This film didn't click with me, I expected a linear biographical political-business epic but the modern flashback structure wrongfooted me. I liked the breakneck speed opening and the introduction of his nemesis Thatcher,
The film is objectively good so I hope to enhance my opinion when I watch it again in a year or two.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
the filename suggests that you are posting from your telephone. please tell me that you did not watch this film on your telephone
it's not 1900, try watching something better than Citizen Kane like Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny
It's an okay film that's let down by some shitty supporting performances, especially the one by the actress who plays Kane floozie second wife. The main use of Citizen Kane in the present day culture is as a reliable subject for undergraduate film essays. It's also a means for Youtubers who know very little of worth about film to pretend that they do. See James Rolfe, a literal retard, praising Citizen Kane in a desperate grasp at credibility.
its a good movie and thats about it. Just appreciate it, dont try to get something out of it. It has nice unrestricted flow, and thats the most important thing for a good "movie" film
>the filename suggests that you are posting from your telephone. please tell me that you did not watch this film on your telephone
No, I bought the 4k disc at the same time I purchased Elephant Man & Flash Gordon. The disc also has an Ebert commentary BTW.
dubs of truth
His phone would have better resolution than the screens most people would have watched it on back then.
Orson Welles is a talented man, but I just don't get Citizen Kane either. Maybe you had to be there, relevance to the culture of the time, etc.
whats not to get?
Except that's the complete opposite of why it's so famous.
I don't understand the lack of diversity.
It needed more women, niggers, and LGBTI2Q+ representation. Nobody can relate to a movie when it's just old white men because science.
>His phone would have better resolution than the screens most people would have watched it on back then.
>t. has never watched a film on 35mm and thinks that all theaters before 1990 looked like 90s television sets
Appreciate the movie for what it is.
You can watch Citizen Kane and tell yourself "Men, this movie feels really recent, or something like that, not filmed on 1940" on some scenes.
And that's because the direction is great and innovations it made are used till this day
Meanwhile you have B movies made today that "feels cheap" the whole movie because bumfucks don't care about learning cinematography, they just buy a 4k digital camera, point and record.
youtube.com
>they just buy a 4k digital camera, point and record.
Based.
>youtube.com
That's a good perspective, thanks
Just don't think of it as a film with a story. Think of it as a tech-demo. Or maybe a tutorial on how to edit a film efficiently - film schools use it as such anyway.
The moment you try to follow the plot instead of the technical aspects, you'll lose interest. Because, yes, the whole plot is complete derivative trash that goes nowhere (and hinges on a twist ending that has been spoiled to everyone anyway).
I'll acknowledge what it contributed to cinema, but as a film on the whole I really don't care for it.
>delusionally thinks most people who have seen it since then somehow watched it in a theatre
>PROTIP: Most people who saw it in a theatre back then are dead as a fucking door nail in the CURRENT YEAR
Citizen Kane is a genre by itself, American Fantasy. I will never get how a banker can raise someone's son into wealth, finances and medias. His life was surreal
>it's the best movie ever because it invented some important techniques
Never understood this argument. A terrible movie can be the first to do something. Does that automatically make it great?
The most important aspect of a movie will always be to tell a good and engaging story, but this movie fails completely at that.