I'm not huge expert on movies, just watch them from time to time for entertainment

I'm not huge expert on movies, just watch them from time to time for entertainment.
Recently I watched Citizen Kane, and I while I enjoyed it, I kinda didn't get what exactly makes it so great?
I've read a bunch of articles and got that it invented/standardized a bunch of techniques, that are norm nowadays, but nowhere it said why exactly this film is still considered on of the best.
I'm not trying to be contrarian here, just to get educated.

I loved the camera shots and the way the director played off of the black and white. The characterization was great, they managed to get you to sympathize with a mega rich guy rather than just lampooning him.
I'd have to rewatch it again to give you a detailed list of why I love it but you would be better off picking up a book on cinematography if you're interested in what makes one movie better than another.
I'd recommend "Aristotle's Poetics for Screenwriters" personally assuming you can read a book

I just didn't like how cliched it was and how it ripped off most of its plot and themes from later movies.

How can it rip off a movie that came afterwards?

I can barely read


Well inventing is one thing, but did it really used invented things the best way yet?

...

WEW

advent of the closeup
DUDE ROSEBUD LMAO

...

8/10

MUUUAAAGGGHHHH THE KINO

Cinema's first 'What did he mean by this?'

Because it's a good movie even by today's standards and it came out in nineteen-fucking-fortyone

As you can see, nobody in this thread can give you a proper answer.

Why? Because it's an overrated piece of garbage and Welles is the King of Hacks.

Pic related, an actual fucking director that invented/standardized a bunch of techniques that are norm nowadays.

It doesn't have to be good if it's famous. People will praise him regardless. 75% of people who cum over this movie have probably never even saw it, or saw it only once.

Like LOTR is a masterpiece when it's just a whacky yet pretentious fantasy book.

Like the Beatles are great legends when musically speaking they're below One Direction.

They came out at the right time and the generation at the time idealized them.

And as decades passed, they got a reputation of being "revolutionary" while in fact they are artistically equivalent to modern day garbage.

"Contrarian" is just a term people use when they're being challenged on arguments that to them must be untouchable. It's a neologism that's as cancerous as it gets.

It's anti-intellectual by definition, because it negates any possibility of discussion without being ad hominem'd by the masses.

...

Not an argument.

...

What did he mean by this?

is that pic you?

It was the sled

Wow spoilers

When I watched it, I understood it had a hand on creating the idea of the major blockbuster, even when iirc it wasn't that much of a hit when it came out.

I think Welles was the only good actor in the film. It wasn't the hype behind the movie or the stuff that makes it relevant, it's just that most of the cast is really mediocre in my opinion.

Mostly the cinematography. Although I don't get why the characters are that applauded. Everyone basically started well enough before degenerating into assholes.


Oh my sides.

I was agreeing with you until you dismissed the LOTR. Tell me you at least don't think the likes of RR Martin is superior to Tolkien, do you?

martin can write suspenseful, fun stories. lotr is boring long-winded trash only liked by low-iq fedora-neckbeards. silmarillion was good though.

...