It's a good movie, but I don't hold it in as high of acclaim as some do. I think it may have been better understood by the public at the time, when people like Hearst were more commonly known.

If you're going to rent CK, I suggest you also rent RKO 281 which is the story behind the making of CK. It stars Liev Schrieber as Orson Welles (along with a lot of other great actors, including John Malkovich) and really details William Hearst and his power. You'll also find out the true meaning of "Rosebud", and it's definitely not a sled.

Never knew this. RKO 281 definitely goes on my "to see" list. Thanks, Mr. Movie Industry Expert®.

I think you're right, Mr. Cochise. Modern audiences can't really engage with this movie on the basis of "entertainment" anymore. Mainly because it's so dated.

I read once that Steinbeck claimed that you could read Grapes Of Wrath on 7 different levels. I'm certain few, if any, people outside of academia ever attempted to do that. This movie is sort of like that, I suppose.

You don't watch it for entertainment, you watch it for other reasons. One of those is to admire the filmmaking skills employed. Like breaking down a football game into it's parts, it's interesting to see how the film was constructed and why. Then, there's the allegory, the impressionistic symbolism, etc. If you're not into that, it's probably a waste of time.

FAX

I thought there were some cool subtleties involved, like how the camera looks up at some characters and down at others. But mainly I watched it to see what all the fuss was about. I thought it was good, but I wouldn't say it was all that remarkable, to me.

Its interesting that this topic comes up now. I only saw CK a few days ago for the first time when Turner Classic Movies played it.

Its a good movie. I didn't "blow me away", but it does have a certain emotional power. I missed the beginning scene where he dies alone, so I went online to figure out what the hell the burning of the sled at the end meant.

Anyway...that led to to reading quite a bit about it, and I found out that CK was a BOMB at the box office in 1941. It won 9 oscars (or was nominated for, i don't remember), but every time it was announced as a contestant the oscar audience booed it.

Boooorrrriiiiinnnnngggg!

"The Manchurian Candidate" (1962) was better.

In fact, Casablanca was better as well.

I bet we could fill a thread with movies that were better than Citizen Kane.

Maybe it's because it epitomizes the art of making a film, rather than the actual storyline?

:shrug:

I didn't see any analysis of it, and I still haven't, but that movie rocks. Also, I know I'm not the best analyst (Just a 22 year old Psych major), but I saw a great story about a guy losing his innocence throughout his life. I thought Rosebud was the symbol of this, its burning in the end showing how he had gone from a sweet, innocent child who loved his sled, to a unhappy, bitter old man who lost everything he had except for a massive amount of statues and other various effects.

Between this and King Kong, I have come to the conclusion RKO made a lot of good movies. I don't know why it isn't still around.

Moooo

Collapse of the studio system in the postwar years...

Howard Hughes bought it sometime in the late 40's when it was still very stong and supposedly mismanaged it. I think he sold it a few years later to some company that made a half assed attempt to run the studio and eventually it just died off.

I've seen Citizen Kane once and thought it was good but overrated.

I think I've seen Gone With the Wind three times over the years. There won't be a fourth. Yuck. Fran Drescher + Southern Accent = Scarlet O'hara. :bang:

Both of these films are Casablanca's bitches.