|Where's the colour? And wait a minute, there|
was no cane in Citizen Kane...
Image via filmhistory
Ok for its' time it might have been good because it did things never done before (How generous of you). I went in expecting the film to be brilliant, but it never started (Are you sure you had the disc in the machine? Or did you forget to press play?), it just kept on giving details all the way through (Well it was unlikely to become a blank screen after 30 minutes...).The basic idea that he was a man with lots of money who tried buy happiness but couldn't is a fine idea to start off with (Such high praise). The film didn't go any further in trying to challenge this idea are show the effects of this idea (He died alone, with no-one sorry to see him die. How is this not showing the effects of this idea?), it was just incredibly shallow and predictable (It isn't shallow! In no way is it shallow!). If people really want to watch films about what it is to be human watch almost any french film (The Transporter. That's French. Would you watch that to see what its like to be human?) such as those of traffaut (Franois Truffaut), and you will realise just how shallow Citizen Kane is (See my previous point about how it's not fucking shallow!)Here is another review from the dregs of society:
I felt that this movie deserved less than a star (Oh dear...), but I couldn't put any fewer than one (Yes you could. You could have not bothered to review it at all...). I felt this because the movie was quite long (It's only 2 hours long) and very uninteresting (Most would say that the story is very interesting). It had no color (Well it was a black and white film from 1941. Of course it didn't have any colour you fucktard) and was uterly depressing (It wasn't that depressing. He did bring his problems onto himself, really. It's certainly less depressing than the likes of Apocalypse Now, In the Valley of Elah or Simon Cowell's existence). The camera angles were ok (Such high praise), but the acting really wasn't too good (Thank god you've told us all that Orson Welles couldn't act...). All theWhat's that? More? Oh, alright, but don't tell your mother:
actersactors were always interupting themselves or each other and it just didn't flow very well in my mind. (I don't remember anything like that...)
I'm 45 years old (Woohoo for you). I have seen so many great films in my life (Congratulations). I think I'm old enough to know what film is good or bad (It's not something you automatically get when you turn 45. Perhaps you're thinking of a prostate exam...). Who are those idiots calling Citizen Kane the best film ever made???? (Professional film critics. And directors. I could list them for you if you like. But I won't. Well not all of them anyway. It was critics such as Roger Ebert, Mark Kermode and Kim Newman. You know, ones that are highly respected. And directors such as Richard Linklater, Sam Mendes, Nicholas Meyer, John Boorman and Michael Mann) I wonder how many films those people have ever seen before saying such stupid things like that (Well I'd suggest that as critics have to watch 4 or 5 films a week every week, they've probably seen quite a few. Roger Ebert's site for example has somewhere over 5,500 reviews, and this is discounting films he saw for At The Movies. I think he's probably seen enough films to know what makes a good film by now...). It'sThat's all we have time for today, but hurry back for more!
extreamelyextremely absurd. (Yes. Your review is extremely absurd. Now remove yourself from my sight.)