

Very good movie. Reminds me of Night of the Hunter.

[Gabriel Knight]

My hatred for that wretched movie can't be easily explained, so I'll just paste a user review from IMDb that summarize my opinions quite accurately:

1/10
The Great Cinema Swindle
AphroditeVenus9 July 2007

I know why you're reading this. You're smart, you have great taste, a passion for cinema, and you see CK near the top of every 'Great Movie' list ever compiled. So with great anticipation you borrow a DVD copy and sit down for a real treat, and... you can't get through the first half hour. You fall asleep.

Surprised, you think, 'It must be me, maybe I'm tired,' so a month later, you try again. But you don't even get as far as before, and wake up drooling out the corner of your mouth as a bloated Orson Welles, with really bad age make-up, groans 'Rosebud, Rosebud'.

It doesn't make sense. You're perplexed. You've watched other films on the lists... Casablanca made you stand up and cheer, cry, laugh, feel connected to all humanity. You even adore films on the list that some might consider oblique, like 8 1/2, which you reckon reinvented cinema language, weaving in and out of memory, dreams, psyche, reality, putting the human spirit up on the screen, making you cheer, laugh, and feel connected to all humanity.

So why does CK leave you so cold? You wonder, 'What's wrong with me? Am I stupid or something?'

Your borrowed DVD copy gathers dust (notice how the lender never asks for it back?), taunting your unquiet mind: "You must watch me: I'm the greatest film of all time!" But you shudder at the thought. Life's too short and, after all, there's more engaging things to do - like scraping plaque off the dog's teeth.

Years pass. Finally, you can take it no longer. You think, 'To be a serious film lover I MUST watch Citizen Kane! Maybe I was too immature before - yes, that must be it!' So you gird your loins and sit - awake! - through the whole thing. The whole turgid, ponderous, dull, vacuous, plodding, dank catastrophe. It's even worse than you feared. An emotionally and intellectually empty story. Your average six year old can invent a more complex, engaging tale.

Genuinely puzzled, you ask people who name it as one of the greatest films of all time why they like it, and with barely concealed superiority that phoneys are wont to adopt, they wax lyrical talk about the haunting mystery of the final words, "Rosebud, rosebud". You notice there's no feeling behind what they say. They also talk a great deal about Gregg Toland's cinematography, with liberal references to "deep focus", and you appreciate this, you really do, the cinematography was damned fine, best thing about the movie. That shot which started outside the window then tracked back into the room was really cool. But you just don't believe a movie is made great by cinematography alone.

In all your inquiries, you never once hear the following phrase, spoken from the heart: "God, I love that film".

So here you find yourself, reading IMDb comments.

Well, let me tell you this: There's Nothing Wrong With You! You Are Right! It's Overrated Flashy Unintelligent Rubbish!

One day, perhaps (one can but dream), the coolest, greatest, most admired film being in the world will point out the bleeding obvious nakedness of this bloated Emperor, and the assorted film critics, film studies teachers, and others who need to be told what to think by an authority figure, shall squirm, and CK shall drop off the lists once and for all.

Until that great day, don't be afraid to speak the truth.

[Rev. Powell]

CITIZEN KANE bores modern audiences, I get it. I don't think the story is that great either. But you can't underestimate its historical and technical importance. The use of flashbacks, multiple narrators, deep focus, innovative angles---all of that stuff had never been seen before, at least not on this scale. It set the language of film for decades to come, and filmmakers still use the basic movie language Welles perfected here. It's more of a movie for deep students of films than for regular audiences. It's not nearly as "bad" as the contrarians claim. I can buy the argument that it's great without being really "good" (by which most people mean "entertaining"), though.

[Allhallowsday]

CITIZEN KANE bored contemporary audiences.  Many saw its merits, I think it was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar.  It still was no financial success.   

I like CITIZEN KANE.  I used to think it was a favorite, but I've discovered many films since I first watched it.  Probably all of the films I love best were influenced by it.  I think of Hollywood movies as having polar opposites, of equal merit: CITIZEN KANE and THE WIZARD OF OZ.   

THE GENERAL (1926) might be the greatest "Hollywood" movie.