Well, isn't anyone here excited about _Citizen Kane_? (1 Viewer)

[PhilipG]

Well, I shall put on my fire-resistant suit in advance...
I recently saw CK for the first time. Can't say I was that impressed. Yes, the direction was terrific, the first twenty minutes or so particularly excellent, but I didn't really enjoy it very much as a whole. Perhaps I was expecting it to be another "Casablanca", I don't know. I guessed the Rosebud "mystery", and I thought that too much emphasis was placed on it, which made the ending seem anticlimactic. As an intellectual film, it works on every level, but I would not put it in my top 50 favourite movies.
Maybe a repeat viewing will help, or I may give the commentaries & documentary a try...

 

[John Koehler]

James is onto something. Unwilling to say anything, lest I appear the ultimate nitpicker, has anyone else noticed that the timing (in developing that is, i.e. contrast, density) of the film is too high, too bright?
The previous Criterion LD had Kane editor Robert Wise on board as adviser to get the timing right, and the Criterion edition of the film is darker in those areas James points out, as elsewhere (projection room, Thatcher library).
Or...???

 

[Bryant Frazer]

I did an A-B comparison of the Criterion CAV LD and the new DVD and I agree that, for all its brilliance, the new DVD has some minor drawbacks. Specifically, backgrounds seem to have been flattened a little bit. That is, there are tiny details visible on walls and ceilings in the Criterion transfer that are invisible on the new disc. This has the effect of highlighting the artificiality of some of the sets in a way that I had never seen before.
My gut impression is that some processing was done on the image to remove film grain that also removed some detail from the backgrounds, including the rain against the windowpanes. There's another shot where Bernstein is smoking a cigarette, and if you compare the two transfers you see a little bit more smoke on the LD. On the DVD, some of it just vanishes against the background of the wall. It's very difficult, of course, to remove "noise" from an image without removing at least some relevant information as well.
These are quibbles, I guess. On the whole the new disc is breathtaking, and it takes some careful viewing to spot these differences. But I also agree that it looks maybe a tiny bit too pristine, compared to every 16mm and 35mm print I've ever seen, and I'm not sure it's a precise representation of how the film is supposed to look.
-bf-
------------------
Bryant Frazer
Deep Focus
www.deep-focus.com
[Edited last by Bryant Frazer on September 29, 2001 at 11:38 AM]

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Because of a hectic schedule recently, I finally watched my Citizen Kane DVD. I was very pleased especially with the video presentation. I only sampled the two audio commentaries and found Ebert's to be more informative as far as getting into the technical aspects of the film, while Peter Bogdanovich's comments is more about the production aspects and history of making the film.
I will have to devote four more hours to listen to them fully. Overall, this is a wonderful disc for a great film.
~Edwin
------------------
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum9/HTML/005780.html#8 http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum9/HTML/006466.html

 

[Joel Vardy]

I, for one, am very pleased to finally have replaced my VHS recording of this classic. The quality of the film and the extras makes this one title that will bear repeated viewing in my household. I already have viewed the disc with my folks, with my wife and by myself, as well as listening to Roger's excellent commentary. The included documentary was particularly insightful and complements my copy of HBO's RKO 281 (providing additional insights into the atmosphere surrounding the release of CK).
CK may have risen to one of my top 3 titles (among some 850). Having seen Welles on several Johny Carson late night sessions I now feel like I understand him a bit better with the information available on DVD.
- Joel

 

[Henry Carmona]

Ok,
Ive seen this movie twice and still dont understand why its considered "the greatest movie".
I can understand why it could be called great in terms of cinematic work, but as a movie, i cant say i was in awe.
Am i missing something? I can think of a few movies that i could also call "great".
------------------

"Charlie don't surf."

 

[Jack Gilvey]

I didn't see an official review thread for this one so...

If you think you might want to go to the theater again at some point and enjoy a new movie, don't buy this disc. It is also the best picture I've had the pleasure of viewing, color or no color. I'll admit, I've never owned this movie before, so my exposure had been through TV, and this transfer is a revelation. The mono sound is glorious, and forces the movie to succeed on dialog and story, not 5.1 crutches.