The way I see it, there are two possible reasons for this:
- the massive hype over the film that had me expecting way too much out of it
- the fact that I was neither "captured" by the performance of any of the cast, nor was I really all that impressed with the clever lighting and scene work that Welles put into the film as a whole.
While I watched as Welles criticized the lifestyle of William Randolph Hearst, I could not help but to be reminded of the collections of horse shit Michael Moore appears to be on a never ending quest to keep making. Even though Welles does a rather tasteful mockery of Hearst, I believe that during his time, Welles' film was the equivalent of Moore's contemporary embarrassments to the world of film.
That aside, just as a movie, "Citizen Kane" held very little appeal. Throughout the whole movie, nothing surprising ever really happened, and, while it was filled to the brim with excellent theatrical and cinematographic(?) work, there really was not anything that captured me as a viewer.
I'm not too sure why, but if I ever come across a movie with no action what-so-ever, I usually dislike it. Call me pig-headed, but that's just the way it is for me.
5 comments:
I also didn't really think too much of Citizen Kane, but not because of the criticism and the resemblance of the film to the films of Michael Moore, but because it was in black and white (I just can't get myself to enjoy black and white) and because it was boring for me. I like movies where people die and get their heads exploded by big guns. You're a pighead.
I agree with a lot of what you have to say (although I do enjoy some Michael Moore films, like Roger and Me.) I agree 100% that Citizin Kane did not live up to the massive hype it has revieved. I can see how it was groundbreaking in the 1940's with all the advancements in film making it has been credited with. Mostly I agree with you in that the plot wasn't all that griping and at time the movie seemed to be going by at a very slow pace.
You took the words right outta my mouth, the movie wasn't particularly capturing in any way, shape or form. Sure the movie might have great theatrical and cinematographic work, but who cares if the movie isnt engaging.
I did not think that Citizen Kane was anything special also. However, I maybe able to see where this may have been good back when it came out but I would not call it a timeless film such as the godfather or the original star wars which will still be just as good twenty years from now as it is today.
Citizen Kane was pretty overrated. Something about movies from the 1920s-1930s are just unappealing to me. Maybe I'm spoiled with my technology and CGI effects but now > "The Golden Age of Cinema"
Post a Comment