It was so innovative that it was copied to hell and gone and thus will seem derivative rather than original in many ways.
Remember while watching it that all of Joseph Cotten’s scenes were performed backwards and the dialogue added later. It’s not true, but it is an interesting story.
And Rosebud is the baby elephant he had when he was kidnapped by gypsies. (Actually, google rosebud marion davies nickname for some unsubstantiated 68 year old gossip.)
I’m not fond of 2001.
Casablanca is quite good, if you haven’t seen it.
Metropolis was interesting, but not particularly enjoyable (in my opinion.)
You should try to catch The Elephant Man, Once Upon a Time in the West, and Being There as old, famous classics.
Those last three aren’t that old. Though I agree Being There (1979) is incredibly good. I would honestly rather watch High Plains Drifter (1973), *The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) * or The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) than Once Upon a Time in the West
Casablanca (1942) & The African Queen (1951) are both incredible classics.
Gah. I have seen most classics, just never CK. I am not all that attracted to science fic, so 2001 was skipped by me. I have seen Casablanca andAfrican Queen many times.
I grew up watching the Late Movie on channel 9 here in Chicago–I’ve seen many. many black and white films, as well as most classics.
I can see where seeing CK on a big screen would be a benefit to the film. I really don’t see what the issue is with the laptop-I have a nice big, clear and crisp screen which is much better than my decrepit TV (I don’t watch a lot of TV). Sorry to say this, but really, get over yourselves. Is the original setting for the Mona Lisa the only place she can be appreciated? Better I should see CK, than not, IMO.
el: Do a lot of Simpsons bits suddenly make sense?
When it was made, the only place one could see it was in a theater, and the image and sound were composed for that. The scene in the great hall in Kane’s estate with the two of them talking is emotionally *devastating * in the theater. The size of the hall when viewed on a large screen and the hollow echo of their voices in the theater was part of the original composition.
A better example is Lawrence of Arabia. There is a scene of Lawrence crossing the desert. It was filmed and projected in 70mm on a huge screen. You watch that on a laptop screen and you’re not going to have a clue what is happening for half the scene because, in the theater, he was the size of a speck in the middle of the screen when he first appears and goes from infinitesimal to tiny to small to eventually filling the middle of the screen.
We are not being snobs. Things are composed for effect. The Statue of Liberty as a paperweight doesn’t have quite the same impact as the real thing.
No, no I was saying Lobo. they never should have canceled that show.
Good for you; it’s good for people to see classics, even ones as boring as Citizen Kane. 
How about watching “Patton”? I don’t care for military films at all, and I loved that one. It really is a good movie.
The drunken lout of a father was beating on Charlie or mom or both.
I don’t understand why she didn’t go with him, but she sure didn’t seem ‘all there’.
I’ll have to quit in 50 years is one of my favortie movie lines.
If you have it, watch it with the Roger Ebert commentary track.
I first saw Kane around 15 years ago and this is the shot that has stayed with me from that first viewing. Today I think it’s the performance by Welles that strikes me as the most remarkable thing about the film: the way he captures Kane’s character through middle and old age.
For the longest time, I put off watching The Godfather, I and II. I was intimidated by their reputation for greatness. They turned out to be a joy to watch, and so is Citizen Kane. Don’t worry about it. Afterwards, wallow in the lowbrow scandal that was William Randolph Hearst’s life.
eleanorigby writes:
> I am also a bit confused on the timeline of the marriages.
I think, although I am far from sure, that the movie is contradictory about the end of the first marriage. At one point it’s said that Kane is twice married and twice divorced. Later it’s said that he never divorced his first wife, since he didn’t marry his second wife, who was his mistress for a long time, until after his first wife and his son died in an accident.
Well, if it helps as any motivator at all, I forced myself to watch it about 3 years ago (I was 17!) with a friend.
The only reason I watched was do to all the praise this movie recieves. Granted I was aware that this movie was old, and I was also aware that it might not live to the expetation I set for it due to all the praise it has recieved.
If you watch it with this type of mentality you´ll see that this movie is at best a really innovative and deep movie for its time or at worst entertaining.
My only complaint was that it runned perhaps 20 minutes too long.
But it´s wasn´t torture or anything like that.
If you really think it might be hard for you have a couple of drinks while you watch it with a group of friends.
Or, if you really are a free spirit a nice lil´smoke will make this movie amazing. You´ll either laugh really hard, or get really contemplative.
I have never watched the Simpsons, so any “in jokes” are lost on me.
I am trying to say that I get it re the big screen–I’ve seen Lawrence. I’ve seen Dr Zhivago, another film best scene on a big screen. (ok, I was like 4 or something when it came out. My father still made us all go to see it. It made no sense to me, but those soldiers in the snow sure looked cold!). Shortly after seeing Dr Zhivago, we moved to Chicago–it was very confusing (and there was snow! we moved from Florida).
Most movies benefit from the big screen, since they’re intended to be seen there. Yes, in some films, it matters more.
I would really have to see it again to appreciate the finer plot points and the skill that went into making it. But I’m just not that interested. I think if I drank any alcohol I would have fallen asleep (wine does that to me). If I got high while watching, I’d just be mocking the makeup and the melodrama, because I get silly when high. Better to see it stone cold sober…