I don't see why Citizen Kane gets such immense praise and is constantly touted as the best movie of all time. It's good, but it's not that good. I even find it bloated and overbearing at times.
Throbbing Member
I don't see why Citizen Kane gets such immense praise and is constantly touted as the best movie of all time. It's good, but it's not that good. I even find it bloated and overbearing at times.
Last edited by Alexandros; 08-06-2013 at 02:10 AM.
House Always Wins
It's because of how old it is. The fact it was filmed in 1941 and one of the first "Blockbuster" films to be widely received. I feel the same way about Casablanca. It's a good movie with a solid plot, strong characterization and was released early on during WWII but it's really not all that fucking all mighty untouchable as everyone claims.Originally Posted by Alexandros
I know it's an unfair label but these older films get the praise they do because they're the first of their caliber.
However, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and The Grapes of Wrath deserve all the praise they get. Those movies are excellent.
Throbbing Member
I guess my main gripe is absolute characterisations like "best film of all time" in general. I can understand "one of the best/most notable films of its time", but more than this is meaningless. Especially when you compare films that are several decades apart, the differences in cinematic eras/philosophies/aesthetics muddle the waters significantly, except for a few films here and there that were ahead of their time.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote