h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, was it? Personally, I thought it was pretty overrated. My main complaint is people saying it's the best film of all time, it's not. It may be the most groundbreaking film of all time, it may have been better than all the films before it, but there are so many films that are better than it now (and probably before too). Here's a review I wrote for it:

Quite honestly, I don't even think it is a particularly good film, let alone "The Greatest Film of All Time". There are a few redeeming features of course (as you'd expect from Orson Welles) such as Welles' acting in some (not all) of the scenes, some excellent shots from the ground when Kane has just lost his campaign and his friend is drunk and they're talking for the last time in a long while. These few redeeming features hardly make up for the fact that it is poorly conceived and poorly executed. Most of the acting is fair to middle whilst some of it is downright bad, the plot could have been quite interesting; the downfall of Kane from idealistic youth to power crazy old man. However it is stretched well beyond its limits, each scene being told as many as 3 times. Some might retort that telling the scene 3 times is a cunning device, but really it is nothing special and has been done much better by other films such as "Rashomon" by Akira Kurosawa where the story is retold by each of the participants each time significantly differently. And to top it all, the whole business of "Rosebud" is disappointing. Having an interesting twist at the end of a film is a good thing in general, but in Citizen Kane it is rather a pathetic twist. So the reporter says "I don't think one word could ever explain a man's life" and the word does in fact explain his life. Great. ONE good feature of this film, possibly enough for a short film, but not more. Okay, in a historical context, maybe that was something new and amazing at the time, but now it is old hat. Films like "The Usual Suspects" put it to shame, and if Citizen Kane is supposed to be the "Best Film of All Time", it can't by definition be taken in a historical context. Summing up, as you can probably tell, I'm not impressed, frankly, A Touch of Evil is an infinitely superior film on every account and also by Orson Welles, and in my opinion a far better contender for the title of "Best Film of All Time" than Citizen Kane. So if you can justify "The Best Film of All Time" or even "A Good Film by Today's Standards" then please do, otherwise I'll have to consign it to the ranks of "Films That Were Good at the Time".

Of course, there are those who would argue Welles' The Magnificent Ambersons is a more accomplished work that Citizen Kane. Being a rather lazy student of films, I have to admit I haven't seen it to make any kind of comparison (The Magnificent Ambersons, that is - I have seen Citizen Kane).

Admittedly, by today's standards, Citizen Kane is occasionally clunky - and the story itself is nothing to write home about. It remains, however, a compelling film. Especially for a debut feature, and it has inspired many of today's acclaimed directors. Scorsese without Welles? I don't think so…

Hmm, I've never heard of the The Magnificent Ambersons, I'll look out for it, thanks for the tip. I'm in complete agreement with you seeing Citizen Kane as an amazing film in a historical light, it just bugs me seeing it keep popping up in the "Best Films of All Time" lists everywhere.

Bet most of them also include Intolerance and The Great Dictator as well. Neither of which I particularly like, but there you go. Sadly, it's the undeniable influence these films had on future generations which merits their inclusion in the filmic canon.

I'd also like to see Charles Dickens stricken from the realms of literature - but I'd be fighting a century of critics and schoolteachers.

Hehe, I agree with you about Dickens actually, but then I don't really like English writers very much at all. I usually read russian and french novels, similarly I tend to prefer foreign films.

Maybe we should set up H2G2's very own anti-Dickens campaign...

Have you seen Jean De Florette and Manon Des Sources? Two of the most beautiful films you could wish for...

I haven't seen them, though I have been meaning to do so. Unfortunately I have an ever growing collection of unwatched films and an ever decreasing amount of time to watch them (I'm in the final year of my degree). Damnit! Roll on the summer holidays. I did finally get round to seeing Cinema Paradiso recently though, which was predictably wonderful.

You poor sod. The trauma that was my final year has been erased from my memory.

Cinema Paradiso is rather good isn't it?

Yup, it's fantastic. I've also just started watching the "Three Colours..." series (just watched "Blue") which look like they're going to be pretty good, although I won't have a chance to finish watching them until the Easter vac.

You're one up on me, there. Have been intending to watch them for a while - but have so far successfully avoided doing anything concrete about it (namely, sitting down and watching them). My local video store is pretty lousy on anything that a) isn't Hollywood b) isn't British that made it in Hollywood and c) doesn't have a high naked-body count. All of which is vaguely disappointing.

Yeah, there are no good video shops near me either, although a profusion of blockbusters. Fortunately, though, we've just got FilmFour, if you can afford it I highly recommend it! The quality of films I get to watch as leapt up since I got it.

True, Citizen Kane is an interesting film from the point of view of the history of cinema. It is a collage of many different cinematic techniques, and therefore is much discussed on film art courses and amongst film buffs.

However, it is not an "all time great" in the sense that most of us would want to own it and watch it time and time again. From a modern standpoint it doesn't impress much because a lot of what it contains are now cinematic cliches having been used so much. Also, the subject matter (unauthorised Randolph Hearst biography) is distant history and long ago lost any resonance it might have had at the time of the release.

So we owe a debt of thanks to Orson Wells for inventing (or perhaps just "collating" if we are to believe some commentators) these techniques in the first place. However, the piece itself is less enjoyable than some more commercial movies (for example Casablanca), and its effect on cinema is more important than its continued existence as a piece of entertainment.

OK, here's the case for Kane, in 2 parts. Contains the only spolier there is for this film!

Firstly, my experience of this film. First time I saw it, I thought it was long and dull with a good twist at the end. (The Rosebud thing really hit me - his whole life was so empty and you don't realise until the last seconds of the movie.) By the time I saw it again, I knew a lot more about it, had read a book and seen a documentary. Almost every scene has something interesting in it - there are pterodactyls in the background during the picnic because they borrowed the backdrop from a dinosaur movie, Welles cuts his hand while smashing up the room and spends the rest of the scene nursing it, there's a parrot with a see-through eye, a model shot that critics refused to believe had been done without building a full-size opera house, a crowd scene filmed with two or three people ... and much, much more. It's a film that needs to be studied in order to be enjoyed fully. Is that a good thing? No. Is it worth it? Yes. In that way, it's like Shakespeare - the more you study, the more you enjoy.

Second part: it's not my favorite film, but I still think it's the greatest film ever (probably). What's the difference? Well, if Kane had never been made, cinema would be different. So many films I love could not have been made if Kane had never been made. If, say The Usual Suspects had never been made, what would have changed? We'd be missing one damn fine movie, but that would be it. If I had to choose which one to watch tonight, it would be Usual Suspects, no contest. But if one was to be erased from history, I'd have to keep Kane, because so many of my favourite movies were inspired (directly or indirectly) by Kane. That's the difference between 'great' (and influential) and 'enjoyable'. Look at Battleship Potempkin - I've never seen it, but it's probably quite dull nowadays. But if Eisenstein had never made it, there would be no such thing as a montage in cinema, and so many other films would be so much duller. (OK, someone else might have worked out how to do a montage eventually, but at best we'd be years behind.)

I hope that makes some kind of sense.

Gif

PS, I hate Shakespeare!

"..poorly concieved,poorly executed..." Your review is all of those things and less.

It is rather obviously written from the point of view of wishing to be different to all those that say it is a truly great movie.In fact your choice of preferred films ( Touch of evil,Rashoman),both of which though brilliant are barely known by the average film goer,suggests that this is the case.Writing a review based on conciet for your own uniqueness and independence of view is not clever when so obviously at odds with the facts.Your desire to define the meaning of best film of all time is flawed too,but even using your own take on the matter,Citizen Kane scores close to perfect on all fronts,and still has a feeling of freshness today.The use of black and white,the narrative style and the acting may fool you into believing it outdated.In fact you are merely fooled too easily by a film environment prehaps too rich for your taste.

Finally "Rosebud";Might I venture the suggestion that watching a movie replete with meaningful and aptly used imagery and words whilst employing a one dimensional mind is a recipe for dissapointment.The rise and fall of Charles Foster Kane ending with an old man's wistful yearning for the innocence and joys of youth is a theme as old as mankind,and in this case has been explored beautifully and creatively by an extreme talent.My major criticism about your review is that you appear not to have even spent more than a moment thinking about it.Citizen Kane is not unworthy of you,indeed it is the other way around.
Stenham.

Great movies don't do the work for you. You have to think about them, rewatch them. Shakespeare is a good comparison.

The first time I saw "Kane," it was an emotional, not cultural, experience. I was 13, and was moved by the ending, where Kane is reduced to nothing. Watching again, I love its paradoxes; the way it sums up a man while saying we cannot really be summed up. Life has a lot of paradoxes like that. The ending doesn't really solve anything, but is totally satisfying. Some films you only need to watch once. Some films, less than once. Here is one that deepens and expands the more you watch it. Great movies can make you a better, more thoughtful, understanding person. "Kane" is the greatest movie I've seen.