John the OFM | 11 Jun 2008 9:30 p.m. PST |
Is it a boring piece of self-indulgent megalomania by a pompous ass, or simply garden variety boring? |
McKinstry | 11 Jun 2008 9:34 p.m. PST |
I think you are being too kind. As a simpler, less sophisticated type, I'd just go with 'sucks pond water'. |
Topkick890 | 11 Jun 2008 9:45 p.m. PST |
The only answer to that is YES 8^) |
John the OFM | 11 Jun 2008 9:48 p.m. PST |
Remember, this is a POLL SUGGESTION query, and not a movie review. Please, no wagering. To be a standard TMP poll, we need at least 10 different possible answers, with barely relevant differences between them. Four different "no opinion" would be nice, too. |
nvdoyle | 11 Jun 2008 9:53 p.m. PST |
|
John the OFM | 11 Jun 2008 9:56 p.m. PST |
I haven't seen it.
That's a PERFECT "no opinion, why am I taking part in this poll?" response. |
Space Monkey | 11 Jun 2008 10:10 p.m. PST |
Howsabout "Not only don't I like it but it makes me really cranky that anyone else does!" That's usually a valid option for just about anything. |
Topkick890 | 11 Jun 2008 10:36 p.m. PST |
Ah – Posts must be in the form of a poll response. Having seen it once while taking a hallucenogenic drug trip and being distracted by some belly button lint in the shape of the mole on John Wilkes Booth's left buttocks I can catagorically say that I found it to be pendantic and obtuse. Anyone asking me to explain further or demanding specific examples is both plebian and pedestrian. |
Space Monkey | 11 Jun 2008 10:40 p.m. PST |
Howsabout "I would hate ANY movie that repeatedly tops the list of 'Greatest Films'" I think it's silly to label any movie/book/song/whatever that way
but that seems to be the source of a great deal of the spittle directed at poor old Mr. Kane. |
aecurtis | 11 Jun 2008 10:58 p.m. PST |
|
Cpt Arexu | 11 Jun 2008 10:58 p.m. PST |
Pretty not bad, actually. |
jawjatek | 11 Jun 2008 11:40 p.m. PST |
John the OFM – hated it. Aecurtis – why does that pig have wings for ears? |
streetline | 12 Jun 2008 1:40 a.m. PST |
Has anyone seen The Happening yet? |
Gecoren | 12 Jun 2008 2:59 a.m. PST |
|
15th Hussar | 12 Jun 2008 3:03 a.m. PST |
|
aecurtis | 12 Jun 2008 3:03 a.m. PST |
|
Mark Wals | 12 Jun 2008 4:37 a.m. PST |
I've never bothered to track it down to be bored by it. I alwats have better things ro do, like
sleep. |
Mike G | 12 Jun 2008 6:19 a.m. PST |
I think it was great. It was incredibly innovative at the time. I believe it was the first movie to use up camera angles. |
captain arjun | 12 Jun 2008 6:29 a.m. PST |
It might be the best movie ever made, but I couldn't sit through 15 minutes of it. |
vtsaogames | 12 Jun 2008 7:16 a.m. PST |
I can watch it but don't go bananas over it. I do like the barely concealed Hearst stuff. Birth of a Nation also had ground-breaking film techniques but the film makes my skin crawl, since it glorifies the KKK. And the lines about "our Aryan heritage"
My favorite old/innovative movie is Battleship Potemkin. Some of the camera work still amazes me. And it's short. Yes, I know it's commie propaganda. |
nycjadie | 12 Jun 2008 7:21 a.m. PST |
I've watched it at least half-dozen times. I think it might be one of the best movies ever made. Of course, there's lots of people here that like Battlestar Galactica and other cheap sci-fi soap operas. |
pphalen | 12 Jun 2008 7:24 a.m. PST |
So, following your "rules" does: "megalomaniac self-indulgency" work? |
mandt2 | 12 Jun 2008 7:37 a.m. PST |
I think it's an amazing movie. Yes, it is self-indulgent, though that doesn't necessarily make it bad. It's one of my top ten favorites, right behind Raising Arizona. |
John the OFM | 12 Jun 2008 7:39 a.m. PST |
It might be the best movie ever made, but I couldn't sit through 15 minutes of it.
Actually, it's not the best "movie"
It's the best "FILM". That's a huge difference. I would argue that the first to do something does not mean best. Was the first snuff film the best snuff film? Surely, THAT is innovative. |
Streitax | 12 Jun 2008 7:41 a.m. PST |
Herding cats again, John? |
John the OFM | 12 Jun 2008 8:13 a.m. PST |
Herding cats? In a topic like this? No, more like tossing a cherry bomb in one direction, and a can of tuna in the other. As Old Lodge skins said to Jack Crabbe, "Sometimes the magic works, sometimes it doesn't." Speaking of which "Little Big Man" has a far better claim to "Greatest Movie Ever Made" than CK. |
John the OFM | 12 Jun 2008 8:14 a.m. PST |
They are doing a remake, starring the REAL Kane: picture |
Shagnasty | 12 Jun 2008 8:48 a.m. PST |
|
Knight Templar | 12 Jun 2008 8:51 a.m. PST |
I greatly enjoy C.K. I wouldn't call it one of the best or greatest movies ever made, but it is a good film story. I like the ending. It has "socko." |
Baron Saturday | 12 Jun 2008 9:09 a.m. PST |
|
Streitax | 12 Jun 2008 9:09 a.m. PST |
I agree 'Little Big Man' is a classic. Saw it when it first came out, long before you had trailers saturating TV time with the 'three best shots of the movie and two that were left on the cutting room floor'. I had seen a picture of Hoffman as the old Jack Crabbe in Time, I think, but didn't really know anything about the movie. It was a spur of the moment thing with my wife-to-be and it was a great choice. |
Thomas Whitten | 12 Jun 2008 9:21 a.m. PST |
Well Citizen Kang was voted as the "seventh best segment of the Treehouse of Horror episodes" link |
elcid1099 | 12 Jun 2008 9:40 a.m. PST |
|
Jovian1 | 12 Jun 2008 10:19 a.m. PST |
|
T Meier | 12 Jun 2008 10:39 a.m. PST |
"piece of self-indulgent megalomania" I like the self-reference, a self-indulgent megalomaniacal film by a self-indulgent megalomaniac about a self-indulgent megalomaniac. That said look at the way films, even good ones were put together back in 1941. I think a lot of why ‘Citizen Kane' falls flat with modern audiences is the innovations have all been totally absorbed and what's left is a pretty thin story and, except perhaps for Joseph Cotton, mundane acting. |
Space Monkey | 12 Jun 2008 1:21 p.m. PST |
"Thin Story"
Compared to what? It seems a decent enough story to me
certainly not thinner than most mainstream films nowadays. I agree with you about how a lot of those innovations have been absorbed by films that followed. I'm always amazed when I go back and watch some old silent film and realize that what I thought was a relatively modern movie idea
isn't. |
JackWhite | 12 Jun 2008 4:39 p.m. PST |
|
Space Monkey | 12 Jun 2008 5:25 p.m. PST |
Rosebud is the McGuffin in the story that gives a reason for the story to be told
'Rosebud' is the last word said by Charles Foster Kane as he dies
and the truth of who/what it is is revealed at the end of the movie. |
Mephistopheles | 12 Jun 2008 6:30 p.m. PST |
Greatest film in history. You're nuts |
mandt2 | 12 Jun 2008 6:57 p.m. PST |
Actually, I believe "Raging Bull" is frequently considered to be the best film ever made. |
adub74 | 12 Jun 2008 7:32 p.m. PST |
"I know it's commie propaganda." If you like propaganda films, try "Triumph of the Will." Simply amazing. You'll be amazed out how excited you are when Hitler actually speaks for the first time about an hour into it. Then a second later you'll snap out of it and realize the brilliance of Leni Riefenstahl. imdb.com/title/tt0025913 A CK is a great film if you tend to agree with film critics in what makes a good one or not. If you often disagree then you won't generally find much in CK to amuse you. |
Cmde Perry | 12 Jun 2008 8:19 p.m. PST |
ok, in the form of a poll response: "a film I've been told I *ought* to see, but just haven't gotten around to it" |
Space Monkey | 12 Jun 2008 8:20 p.m. PST |
I think critics are most useful after you've been reading them for a while
figure out their prejudices and demeanors. I've been reading Roger Ebert's reviews for decades
I don't always agree with him, but at this point I can tell by his reaction to a movie whether or not it might be something I'd like. |
The Beast Rampant | 12 Jun 2008 9:25 p.m. PST |
Ebert is a pompous, talentless ass if there ever was one. His reviews frequently wander off topic for particular reason (hey, that dog has a poofy tail!), and his writing is abyssmal. Why would you listen to ANYBODY'S opinion who's resonsible for "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls"? |
Space Monkey | 12 Jun 2008 9:34 p.m. PST |
I LOVE 'Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls'!!! It's a kooky kind of fun! One thing I like about Ebert is how un-pompous he is compared to a lot of other movie reviewers. Him and Siskel gave 'Dawn Of The Dead' two thumbs up. He has that whole thing about rating movies based on their own intentions
meaning that he tries not to use the same standards for the new Indiana Jones movie (which he liked) as he would from some French art film. His reviews lately have been a bit cranky and non-sequitur at times
but I think it's funny
kind of like Andy Rooney. |
Ditto Tango 2 1 | 13 Jun 2008 6:23 a.m. PST |
I actually quite enjoyed it when I watched it a year or so agao for the first time after seeing countless references to it in Charlie Brown comic strips since I started reading Peanuts in the early 70s
I think a lot of why ‘Citizen Kane' falls flat with modern audiences is the innovations have all been totally absorbed What are some of the innovations of the movie? I believe it probably was innovative and that's why it made such a big splash when it came out, but, alas, I am certainly a modern audience member
-- Tim |
Martin Rapier | 13 Jun 2008 2:42 p.m. PST |
Citizen Kane is a fabulous film, incredibly innovative in its day, very moving and working on any number of levels. It might be considered a little slow by modern standards, but I like a film which takes its time. Now, if you want an absolutely stunning film which takes its time, the try 'The Leopard' (Burt Lancaster in the Italian Wars of Unification). I am probably a terribly pretentious pseudo-intellectual. |
T Meier | 13 Jun 2008 4:02 p.m. PST |
"Compared to what?" First let's summarize the story. Young man with enough money to get whatever he wants starts out idealistic but gradually becomes a megalomaniac for no very clear reason except the corrupting influence of said money. On his deathbed he yearns for his lost innocence. The lack of exploration of the reason is why I call the story rather thin. At least Shakespeare tells us why Richard III became an S.O.B. even if he doesn't show the process, ‘Citizen Kane' is about the process but Wells doesn't do much to look into it, just narrates it's occurrence. |