I thought it was a neat little examination of existentialism, in the trappings of a gory horror movie. I also appreciated the inventiveness of using the same set over and over again, without it becoming boring. (I wonder how the actors felt about it, though).

Exactly, Jeff. IMDb trivia says they planned on shooting it in order, but then they realized how long it took to change the lighting, so instead they did all the same-colored rooms together, and amusingly enough, the crew became very agitated and aggressive on Red Room Days.

I love Citizen Kane on such a immediate visual level that it's hard for me to expound on it past how freakin' gorgeous it is to me. It almost looks like a painting, it's so damn beautiful. I don't mean in a Moulin Rouge visual crack way, I mean the interplay of the shadow and the film and the... Oh. So pretty.

It's been a long time, but I still remember that shot where the camera's panning up and the shot goes from being a model to a set, but there's a moment of darkness in between them where the edit becomes seamless. And then there were those times where he put the camera underneath the floor to make everyone look bigger. (And does anyone remember the Tiny Toons version? It was great.)

hayden, again, all very good points. That's just not getting me going, but I should give it a try later on with a DVD that doesn't skip, and when I can be more attentive. If The Crow doesn't come in the mail today, I may watch it again tonight. Cause clearly I'm missing something.

The only good thing about Forrest Gump is that it set up the deeply funny (to me) joke that one can make during The Two Towers when the Ents march on Isengard: "Run, forest, run!!!"

The other good joke there is "The Ents go marching two by two, hurrah, hurrah."

It won't make me carsick, right?

It didn't me, and I'm pretty easily queasy, so it should be safe enough.

I do think that the Welles canon in general has a big forbidding Classics Homework vibe to it, which kind of sucks because in my experience almost all of the actual movies have been viscerally delicious experiences (okay, The Stranger felt a little cold and arty and traditionally film-studies-interesting-but-unengaging, but I've only seen it once, years ago, so it's due for another go).

I first saw Kane at around 14 -- VCRs were the new big trendy thing, my dad had one, and by God he was going to make his kids watch Citizen Kane. My dad is one of the least Cahiers du Cinematic film fans in the history of film fannishness; he'd just bumped into it accidentally decades earlier, not knowing it was a classic that ought to frighten him, and fell stone in love with it. I was too young to get much out of it when he showed it to us (can't even imagine what my 11 and 10-year-old brothers thought), but I knew it was good to look at.

I still go back every couple of years and re-watch it again, and the awful thing about it is that every single time I have to force myself because it's such a big damn classic. I approach it with dread and gloom and a sense of homework and medicine and low-carb heart-healthy food all rolled into one, because it just has that aura. And every single time, the actual movie knocks me on my ass.

And I have no idea what I'm trying to say anymore, except possibly that Nutty is right but so is everyone else. Welles is hard to approach without the dull sense of impending canon, and that does indeed sour people and put them off and doom his chances of cracking the AFI top 100; but in my experience of the handful of people who have actually gritted their teeth and seen it, the visceral WOW is in fact a totally typical reaction and not at all the exception.

(I actually did take a B/W film non-loving Welles virgin to see the re-release of ToE, and it made him absolutely giddy and high with delight.)

(okay, The Stranger felt a little cold and arty and traditionally film-studies-interesting-but-unengaging, but I've only seen it once, years ago, so it's due for another go)

The Stranger or The Trial, JZ? That sounds more like how The Trial comes across (i.e. cold and arty, although I do love it), wheras The Stranger was probably Welles's most traditional B-Movie-with-a-message. Almost none of the baroque touches that make Shanghai, Arkadian or TOE so out there. Notably, it's also one of the few films he made (maybe the only) from a script he didn't write or re-write.

Possibly The Trial -- I saw it many, many years ago, right on the heels of the original studio release of ToE, when the BF-at-the-time said, "Hey, you liked that one? Try this one!" and it was all cold and disappointing and I put it out of my mind until this conversation started, when I went to IMDB thinking it was The Trial but couldn't find it listed anywhere, decided I must have been insane, and thought The Stranger sounded like the likeliest candidate for what I vaguely remembered.

And now, going back to IMDB, I see that it is indeed The Trial, only IMDB calls it Le Proces and lists Trial as only the third alternate title. Bastiges.

And now, going back to IMDB, I see that it is indeed The Trial, only IMDB calls it Le Proces and lists Trial as only the third alternate title. Bastiges.

Odd. Well, he did make it in France for a French producer, so maybe IMDB goes by initial release title. Welles was definitely going for a cold, arty "sci-fi by way of Alphaville" vibe with that one, but I love Tony Perkins as Joseph K.

The Stranger had Welles as an ex-Nazi hiding out as a CT school teacher, with Loretta Young as his fiance and Edward G. Robinson as a Nazi-hunter on his trail. Very conventional, with a few Wellesian touches.

Both The Stranger and The Trial are my least favorites of the Welles movies I've seen. And that includes his Othello.

What's great about it is that not only does The Player make fun of long tracking shots, it also makes fun of the people like us who discuss them.

Exactly. That whole movie is nothing but one long joke on all of us, combined with Robert Altman calling up all his buddies and asking them to do cameos.

Welles is hard to approach without the dull sense of impending canon, and that does indeed sour people and put them off and doom his chances of cracking the AFI top 100; but in my experience of the handful of people who have actually gritted their teeth and seen it, the visceral WOW is in fact a totally typical reaction and not at all the exception.

That CK didn't live up to they hype for me has little to do with any dull sense of impending canon (I'm lacking canon-fear, I suspect, which is logical given that the first serious decade of movie watching for me was all about the classics thanks to AMC when it was good, a stack of VHS tapes, and no car). It was a clever, lovely, well-done movie that just failed to grab me on anything other than a "well, nice craftsmanship" level any of the times I saw it.

I don't know of anyone who actively avoided seeing it because of how hyped it is (though they probably exist); on the contrary, almost everyone I know who has seen it, has seen it because they've heard it's an incredible movie.

I found Citizen Kane mostly boring the first time I saw it; although I dimly appreciated the formal elements I was not even moved by the visuals at age 16. Then a number of years later I was harangued by a classmate who described the movie as Welles's thesis about the bizarrely American myth of the self-made man (we had been discussing Carnegie), and the next time I sat down to watch it, I dug it.

I still don't love it; I don't think I ever will. But now, I understand why it leaves such a giant footprint in film history, and why it's a worthwhile movie even when you're not talking about film history.

What surprised me the first time I saw Citizen Kane was how funny it was. It's not a ponderous movie, in my experience, at all, but hugely entertaining and exhilarating. If I prefer Touch of Evil, it's because I have an unhealthy love of baroque sleaze. I don't know if I'd claim it was the better movie, though.