Citizen Kane

Thoughts of an anon who just watched on of the most critically acclaimed films ever

>It was better than I thought
>the pacing was off

Holy fucking shit dude.

>>79508288
It's an old movie. It was critically acclaimed because it introduced a world to an entirely new way of film making, that doesn't mean it'll still be that good in the modern day. You have to look at it through a historical lens. Just like Half Life 2 was critically acclaimed for all the new stuff it did but if you go back it isn't really that special.

>>79508247
I enjoyed it tremendously. While the scenes are dated the acting was very good. More theatrical.

>>79508247
I thought it was great, flawless even. I understand that people see it as "revolutionary for it's time" but it still stands as visually unique and impressive in today's times.

Good stuff.

I think it's we'll paced for what it is.

Well's controls himself with all his characteristics moves and just goes all out with a decent plot about the dangers of a media monopoly run by greedy people.

I don't care about the photography, that's for hipsters.

>>79508497
>visuals of a movie are for hipsters
>I don't care about the main element in a visual medium

Being a pleb shit and acknowledging what >>79508379 said beforehand, I also ended up liking it more than I thought I would

>>79508607
Exactly, don't let the tofu get stuck in your delicately shaped beard.

>>79508426
Yeah for sure. A lot of the old timey stuff tries to be serious but the acting brings the movie down cause it's too theatrical or over the top. They found a good balance with this.
>>79508489
I agree, it still holds up today. It's just that a lot of media that is revolutionary is only good for its time because people take the idea and it keeps evolving and improving, so the original loses its power. I'd say Citizen Kane is an exception though, still a really good movie.
>>79508497
The plot was certainly better than I expected. I like how they opened up the film with that little mini thing that played like all the other movies of the time and then they cut away from it to show you what the movie was actually gonna be like. It must've been really jarring and amazing to see something like that happen when no one else had done it before.

>>79508247
The cinematography kills me. Every scene is so carefully set up.

And why was Orson Wells' old person makeup so damn good then when it still looks like shit in movies today?

>>79508497
>I don't care about the photography, that's for hipsters.

What do faggots care about then?

>>79509261
Wardrobe design.

>>79509346
Makes sense

>>79508247
A classic skewing of the American Dream.

Makes for great commentary too.

>>79508247

I have the privilege of having watched both Citizen Kane and The Room in the theater, on the same screen.

I have watched Orson Welles' chimpout and Tommy Wiseau's chimpout in the same room, with audiences. I feel very fortunate for these communal experiences.

>>79508379
agree, maybe back then it was new what it offered
>plot twist at the end

but now it sucks

>>79508247
Great cinematography and visuals and far worth watching for that alone but the actual story is pretty dull. I get it's in relation to Randolph Hearst but it was still pretty meh...

>>79511926
Really? I found myself enthralled. I thought Welles was very compelling, making the story very interesting

>>79512024
I think the story was a little dry so it's easy to get bored but it was really well executed and the characters all had depth. I enjoyed the story but I could see how others might find it a bit boring.