CITIZEN KANE

 

"Kane" was never meant to be a roller coaster ride of excitement. It's a work of art from a man who had total creative control and told the story of how the one man who seemed to have everything...actually had nothing.

3. Well, I'd rather see the in-depth reasons (even if it's just a "the good, the bad, and the ugly" review, like SchumacherH8ter does), because I find it a shame that you're short-changing one of the best movie ever made just for being "boring" when everything else about it is perfect. You might as well take a dump on the Mona Lisa while you're at it and say it's because the painting is not bright or colorful enough. That being said, I'll just agree to strongly disagree with you.

 

I'm not saying everyone should love all pre-1970 movies, but you do have to admit, since 2000, there have been very few gems for the Oscars to celebrate, and many of them are either independent movies or movies from outside of America.  

 

2. Did he give it an overgenerously high grade or score, while giving a classic movie masterpiece a low score for a superficial reason that was commonplace during the era it was made?  

Originally posted by Vits 1. Today,if you ask someone's opinion on movies,they'd say something like "It's all CGI and 3D and adapted scripts.It was better at the time CITIZEN KANE was made".   2. I don't remember anyone giving HeadRAZZ crap for liking FANTASTIC 4.

You are taking my ratings out of context. That is the entire point of my problem with you guys comparing them in the first place. If you cannot see that, then it's useless for me to say anything more. 

1. Just because it makes "no sense" to you doesn't mean it won't make any sense to another person. For example, I find it illogical that you can compare two vastly different films and manipulate my ratings on those two films by taking their ratings and taking them out of context. Like it or not, that's exactly what you're doing. And if you want to "make sense" of Ebert's opinions on Blue Velvet and Salt, just read his reviews, where they are in context.

This is what you're doing when you take two ratings out of context and comparing them together: 
"This is the best movie ever made." - moviewizguy, quote taken out of context.
"This is such a horrible remake, and the original film is the best movie ever made." - moviewizguy, original quote.

As you can see, sure, I can't deny that I rated FD5 more than Citizen Kane, but it's so illogical and presumptuous to do so. As for your last point, I don't see how him liking Citizen Kane has anything to do with comparing ratings from two different films.
2. Are you honestly saying that one has to "know an artform's history" in order to have credibility to give an opinion on it? That's incredibly stupid. And you mention the most obvious thing: Old movies were slower in their time. No $hit! One doesn't have to learn film history to see that, and I find it oddly amusing that you ignored my examples of old films that were fast paced and new films that are slow paced. They still make slow paced films. Do you cut off yourself off from independently made films? Do you only watch blockbusters? As for me mentioning the digital age, my point with that was to show how this current lifestyle (receiving information at such a short time) is influencing how films are made. A movie is not an Internet search, I agree, but a movie is influenced by how we live today.
3. Let me repeat: I'm indifferent toward the film and you loved it. I don't care if you think that me calling it boring is like taking a dump on the Mona Lisa. Even if I go into an in-depth reasoning of why the film doesn't work for me, it's still all based on personal tastes.

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia 1. Like it or not, when you give different scores to different movies, you're still comparing them. Not by genre or directly against each other, but with your personal taste, and that is what is being questioned, be it MWG or Roger Ebert. That's just the way it is. I totally agree with people who mock Ebert for giving a crappy action movie a higher score than an Oscar calibur drama. It makes no sense why he would do that. Although, on a side note, it's amusing that you chose Ebert out of all the possible professional critics out there, since he has stated MANY times that "Kane" is his favorite movie of all-time and considers it a perfect masterpiece. 2. Again, like it or not, MTV is usually blamed for the ADHD editing we see these days, thanks to the fast paced music videos that the channel spawned. Yes, you have no control over WHEN you are born, but if you are going to give your opinions over an artform that is over a century old (and be taken seriously), you need to know your history, and at one time, movies were slowly paced. That is why the most respected film critics are old, they have spent decades watching movies to know what is good, and don't write them off because of superficial reasons. And frankly, I don't care if we are living in a digital age. A movie is not an Internet search. The motion picture is an artform, and as such, it takes time to get the right emotions, images, and information across to the viewer, and that simply can't be done within the time it takes to blink your eye. 3. Well, I'd rather see the in-depth reasons (even if it's just a "the good, the bad, and the ugly" review, like SchumacherH8ter does), because I find it a shame that you're short-changing one of the best movie ever made just for being "boring" when everything else about it is perfect. You might as well take a dump on the Mona Lisa while you're at it and say it's because the painting is not bright or colorful enough. That being said, I'll just agree to strongly disagree with you.

Do you ignore things that I say? Stated many times before, I did not give Citizen Kane solely on the reason that it is slow paced. As a whole, the film does not work for me. It felt mechanical to me. It wasn't emotional. Sure, it may have perfect mise-en-scene, directing, lighting, staging, editing, soundtrack, acting, etc, yet, in the end, it all felt very cold to me. The film is like a machine working to produce the best possible film, yet it forgot the emotion, the heart in the story. Sunset Blvd also has slow pacing, but I loved it not only because it was well made, but because the story was engaging. Citizen Kane's story didn't engage me and sometimes this complaint is enough to not like a film.

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia 2. Did he give it an overgenerously high grade or score, while giving a classic movie masterpiece a low score for a superficial reason that was commonplace during the era it was made?