bio47 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Kane is always number one with AFI. I would like opinions on to what makes this film so highly rated. It was a box office flop and source of much controversy when it came out. I have tired at least 10 times to watch this film and never get beyond a half hour. What am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perazaf Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Apparently you're missing three quarters of the film. Watch the entire film and maybe things will become much clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmvgor Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 It may be helpful to take a look of some other treatments of the same material. The Hearst And Davies Affair, a 1985 TV movie, is one that I have seen on the shelves of vidio stores. The Cat's Meow (2001) concentrates mostly on what seems to have been a homicice on the Hearst yacht. And it has a theory on why Louella Parsons could never be fired. Try taking a look at one or both of these films, and you might want to go back to Kane with fresher eyes. It is a very worthy film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daneldorado Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 bio47 wrote: Kane is always number one with AFI. I would like opinions on to what makes this film so highly rated. I have tired at least 10 times to watch this film and never get beyond a half hour. What am I missing? I had a tough time staying with it the first time, too. But I was wrong. "Citizen Kane" (1941) is a brilliant movie -- quite possibly the best film ever made. If you would like to enjoy its brilliance, I recommend you watch the Warner Home Video DVD with the Roger Ebert commentary turned "ON." Ebert gives us an intelligent, eye-opening explanation of every scene in "Kane," and some of the details are amazing. The DVD has an alternate commentary, by Peter Bogdanovich. I respect Bogdanovich, but his narration is, to me, a bit boring. Ebert explains the film much better, IMHO. Cheers, Dan http://www.silentfilmguide.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bio47 Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 LOL. Yes I did miss 3/4 of it. I could not stand it and every time I just loose patience. But I like these responses and I think I am going to listen to Ebert. The back story of what I know is fascinating. Oh, how Louella ruled. LOL. Thanks people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CineSage_jr Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 I have tired at least 10 times to watch this film and never get beyond a half hour. What am I missing? A substantial part of your cerebral cortex, it would seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bio47 Posted February 13, 2008 Author Share Posted February 13, 2008 LOL. CineSage just fill me in. I just don't get it. There are always classics some don't like that the majority do. Is it because of the story or the new ways which were introduced into filmmaking? I really wonder. I am probably younger than you and that may have something to do with it. I think if I had the patience I would be able to enjoy it in its conclusion which I understand it a twist. Peace, Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzcutter Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Bio, Cinesage has been absent from around here for the last few weeks. Perhaps because of the writer's strike that has just ended? Anyways, he will correct your spelling, factual errors and syntac from time to time but he has a terrific knowledge of film history and film making around here that makes reading those posts from him a true delight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts