i didn't say I thought it was the worst. I said I hated it.....but in a way I do think its one of the worst films. I could hardly stand sitting through it, I thought it was boring as hell, and I thought it was stupid. So therfor, I thought it was bad. Now maybe some stupid movie made on a VHS cam had crappier quality, but i don't give a damn...I actually think I would probably get more enjoyment out of watching that than citizen kane. I could never watch Kane again, not out of spite, out of how much of my time I'd be wasting watching it. I never wanna see it again....I'd rather watch some ****ty movie I've never seen and KNOW is gonna be ****ty before I watch a movie I already KNOW is gonna be ****ty cause I've already seen it (CITIZEN KANE)

point is, I've never been so bored in my life.

-TacoWagonProductions

I bet you've been told this before; but you're ignorant and have a lack of appreciation.

_________________________

you'd be surprised the movies I appreciate.

I'm not ignorant. I watched the movie. I even listened to my film teacher's idiot commentary on it.

For starters, this topic is basically "OPINIONS" not "FACT" THerfor everything said is an opinion.

Now saying that Citizen Kane is not the worst movie ever is not only your opinion....but its also saying something about what YOU think makes what you would call...."the worst movie"

Everyone has an opinion on what "Worst" means when it comes to film. We obviously have a different interpretation.

Therfor, on my views on what makes a movie bad....Citizen Kane is the worst movie I have ever seen.

-TacoWagonProductions

i'd explain it further but that would be futile

oh and 'love stinks' doesnt suck, especially if you've been out with a psychob|tch and can relate

i only didnt like signs b/c of the religious propaganda that tried to be subtle

[This message was edited by BSPEED on December 19, 2003 at 10:47 PM.]

I personally love Citizen Kane. But i wouldnt say it si wrong for someone to say its the worst film ever and they dont appreciate any aspect of it. I mean u can be the biggest lover of artistic film and still hate CK. You can still haev no appreciation. I refuse to sit here and say somkeone is worng for disliking and not even partially appreciatinjg CK. We get our opinions from certain qualities within. I wouldve **** myself if Kyle said he even had appreciation. I respect him for it and wont go out and ask him why he doesnt like it cause i could probly come up with every reaseon myself. Is it overratred? sure. but alot of fims are. and alot are underrated. but i just cant stand seeign someone believe that kyle is just syaing he hates CK to get a rise out of ppl. I wouldnt have said a thing to him about it even though i love CK and cant understand why "I" would ever dislike CK. But im not kyle and i dont want him to conform to be anything like me or anyone else. wtf? oh well, whatever, n/m

HDK, don't you have some videotapes to return.......?




-TacoWagonProductions

kyle, dont get me started

but actually I do have to return "Pearl Harbour" that I finally saw like 4 years after the fact and I must say I was glad the dvd glitxched out on chapter 26 cause my mind was warped from the highly toxic levels of crap i was recieving form my tv.

yeah, that happens....A LOT.

-TacoWagonProductions

i think someone should tie kyle to a chair and force him to watch citizen kane over and over and over until he signs a document that states his appreciation for the film that is citizen kane.

if youre looking for a witty signature, youre looking in the wrong place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hill Dawson Kane:
I refuse to sit here and say somkeone is worng for disliking and not even partially appreciatinjg CK. We get our opinions from certain qualities within.

---

Hold it right there. I never said he was wrong for disliking it. I agree with you that people are entitled to their own opinions; I never said nor implied otherwise.

You can dislike a film and still have appreciation and respect for it. Granted, I personally don't think Kane is a visually or dramatically amazing film, but I have immense respect for the ground it broke and what it achieved in the history of cinema. That film single-handedly created a chain reaction of influence that lasts to this day, over 62 years later. To have no respect or appreciation for that is, in my opinion, plain ignorant. To love cinema and have no respect for Kane is like loving the newspaper and having no respect for James Bennett, or loving rock n' roll and having no respect for The Beatles. You can dislike them all you want, but their influence on the things you love is something worth appreciating and respecting them for.

_________________________

Well here are so movies that I hate.

1.How High

2.Rollerball(remake)

3.Jailbait (I turn it off after 10 min, It may be the worst thing I have ever seen on film, and that is just 10minutes. God I felt so dirty after watching the 10min.)

4. Halfbaked (really bad)

These are only a few I know there are more but I can not think of anymore.

The worst movie of all time is Battlefield Earth

And Drew, you can go on and on about how much you hate the lord of the rings but at least admit the elements of it's production were good. I think someone in the other ROTK thread claimed that movies like ROTK were ruining cinema and that he was going to save it. Give me a ****ing break. Peter Jackson more than pulled off probably one of the most ambitious undertakings in films history and you guys come on here and bash it with little real evidence to support why you dislike it so much. I feel like the message board is turning into movie poopshoot from Jay and Silent Bob...I'm waiting for someone to come on here and say, Peter Jackson is ****ing clown shoes

I've heard no real evidence to like LOTR...ppl say its got great acting, great camera work, great emotion...i dont think so, and many others dont either. all of those are just 'good' - but nothing spectacular.

-----------------
"Me? I'm dishonest. And you can always trust a dishonest man to be dishonest. Honestly, it's the honest ones, you want to be afraid of."

Jarmusawa's idea reminds me of A CLock Work Orange

JW said;

quote:

---

You can dislike a film and still have appreciation and respect for it. Granted, I personally don't think Kane is a visually or dramatically amazing film, but I have immense respect for the ground it broke and what it achieved in the history of cinema.

---

I've said something like that on this forum several times before.

Yeah, it may have been great then....but now? who cares?

-TacoWagonProductions

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyle Johnson:
Yeah, it may have been great then....but now? who cares?

---

Did you even bother reading what I wrote?

_________________________

I already told you, I agreed with what you said...I've said something similar before.

Citizen Kane may have made breakthroughs and all that crap, but I don't really care.....to say its the best movie of all time is ridiculous...why say its great?Cause it was the first to do all thse groundbrreaking stuff? Thats stupid. The film has no entertainment value to me at all. To me, a movie that doesn't entertain me, is bad. Movies surpass Citizen Kane in so many ways.....but don't even say, "Well without Citizen Kane, those films wouldn't exist" Thats just stupid. We can't all thank Citizen Kane for what its done. Yeah, it did some nice things back then...but to say it paved the way for film is ridiculeous. No matter what another film would've done it....I'm not saying I disslike Citizen KAne for that reason...I just think it doesn't deserve all the thanks its get. Another film would've done the same thing.....so why make it seem like its one of the greatest?

I know Citizen Kane was maybe great back then....but I don't think it stands the test of time. So many more films are so much better.

-TacoWagonProductions

...message boards

"The Greatest Movie Ever? No way" (Robert Mckee)
I think the topic of Robert McKee's short film "J'Accuse: A Critical Analysis of Citizen Kane" has been brought up before, but it never really took off, and for some reason the film isn't on the imdb list of films under his name, so i thought i'd bring it up again. If it's already been discussed, i'm sorry, but i'm sure you'll live.

Basically i thought i'd paraphrase it, as it's not listed, and hopefully it'll help you reevaluate your opinion of Citizen Kane.

In the film, McKee argues that in any art form, a great work should hold up the ideal - that is to present content in a way that style does not draw attention to itself. For example Michaelangelo's David - on second viewing perhaps, you may notice that Michaelangelo's style is inhuman, the shape of the hands are disproportional...

But with Citizen Kane? Who needs a second look? From the first frame of the film style jumps off the screen and applauds itself.

Visual Style: Deep focus:

This is something that Orson Welles has been praised for. Whilst not a new technique, no one but Welles had used it with such intensity. Critics have argued that deep focus gives the audience a greater sense of realism, as it gives the audience freedom to look where they want.
But is this realism? In reality, everthing isn't in focus. We don't slowly pan over shots... We EDIT life. Because reality isn't focusing your eyeballs, it's perception. So, Welles didn't in fact create a greater sense of realism, but a greater artificiality. But, why not? Art is artificial - nothing wrong with this.

Welles also had ceilings built onto the sets and holes dug in the floor. Sure, rooms have ceilings, but who notices? For example, look at the scene where Leland and Kane have just lost the election. By looking at them from below, the characters tower over us (again, not a greater sense of realism) - this makes them appear triumphant, even successful, which contradicts what has happened. But, perhaps Welles thought it ironic... 'successful losers' - i dont think so, i think he just wanted us to notice that the room had a ceiling...

Story Structure:

Citizen Kane is a story, within a story, within a story. First, the newsreporter's story, second, the life of Kane, which is told in flashbacks, and third, the search for the meaning of the meaning of the word "rosebud".

What the writer wants is dramatic irony. We know what has happened, so our interests lie in flashing back to find out how and why these events take place, such as in Billy Wilder's "Sunset Boulevard". But what rewards our search? Nothing. As the characters in Citizen Kane are such dreadful stereotypes, that they may as well wear signs around their necks. That goes for Kane, the great newspaper tycoon as well - i've known newspaper boys with more complex personalties.

This is the favourite recipie of bad writing. Take a dull story, mix it up through time, then claim it's modernism. They had to come up with a gimmick like that because, if you take the Newspaper search plotline out of the story, what do you have? A dull story with characters for which we can have no empathy.

Meaning:

There have been three proposed meanings to Citizen Kane, and critics have argued about them for decades.
1) The burning sledge - this suggests that Kane lost his childhood, and, if we know a simple childhood incident about a person, we can explain everything about them.
2) "I don't think one thing can explain the life of a man" (I think that's the line, i'm probably wrong, but it's something to that effect) - The newsreporter says this line at the end of the film. This suggests you can't explain everything about a man - Kane is an enigma
3) The third theory is about the first two theories - to promote a discussion about what can or cannot be explained about a man.

Mckee then proposed a 4th theory - the bad writing theory - the writer and director who can't agree what their movie is about theory. Herman J. Mankiewicz wrote the original screenplay, then Welles added the line "i dont think one thing can explain the life of a man". He saw the burning sledge's meaning for what it was - a cheap, Freudian cliche'. But, rather than writing a whole new screenplay, he simply added his bit. Mankiewicz hated that line. He believed in his burning sledge... in fact, most audience's like the burning sledge idea... but this is nothing new. Oscar or no oscar, this is not great screenwriting.

The best movie of all time?

So, with this all said and done, why do critics/film academics (and also IMDB users) insist that Citizen Kane is the greatest movie of all time? Because everything that's weak, everything that's wrong in it, they love, as it allows them to show off their knowledge by writing dozens of papers on it. If you look at Citizen Kane, you see that it's got everything in it - wipes, dissolves, montages, echo chambers - WHY? Because this is Orson Welles' first film, and he wants to show that he knows everything, so we get everything... People have argued that Citizen Kane is not your typical hollywood film. But it's pure hollywood - all these tricky effects, but ultimately all glitz and no guts. It's different, but it's difference for the sake of difference, and that's as bad as slavishly following commercial convention.

So when critics are asked "what is the greatest film of all time?", i've course they're going to choose an 'art' movie. Of course, they couldn't pick Fellini's wonderful film "8 1/2", or Bergman's masterpiece "Persona". Nor a people's favourite like "Casablanca". No, they picked "Citizen Kane". I think critics secretly hate themselves for liking Hollywood films. They have this love-hate thing for tinsel town. So, by picking "Citizen Kane", they can say "there, you wouldn't know art, even if you made it yourself"... when is film criticism going to grow up?

Citizen Kane is a film that's 'different'. It's style is its content, and a lot can be said for 'interesting'. But for the critics' blatant claim that it is the greatest film ever made - no way. In fact, i think Orson Welles would be first to agree. It's a little disheartening being told your first film was your best film, then it was all downhill from there. Citizen Kane doesn't crave being a good film. It craves critical argument - and see, it has us even now, giving it exactly what it wants...

Well, that's it - hopefully Robert Mckee doesn't sue me for plagiarising his work. But if it helps convince you that Citizen Kane is not the greatest movie ever made, then i think it's served it's purpose.

-TacoWagonProductions

It's funny how the only intelligent post you've made so far is someone else's words.

Look. I never said it was the best movie of all time. Nor did I say it paved the way for film. I don't believe any of that; you got that out of thin air. However, there is NO denying the influence that the film has had on the industry, even up to this day. This is why it is considered to be so great, because of the effect it has had on cinema. There is simply no denying this. It's a fact.

Now, I don't think it's the best movie of all time; if you had read what I wrote then you'd know that what I'm talking about is the amount of respect you seem to have towards the movie. Forget about how much we like the movie; that's subjective and you're entitled to your own thoughts on that one, but anyone who knows anything about the history of American cinema has appreciation for it. If you can't understand that, then you have a lot to learn.

_________________________

quote:

---

Look. I never said it was the best movie of all time. Nor did I say it paved the way for film. I don't believe any of that; you got that out of thin air.

---

Thin air? Yes...I was just stating more reasons why I didn't like it. When I say something like, "To say its the best movie..." I'm not saying, you...I'm saying other people. I know, I am hard to understand...I don't even know what I'm saying.

But I wasn't saying you liked the film, I was just putting up more reasons why I dissliked the film...or something. Or my opinion...whatever it was I said.

-TacoWagonProductions