If you’ve ever had to socialize with film majors, you’ve likely rolled your eyes at the inevitable conversation about how Citizen Kane is the best film ever made. Who could beat Orson Welles’ genius?! Rosebud, man, Rosebud… After all, the film (never to be referred to as a movie) has a certified fresh accreditation on Rotten Tomatoes, with a perfect score—or at least it did, until now.
As someone spotted on Twitter, Rotten Tomatoes added an unfavorable review that lowered its perfect score to 99 percent. A Chicago Tribune critic who used the pseudonym Mae Tinée (wink wink) staunchly disagreed with those who claim it is the greatest film of all time, giving it a negative review. The review was published 80 years ago, and even then it acknowledged the film’s reputation as one of Hollywood’s biggest masterpieces, with the headline “Citizen Kane Fails To Impress Critic As Greatest Ever Filmed.”
Apparently the critic’s beef with the film is that was too darn eerie for their liking. The critic wrote that it “presents an almost clinical dissection of a complete egotist. It runs to gargantuan sets and arty photography—shadowy and spooky—which, however, according to our Eddie Johnson, is something for the books… I wouldn’t know about that. I only know it gives one the creeps and that I keep wishing they’d let a little sunshine in…”
So Citizen Kane’s perfect score was ruined because the cinematography was just not doing it for “Mae Tinée,” even though the critic thinks Welles “proves a zealous and effective performer in the title role” and they really liked Everett Sloane as Charles Foster Kane’s manager. Citizen Kane also lost its title of the highest rated Rotten Tomatoes title and is tied with It Happened One Night. Interestingly enough, despite being tied at 99 percent, Black Panther beat Citizen Kane at 96 percent, and is now in the #2 slot with Welles’ film following it, because the Marvel movie had more reviews, totaling at 520. Rotten Tomatoes’ ratings are arbitrary and ultimately meaningless, but now Marvel fans can proudly tell everyone that Black Panther is a better movie than Citizen Kane with the questionable stats to back it up.
176 Comments
I’m not gonna pretend like that’s wrong.Citizen Kane isn’t the 2nd best film of all time, either.
Quite. I love Citizen Kane and I love Orson Welles (This is Orson Welles by Welles and Peter Bogdanovich is a book I adore a ridiculous amount), but the best film of all time is clearly Dude, Where’s My Car?
Fake News.
I just bought that book for an Orson Welles project. Its fucking good!
Well, if nothing else, it has a framing device that is jarringly out of structure. Plus, this framing device relies upon a large number of people somehow witnessing Kane’s final moments and last whispered words in his private bedroom. I honestly think that Welles would’ve found a more elegant solution to that problem if hadn’t been he rushing through editing afraid that RKO would get bought by Hearst at any moment and burn the negatives before he ever even finished.
Yep that too!
Just one person, and the butler -in the movie- says he heard him say ‘Rosebud’. That gets told to the press and boom, “plot hole” (that never existed) solved.
Plus, this framing device relies upon a large number of people somehow witnessing Kane’s final moments and last whispered words in his private bedroom.No, it doesn’t. Kane’s butler was the only one in the room at the end and he heard the word. The framing device just relies on him having told people.I’m not quite sure what you mean about the framing device being jarringly out of structure. Admittedly it’s been a while since I’ve seen it, though. Regardless I thought it was necessary for the story and ending.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Citizen Kane. The campaign office scene is one of my favorite scenes from the Golden Age. I’ve just always thought that the investigative framing is odd and doesn’t quite fit tonally with the rest of the movie. It definitely keeps the mystery of Kane’s origins front of mind throughout, but it’s just very segmented off from everything else and has a different kind of narrative energy. Granted, it’s been a while since I’ve seen it and maybe if I’d lived at the time then the structure would’ve made more sense to me as a person who watches newsreels regularly and understands layers of meaning there that I cannot perceive with modern eyes. Possible. And anyway, it’s not some huge criticism. It’s just a little thing. But, if we’re talking about the best film of all time, little things that bug you should probably count. Also, there is a better-than-fair possibility that those scenes existed solely to troll Hearst, as the entire inclusion of the word “rosebud” was an extremely personal insult to him in the first place. You’re probably right about the butler, though.
Actually the whole troll Hearst and Rosebud are basically myths at this point. Hearst is just the most notable industrialist Kane is based on, Harold McCormick is another big one. Rosebud is something Herman Mankowitz used, its the name of a horse he won a lot of money on.
Liev Schreiber lied to me?!
Yes. I didn’t want to tell you this way but, sadly yes.
Ol’ Patch was right. This Sabertooth guy cannot be trusted.
Fair enough. I guess I do see what you mean about it having a different kind of energy. For me that kind of works because it contrasts the reality of those segments against the more dramatic and stylish “flashbacks.” So it emphasizes how Kane is remembered in all these varied, looming and larger than life ways before we snap back to a reality where that’s now gone. He’s almost mythical to these people compared to the very human man the ending reveals.But if that was the intent (and not me just pulling things out of my ass) it doesn’t necessarily mean that it works. I can see how it could be a narrative device that is very much of its time or one that just won’t gain traction with everyone.
I don’t think that it analyses the man, but the structure of power that holds the man. It reaches high and is about how success is kind of bullshit.
I can see that. Likely, that was the intention. I would argue that the entire movie is already designed to convey those things anyway, from set design to camera placement, but since those are the only real post-death scenes, I guess they did serve a more important purpose than I was giving them credit for.
Look, I have TRIED to watch Citizen Kane. But it’s so BOOOORING I can’t get through even a half hour of it. So there are a hell of a lot movies I’d sooner watch, from Black Panther to To Kill a Mockingbird to Killer Klowns From Outer Space.
I watched it as a teenager and thought it was boring as hell.Then I learned more about film by writing a whole load of papers for film student friends in college. I now appreciate the technical aspects of the film a lot more.I still find it boring as hell though.
This. I’ve been told by film experts that the amount of revolutionary techniques used for the first time (in a mass market movie, anyways) is the reason it is called the GOAT, and I don’t know enough about that subject to claim otherwise.That being said, there are a lot of things that astonished people during my youth that seem pedestrian nowadays to the young. I assume that prevents me from truly appreciating Kane.
Yeah that’s the whole thing, the filmmaking is amazing if you know about filmmaking.
And depressing. Our high school principal tried to culturally uplift us by showing it at Friday assembly and was indignant that we teenage louts didn’t enjoy it.
It’s the Pet Sounds of movies. Groundbreaking, impeccably crafted, and still a Beach Boys album.Not a perfect analogy, but fuck it. Been a day.
Yeah but I can sit and listen to Pet Sounds. Citizen Kane puts me to sleep
Oh, I’m with you. Well, I stayed awake throughout, but at the end was like, “…thassit?”Felt the same way the first time I saw The Exorcist, incidentally. I’d seen it after having seen stuff that it influenced, so it didn’t resonate with me.
This reminds me of a guy I knew online about 15 years ago who once told me, “I finally watched Alien this weekend. I don’t get all the hype for it. I’ve seen that stuff dozens of times in other movies.” I then had to explain to him that, yes, dozens of movies have done the same thing since it came out. He was just 25 years too late to the party. I still find Citizen Kane great, but I realize that I have a particular interest in films that others don’t that give me extra joy in my viewing it.
YUUUUP.I run into this with Hendrix a lot.“There are SO MANY better guitar players than Hendrix.”“Right. But no one really would’ve given a shit about them if Hendrix hadn’t made headlining guitarwork a thing. And, y’know, influenced pretty much every fucking guitarist that came after him.”
You know, I could listen to Pet Sounds a thousand more times but I have almost zero tolerance for hearing music geeks talk about it ever again. I’ve seen Citizen Kane twice and that’s all I need for the rest of my life but I have endless patience for film nerds discussing it.
So it does have value: as a sleep aid.
Only for some, though.PIVOT: Citizen Kane is the melatonin of movies. 😀
“Doctor, I’m afraid ‘Citizen Kane’ isn’t working for me any more. Can you prescribe anything else?”“Well, I could write you a script for ‘Wings of Desire’, but I’m hesitant. That’s the real hard stuff.”
I get it. Love Citizen Kane, but can’t sit through Pet Sounds.
I love this analogy, actually. When I watch or read a biography about Brian Wilson and how he constructed Pet Sounds, I’m in love with the idea of it and respect it immensely. When I try to listen to it, I mainly can’t wait to turn it off.
Same. Though I think Sloop John B is a jam. 😀
Psst – the people that are ride or die for Citizen Kane aren’t because it’s all that interesting as a story. It’s because the camerawork, staging, and lighting are all next level brilliant.
“Psst – the people that are ride or die for Citizen Kane aren’t because it’s all that interesting as a story. It’s because the camerawork, staging, and lighting are all next level brilliant.”A movie isn’t just a story or plot surrounded by some superfluous stuff called “filmmaking.” A movie is a package to be considered as a whole, not in pieces.Also, I disagree that the story by itself is not interesting. In this case it’s a strong story bolstered by great filmmaking to make a great film, not a case of great filmmaking making up for or distracting from a mediocre story.Is it a film I watch all the time? No. But I revisited it a few months ago and still found it engaging, dynamic, and, yes, entertaining. Even genuinely funny at times. And still very relevant.
It’s all of those things and a pretty great story too.
my big brother loves citizen kane. i lament the lack of punching and explosions.
we have trouble sharing a meal without arguing about pepper.
I watched it for the first time last year and I loved every bit of it, mostly how it twists the narration and how brutally disects the american dream, the view of entrepeneural success to be tied to personal and romantic success. There is a lot of style and incredibly editing, but also what happens to be a genuinly good visual narration of a genuinly good story.
Black Panther was awesome, don’t get me wrong, but this feels like a weird “apples and oranges” comparison. It’d be like saying The Godfather has a higher RT rating than Die Hard.
Well, this article fulfills the site’s daily stupid bullshit quota.
You know Barsanti will take that as a challenge, right?
if only barsanti would take literally anything as a challenge, he might rise to an occasion for once
seriously. i’m way older than barsanti, and i wish i’d lived my life more like him. that dude figured it out. i will never feel as proud of myself as i do of him.
This is why Rotten Tomatoes is a terrible website. Trying to mathematically game out the quality of a film is just a terrible idea. How many man hours have been lost due to arguments over a percentage?
At the same time…RT has never pretended that the Tomato Meter is some absolute barometer of quality.The question it seeks to answer is “Will this movie make you want to throw rotten tomatoes at the screen?” (it’s IN THE NAME!).It’s not trying to distinguish between crowd-pleasers and Capital-C Classic Films.
Thats not how the users see it. Same with IMDB and Metacritic. Although god almighty is IMDB the worst of the three.
i think the tomato meter was intentionally designed to be ridiculous so no one would take it seriously. once again, the designers fucked up royally.
i blame the artists.
“I think it would be fun to run a movie review aggregator.”
if you aren’t going to use math to rank films what are you going to use? your soul? your feelings? the sum and total of your experiences that make you a unique, damaged, and beautifully flawed judge of movies?
peh.
Why would you ever bother to rank films?
In a wild twist, it turns out Super Mario Bros. is the greatest film of all time according to some guy on the internet.
Honestly, I’m fine with this. New generations embrace new films, and I’ll be damned if I turn into one of those old farts who complains about how movies are crap now, kids these days don’t know what real cinema is. Sure, there are a lot of things about many movies now that I don’t care for, but that’s just my own taste, and I’m not going to impugn others because, gasp, they get more from Black Panther than they do Citizen Kane. I’m just glad folks have an opinion about such things, and it’s good to have these discussions. Sacred cows bore me, and I’d much rather hear someone discuss why they like Black Panther more. That to me is far more interesting. It gives me something to think about, and I usually come away from it appreciating BOTH works more.
I don’t know. Look at the difference in the actual filmmaking craft between Citizen Kane and Black Panther. Panther, for all its gorgeous costumes and sets, is absolutely bursting with inartful CGI “spectacle”. I’d also like to hear someone discuss why they like Black Panther more, but I’d personally be ready to push back.
True, but let’s also remember that when Kane came out, it was the absolute cutting edge in terms of VFX, using matte paintings, set extensions, traveling mattes, invisible wipes, optical printing, superimposition. Many of the celebrated deep focus shots for which Gregg Toland got credit were in fact created by optically by compositing different foreground and background elements. It was a highly technically-driven film, by a young filmmaker who was seen as an upstart who didn’t respect the way things were done in Hollywood. I’m not sure if Orson Welles, had he arrived in Hollywood in 2019 instead of 1939, wouldn’t have used the same technology available to make his film.
Actually, Kane got no critical or public acclaim until its rerelease in 1951.
You are correct it was a box office dud, failing to break even nearly a year later, but it was definitely recognized by critics at the time as an important film. Time, Newseek, Life, The Nation, the NY Times, all gave raves, and many critics recognized that it was not merely a great film, but a highly significant one in terms of storytelling and technique. But with the war intervening soon after, I think it faded from the consciousness of Americans. Meanwhile, the rest of the world was largely deprived of the film because of the war, which paved the way for its revival in the early 50s as you note when it was made available and a new generation of critics took it up again. It is true the Academy passed it over in every category except Original Screenplay (and to be honest, I think they got it more or less right, as I adore How Green Was My Valley just as much), but it still got quite a bit of awards recognition. It had recognition from the start, and that recognition has only grown with time.
why are you talking only about the technical stuff: Kane is incredible in CONTENT. It does stab the American Dream narrative using its narrative to show how naked it is. I don’t even know why are you comparing this to Black Panther, which is a very straightforward hero story.I am all for blurring the lines between “high” and “low” culture as my latest comments in this site testify (“The Relic” and “Another Gay Movie” are things I love so much), but I am a die hard defendant of a proper critical analysis, which is something that you are not doing. Why are you negating, erasing, all the content only talking about the style? I get it now, this is exactly what happened with contemporary Blade Runner reviews.
Were BP’s special effects innovative at the time of its release? There’s a difference between using CGI because that’s what’s expected and using it to make an impression on the audience. The CGI in T2 is primitive by today’s standards, but it dazzled folks back in ‘91.
I love both BP and Citizen Kane. Kane is a technical marvel, a tale that circles in on itself and then circles back out again.
I like BP for its emotional resonance and moral center. I’ve never enjoyed a morality play more (and it IS a morality play, although one with lots of action and CGI)You know what – it’s possible to like more than one thing!
I think a lot of people might like ‘Black Panther’ more because after far, far too long there’s a movie that shows a whole cast of people who look like them being Big Damn Heroes (and Villains) for a change. (I’m white, so I’m not in that group, but I still think it’s pretty great.)
Well my life is ruined now.
Or maybe we as a society can stop using Rotten Tomatoes in anyway to understand a movies quality
Or, better yet, we could use the metric on the RT website that actually does purport to measure a film’s quality:The average rating, which can even be filtered by top critics.All Critics Average Rating: BP=8.3, CK=9.7Top Critics Average Rating: BP=8.6, CK=9.9
…which is upset by the fact that a great many of the professional critics don’t use any kind of number score and their reviews are disregarded, which gives less and less bolstering to popcorn movies the further back you go in film history. I’m willing to bet there are many, many reviews from the average fanboy twerp who has a “professional” mouthpiece with movies like Black Panther or THE SNYDER CUT that inflate those scores massively upwards, while something from the old days probably has a tiny fraction of those 10/10s. Numbers on review aggregate sites are useful for some things for sure, and certainly will give you an eyeball difference in quality between something like Rise of Skywalker vs Mad Max Fury Road, but pretty useless if you’re interested in any kind of historic comparisons or between indie movies and big budget spectacles.
Do you know how RT works, haha?You don’t need a numerical score to be included – the critic(/publication) tells them whether it’s positive or negative.
You were talking expressly about the average rating and thus I responded expressly about that. It works very differently from the positive/negative – according to their FAQ the average rating tosses out things without numerical ratings, while the FRESHMETER (the % everyone always quotes) does what you say.
Ah, fair – I mainly use RT to get a quick impression of the consensus, then look for critics I trust (Tobias, Phipps, Robinson, Murray…)I only bother to check the Average when something’s in the 90s, to differentiate crowd-pleasers from classics.
We shouldn’t use any metric. The whole exercise is pointless. If I really love a movie that most critics/people didn’t like… so what? Did I not really enjoy it? Critical analysis and popular success can be useful, but there is no metric of the quality of art, there never has been, and there never will be. Any attempt to so quantify is doomed from the start.
I mean…this sounds like a very strong argument for Rotten Tomatoes’ approach over Metacritic’s, haha.A 50 on RT means half the critics liked it and half didn’t – a 50 on MC or a 5 on IMDB means the average was 5.RT’s approach invites you to find out if it was divisive or mediocre, while MC/IMDB make you assume it’s the latter.
No, a 50 on RT means that half the critics gave it a review that was positive enough to be marked fresh and half the critics gave it a review that was negative enough to be marked rotten. That is not the same as “half liked it and half didn’t.”Movie A: Half the critics say “yeah it’s tolerable” and half say “meh it’s mediocre at best”Movie B: Half the critics say “this movie is amazing” and half say “this movie is the worst garbage I’ve ever seen”Both movies: RT of 50.Meanwhile, over on Metacritic, you scroll down through the scores of each movie and see that movie A has most of its scores in the 40-60 range while movie B has most of its scores in the 0-20 and 80-100 ranges.
RT critics can decide whether a review is fresh or rotten.A 3/5 fresh movie is quite a bit different than a 3/5 rotten one -Observe and Report vs. Thor 2.
I don’t know what difference that would make. Someone scanning the reviews for a movie on RT just sees a bunch of fresh/rotten icons. It doesn’t really matter if it’s the critics or RT who decides whether a review is fresh or rotten; it’s the coarsest possible value, a binary rating. A “fresh” rating could mean anywhere from 50-100, whereas on Metacritic there’s a number, which is a lot more granular.
I mean…if there are 100 reviewers, and 100 people give it a 40, it’s a 40 on MC and a 0 on RT.If 50 people give it a 0 and 50 people give it an 80, it’s still a 40 on MC, but it’s a 50 on RT.Neither RT nor MC are *actually* a granular analysis of a movie’s critical reception.The primary difference is that MC pretends to be, while RT just answers the question “Does this suck.”
If you only look at the overall score, yes. But it’s a lot easier to see the score distribution on MC than RT, which is one reason I prefer MC. The other reason is that MC doesn’t bother with the garbage critics section at all.
Yep. The % is just a thumbs-up aggregate. For example, “Enchanted” has a higher % than “Michael Clayton”, but “Clayton” has a higher average review score.
i seriously didn’t understand your comment at 4am. thankfully, i just use my own opinion of movies, and read reviews to get a good laugh. i like reviewers who use bad puns, and try and come up with good zingy one line insults for movies i thought were dumb.
I think we should adopt my metric, using the perfect movie as the guage. For example, both Black Panther and Citizen Kane get a solid 8 out of 10 Disney’s The Rocketeers
The funny thing? Your assessment and that of a professional critic are identical in terms of subjective value.
I mean I suppose there is some subjectiveness in deciding just how many Disney’s The Rocketeers to give any specific film that is not Disney’s The Rocketeer, but I feel like it’s far more concrete then the current more ‘gut feeling’ approach.
Only if you think that that knowledge and experience related to a topic are worthless. Which, granted, in the anti-intellectual environment of today, many people do.
Only if you think that that knowledge and experience related to topic are worthless. See elsewhere in the thread for the overall point I’m making.
wait, there is something that you are totally ignoring, or denying: for art there must be always an effort from the spectator. You cannot be a passive one saying that if you don’t enjoy the piece is always the author to blame. I know, for all your messages here, that you do not agree with that,a nd you think that everyone can give their opinion, but this is why some opinions are just not valid.
for art there must be always an effort from the spectator. You cannot be a passive one saying that if you don’t enjoy the piece is always the author to blame I agree! Hell, I’ll give you an example!Back in undergrad, I took a Horror & Sci Fi Cinema class as an elective. One day, we watched Jaws. Which, hey, awesome! Free Jaws!After the movie, as we were filing out, some gal says, “That was, like, the worst movie I’ve ever seen.”So, yeah, that ain’t a valuable opinion of any kind. The larger point I’m making is not geared toward the individual, though.Sticking with Jaws, critics and/or scholars didn’t turn that into the first “Summer blockbuster,” the moviegoing public did. As to why it endures, I’d say that criticism and scholarship have enriched the film over time, which is exactly their role.And for all that the Academy is touted as “experts,” there are so many incredibly brilliant films and performances out there that were and are never – EVER – going to get the time of day from the Academy.
Blade Runner
How about this metric?
1000% this. I like as the person below points out the score out of 10 is more important than RT saying more critics liked it.I believe End game is the highest other rated Comic movie but I’m sure Spider-man 2 and Dark Knight both have a higher overall score to 10 than End game does because they are way better movies (just using silly comic movies as a example).
This. Oh so This.
Hot take: Black Panther and Citizen Kane are both good movies, and there’s really no value in ranking them hierarchically.
Hot Take: Citizen Kane is a good movie that is not for everyone and Black Panther is just slightly okay movie that appeals to more people. That there is no value in having the public at large judge them, and should be left to professionals; reviewers, film historians, those in the industry to determine their larger standing.
That there is no value in having the public at large judge them, and should be left to professionals; reviewers, film historians, those in the industry to determine their larger standing. I will never understand the position that artistic appreciation and/or the social relevance of art should be determined by invalidating the opinions of those who consume it.And yes, that is what you said. And it’s incredibly prescriptive, for no good reason.EXAMPLE: Critics and “scholars” didn’t transform the Biblical satan into our current concept of Satan. They didn’t pull Lucifer from Milton’s ass and ascribe it to the core concept of the Biblical character. Who did? Centuries of readers, many of them not “professionals.”
I think the original comment demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the roles of both scholarship and criticism. Oddly enough, although it’s coming from the other direction, it’s the same misunderstanding that leads to people losing their shit whenever a critic doesn’t rave about the latest Disney mega-franchise entry. The point of criticism/scholarship isn’t to gatekeep what you can/may/should enjoy, the point is to tell you why, within the larger context of the medium, something is of note and should be appreciated. The whole point of good criticism is to enable people to make their own judgements by giving them access to the obsessive devotion to a medium that most people don’t have the luxury to enjoy.
Oddly enough, although it’s coming from the other direction, it’s the same misunderstanding that leads to people losing their shit whenever a critic doesn’t rave about the latest Disney mega-franchise entry.Yep. Criticism is an enhancer. It’s a side dish, it ain’t the entree. The point of criticism/scholarship isn’t to gatekeep what you can/may/should enjoy, the point is to tell you why, within the larger context of the medium, something is of note and should be appreciated. YUUUUUUUUUP.There are critical dissections of Rocky. It was an Academy award-winning film. It is preserved in the Library of Congress as a distinctly important American film. It is one of the films that “Matters(TM).”
And all of that is maybe – *MAYBE* – a quarter of why it is regarded as an American classic. The remaining percentage is because it resonated with an audience that loved it, supported it, and passed it down to future generations. The whole point of good criticism is to enable people to make their own judgements by giving them access to the obsessive devotion to a medium that most people don’t have the luxury to enjoy. Love this.Anyhow, prescriptivists piss me off. It’s like the folks who get up in arms about their “Strunk and White were GODS” perspective of the English language, and I want to pat them on the head and say “For your own sake, never research the history of the mongrel thing that is the ‘English’ language.”
To a degree, sure. And the general score has value to measure popularity. But when you get deep into the non-pro reviews you start to realize the value of critics who actually know how to critique. It’s like on Yelp when you see a few really negative reviews bringing down the score on a restaurant. Then you read them and they’re like “Zero stars, they only have Pepsi products” or “I’m from Texas and this isn’t real barbecue!” and other bullshit opinions and you start to wonder why on earth you’re putting any stock in these people and really realize the value of a trusted food critic like Jonathan Gold. The thing “pro” critics (should) offer is the language and expertise to discuss what makes a movie work and why. They especially (should) look beyond obsessive fan loyalty which is a major red flag. And I mean, I’m not saying this stuff has to matter to you when picking a movie to watch and it doesn’t have to be a huge ordeal every time.
To a degree, sure. And the general score has value to measure popularity. But when you get deep into the non-pro reviews you start to realize the value of critics who actually know how to critique. The issue is that cultural resonance (in terms of art) and value is seldom dictated by critics. Criticism definitely informs value, in the sense that it explains the whys and hows of it all, but the works and authors that are still household names in modern culture resonated *despite* critics in some cases. It’s like on Yelp when you see a few really negative reviews bringing down the score on a restaurant. Then you read them and they’re like “Zero stars, they only have Pepsi products” or “I’m from Texas and this isn’t real barbecue!” and other bullshit opinions and you start to wonder why on earth you’re putting any stock in these people and really realize the value of a trusted food critic like Jonathan Gold. Oh, totally. The online braying jackasses kind of gum up the works in that regard. The thing “pro” critics (should) offer is the language and expertise to discuss what makes a movie work and why. They especially (should) look beyond obsessive fan loyalty which is a major red flag. And I mean, I’m not saying this stuff has to matter to you when picking a movie to watch and it doesn’t have to be a huge ordeal every time. Absolutely agreed.
And yet this very article gives an example of a bullshit opinion coming from a pro reviewer – Citizen Kane isn’t great because it’s “creepy”. Amateurs write a lot of bullshit, but then most professionals aren’t very good, either.
I don’t know if it is invalidating. Everyone can still have their options of it, and are free to express them. There is a difference when it comes to larger merit of order, that when left to the devices of the larger public, the judgment and rational behind that judgment is not always present. There is a reason why we seek professionals to do their job, and for the public to rightly criticize them when they do it poorly.
There is a difference when it comes to larger merit of order Here’s the problem: where are the codified, uniform rules? Where is this subjective criteria codified?
It is not so much rules as it is about understanding. Reference: I did agricultural judging for 10+ years, the only real rules were in the format that one was to present the judgment in. Where the evaluation came from was in understanding the product being judged; what it was for, its purpose, how it presented itself, positive and negative physical attributes and executions. It is a wide range from judging samples of seeds to judging people on their execution of showmanship, to livestock. Anyone can become a critic/reviewer, but not everyone can do a good job at it. Not everyone has the background of understanding to which to put a critical voice too. That there is a difference of personal preference and excellence in craft, it can overlap but it is always good to differentiate between the two.
It is not so much rules as it is about understanding. I understand what you’re getting at, but when you draw that line in the sand, you’re establishing a boundary. And if you do that, the parameters need to be defined (if possible).And, in terms of a catchall, they flatly cannot be.
Where the evaluation came from was in understanding the product being judged; what it was for, its purpose, how it presented itself, positive and negative physical attributes and executions. It is a wide range from judging samples of seeds to judging people on their execution of showmanship, to livestock.I understand, and would concede that you would know more about agricultural judging than me. My point is that, in this case, while you’re asserting boundaries and standards (that cannot be concretely defined, not if you ever want art to evolve), society is out there actively dictating what is/isn’t culturally important.And that absolutely changes. On that note… Anyone can become a critic/reviewer, but not everyone can do a good job at it. Agreed. Caddyshack was critically panned on release. It has since been reappraised, and is now (rightly) considered a modern classic. That there is a difference of personal preference and excellence in craft, it can overlap but it is always good to differentiate between the two. Right. The problem is when people champion one and invalidate the other. Because it’s a futile pursuit: “personal preference” when multiplied by, oh, a society or so worth of people can eventually become “this is a classic that has informed our social perspective.”But, again, even that ain’t set in stone. Fuck, I don’t think I could handle it if literary criticism had stayed stuck in deconstructionism.
I cannot like this comment enough.
I agree mostly–but there are situations in which certain people are not qualified to assess something. We do need experts…
I never said that we don’t need experts. I was specifically speaking about art. I’m not suggesting that we put Cletus down at the five and dime at the controls of the nuclear reactor.
How does talking about art exclude expertise? Or am I putting words in your mouth again—I apologize for that.
I’m going to wager, perhaps rashly, that you do think that talking about art somehow precludes the concept of expertise. It’s easy to talk about scientific expertise because it seems more objective, but art is not entirely subjective, it only seems that way because relatively many can literally read/look. But actually, relatively few people are experts at reading and looking.
I have news for you. The action sequences in Black Panther are much better done. I remember Citizen Cane having a sled but if there even was a sled scene it was completely unmemorable.
I can’t think of a better definition of “good movie” than one that appeals to more people. Movies are good if people like them. That’s the whole point of making movies. It’s also the point of watching them. People want to watch movies that they expect to like.
You can argue that artistic merit is more important, but that argument is inherently irrational.
your mom should determine their larger standing.
You get off the internets NOW! Everything is about Best and Top Ten and brackets! What good is anything if you can’t (pretend to) be completely objective about it, quantify it, and give it a ranking? Especially entertainment!
I like seeing Black Panther on top for no other reason than knowing it pisses off Ben “Wankanda isn’t real!” Shapiro and other Conservative bigots.
I like seeing Black Panther on top for no other reason than knowing it pisses off Ben “Wankanda isn’t real!” Shapiro and other Conservative bigots.It distresses me to think they’d be less annoyed by Citizen Kane being #1.
You’re correct, but apparently amateur proles such as you or I shouldn’t opine on such things. Harold Bloom & Roger Ebert or GTFO.Because, y’know, the rank and file consumers apparently have nothing to do with determining the “larger standing” of works of art. They just consume said art for…well, no good reason I suppose. I just found this out.
Ironically, out of any critic, Ebert would probably be the most supportive of Citizen Kane and Black Panther having the exact same rating. His whole philosophy for most of his career was that films should be judged against how well they succeed at what they set out to do, rather than how well they stack up against the entirety of film.
That’s why takes like the one in question bother me. Like…they’re taking a medium that has its origins in cave paintings and flickering firelight, and which has (and does) inspired and informed cultural shifts from 1890 to the current day, and cramming it into a weirdly limiting, entirely subjective box.Like…why?
Exactly! You should always judge a film by what it is trying to accomplish, and Ebert knew that. I didn’t always agree with his view, but at least he was trying to be fair with his assessments. You judge an action movie by how good of an action movie it is and not against a period drama about a young woman being forced into marriage.
I respect Ebert a lot for that. Its silly to compare Terminator 2 to Lawrence of Arabia, except that both films absolutely succeed at what they wanted to do.
Hotter take: Black Panther is no better than the Star Wars prequels and will be laughed at in 20 years.
Hot Take, Black Panther is not very good at all
Ironically, film snobs and comic book geeks are the most likely people to rank things hierarchically. Only music snobs or possibly sports fans could edge them out.Also, it’s fun to make lists.
Do you think getting fired up over nonsense like this is either a.) a natural human reaction to a world that is burning around us and it’s simply too much to process the real-world horrors and insanities going on around us every day, or b.) manufactured gruel ultimately fed to us by a bunch of corporations seeking profit through people too preoccupied to notice said burning of the world?
Neither movie is as good as Highlander, that’s for sure.
Hey now, why does Space Mutiny never get its just recognition as supreme???
Because it stole all it’s space battles from the original Battlestar Galactica. Although unlike Citizen Kane or Black Panther, it does have Cameron Mitchell
Cameron Mitchell. The patron saint of bad 70s and 80s movies.
Gotta make a paycheck to afford all those Tums festivals
WILL YOU CLOSE THE FUCKING DOORS! CLOSE THOSE DOORS! CLOSE THEM!
The only reason that the best film ever containing Blast Hardcheese is the lack of faith in the copy-pasted 1978 Battlestar Galactica space battles?
So we’re saying that the amazing bowling-alley floor polisher chase scenes didn’t dissuade the Oscar committee as well? Or maybe the scenes where the windows of the ship in space clearly show blue sky outside?That film was amazingly bad, but happily, Reb Brown, the star, has been a good sport about MST3K’s ribbing.
No love for Boondock Saints?
There can, after all, be only one!
Citizen Kane and Black Panther both had heart, but Man Getting Hit By Football had a football in the groin.
This is why aggregator websites aren’t all that useful in evaluating a film or deciding if a film is something you’ll like. Not all good reviews are equal, if a critic is good at their job and able to judge a film based on how well it tries to achieve its goals. So Black Panther may get 4 stars because it is a 4-star superhero movie, while Citizen Kane gets 4 stars as a Film (with a capital F). They’re not trying to do the same things, but a good critic will make these distinctions in ways that aggregator websites cannot. Better to find 2-3 critics whose opinions you respect and whose take on films aligns with what you tend to like, and follow those people. Apropos of nothing, I anxiously await the day when Vertigo rightly unseats Citizen Kane from atop all of these “best of” lists. It made it to the top of BFI/Sight and Sound’s top 100 list a few years ago. But AFI’s list is more idiosyncratic in my opinion and initially put Vertigo at #61 before elevating it to #9 ten years later. Both Vertigo and Citizen Kane are achievements in the art and craft of filmmaking. But Vertigo has the added bonus of actually being interesting and beautiful to watch.The funny thing is, while Citizen Kane was a critical success, Vertigo was panned by critics upon release and flopped at the box office. It took years for it to be critically reappraised and appreciated for the things Hitchcock accomplished. Since then, it has only grown in its critical estimation. I’ve taught Vertigo in classes for years, and students always go into it dreading having to watch an “old” movie, and then they love dissecting its machinations.
Better to find 2-3 critics whose opinions you respect and whose take on
films aligns with what you tend to like, and follow those people.
The simple approach would be to read a bunch of critics’ reviews of movies you’ve seen, and see how close they match your views, until you find a handful who match closely…
But it’d be a lot less reading (although somewhat less precise) to have a tool that uses e.g. Metacritic’s scoring data to compare your opinion of various movies you’ve seen with various critics, in order to tell you which ones most often agree with your tastes. It’d basically pick random movies from a DB, and for each one that you’ve seen, you’d rate how much you liked it from 1-10. After a few dozen movies, it could probably find critics whose scores for those movies tend to match yours.
hi dirtside. it’s nice to see you again.
To be fair, Citizen Kane is an incredibly influential movie that is also very boring to watch. If I wanted to sit down & enjoy what I was about to watch, I’d choose Black Panther over Citizen Kane every time.
Apparently the critic’s beef with the film is that was too darn eerie for their liking. “MARX BROTHERS OR GTFO!”
And in ten years, both will be surpassed by Ow My Balls IV.Both because of the general evolution of cinematographical sensitivities, and the internet voting demographics reaching 4 years old on average.
I really feel like the Ow My Balls cinematic universe really went off the rails with OMB3.
No, it was the attempted spin-off franchise That’s My Taint.
Its not as classy as the BBC original: “Good Heavens my Testicular Region!”
I still get confused between that and the Office of Management and Budget Cinematic Universe.
OMB4 was totally saved by The Rock.
I’m partial to Man Getting Hit by Football. But they both served as sharp criticisms and reflections of our society.
black panther is, at best, a C- superhero movie.
And I don’t even have Black Panther in my top 5 MCU movies. So, you know, whatever.(Also, like, what about The Godfather Parts I and II?)
I liked Black Panther. A lot. It was an important movie I was happy to support. The acting was good and the worldbuilding and art design was top notch. The costumes and sets were fantastic.
Bur visually it was adequate. In terms of cinematography it was fine. The story was completely paint-by-numbers with no surprises of any kind and almost no character arcs or personal growth.
It was a perfectly fine piece of mass-produced assembly cinema elevated by the setting.But there’s really no comparison with Citizen Kane. Because Citizen Kane is a goddamn masterpiece.The shots. The angles. The presentation. The nonlinear plot and unreliable narration. The use of lighting and shadow. The innovation, where you’re watching something you’ve seen a dozen times before on screen and realizing this was the first. And the fact that it’s 80 years old and is just as relevant as when it was released, with parallels to social media, the cult of celebrity, and even Trump’s populist sentiment.
And it’s just an enjoyable film to watch. Unlike so many other “artistic” or “classical” films that are boring or incomprehensible or dry. Citizen Kane is fun and engaging if tragic. I think most of the people tired of hearing about Citizen Kane have never watched it. It’s one of those pieces of media where the fans are it’s biggest problem. Which is really a shame. If only to see the origin of a dozen or so classic Simpsons references…
“After all, the film (never to be referred to as a movie) has a certified fresh accreditation on Rotten Tomatoes, with a perfect score—or at least it did, until now.” To be fair (“to be fahrrrr”), cineastes wouldn’t give a fuck about Rotten Tomatoes. 🤷🏽♀️
what? and no links back to the embarrassingly numerous articles positing Scorsese vs comic book movies? is this really an avclub article?
I saw Citizen Kane in film class in 1992 or 1993, it was amazing. Only watched it once. I saw Black Panther and it was great and I only watched it once.
I’ve watched Jaws 300+ time full through and it’s better than both and something I can watch over and over.Granted I’m an ass and I can watch something like Jason X more than 5 times for a laugh or Just friends 5+ times because I found it hilarious.Anway, Black Panther is in my top 10 Superhero movies but like #8-10.I prefer Godfather, Jaws and a few other all time movies to Citizen Kane as great as it is.
One fun game I like to play on IMDB is to look at movies’ page and the metacritic score (way better than RT), and compare it to the IMDB user score. If it’s a female or POC lead film the score is often a full point lower than the critics, and if it’s a superhero, geekbro thing it’s almost always a full point higher. (moving the decimal place over one on the IMDB user score)
Black Panther was very good and I loved it…but I dont think its even the best movie in the MCU and I cant see it being considered as one of the all time greats.
Agreed. Honestly, for me, it’s probably barely in the MCU Top 10.
For me its probably my 7th favorite in the MCU. Which still makes it a great movie.
That’s a mischaracterization of what Rotten Tomatoes does. It aggregates reviews. The percentages give an indication of the proportion of reviewers or audience members who liked a given movie. It’s not a measure of which is objectively better and never claimed to be.
What makes a film good or bad is subjective. While those who study cinematography might have many reasons to laud Citizen Cane, ranging from production, to innovation and introduction of groundbreaking techniques, it doesn’t mean that I have to like the movie. The same is true with Black Panther. There will always be some people who simply don’t like science fiction, or perhaps don’t like black and white movies or can’t relate to characters from a different era.
There have also been movies that were widely panned by critics but that audiences found enjoyable. Just for fun, I looked up Dumb and Dumber. The critic score is 68%, which is higher than I expected, but the audience score is 84%, which is quite high. Sometimes people want to watch something that isn’t a cinematic achievement no matter what critics say.
Citizen Kane feels like homework. There are other great films* that actually succeed as entertainment, and not just art.
* Black Panther is a good movie, but it’s not trying to do the same sort of thing Kane is, and the fact that they’re in the ranking shows what an inherently silly system Rotten Tomatoes is.
I really do not understand these kind of setences which invalidate works of art as not even entertaining when Citizen Kane is FUN and is so tightly edited (by Robert Wise, no less).I actually think that your sentence is a pure act of snobbery.
I am not sure you know what “snobbery” is, then.
I double checked the dictionary. Listen (read), sorry for the insult and I take it back. I can be an asshole on the comment section and I know too well how to hurt.
According to Rotten Tomatoes, Godzilla vs. Destoroyah is better than both.
Hey don’t disrespect one of the best Godzilla films! Now Godzillas Revenge…
Is anyone going to be watching Black Panther in 50 years, if there’s anyone around who’s heard of it?
Youre just noticing this?
The reason is simple: One features armored rhinoceroses and one doesn’t.
Hey now, Orson Welles was a little chubby, but…
Black Panther is a f’ing awesome example of the sort of movie it was trying to be.So is Citizen Kane.You can’t please everyone, but you can put out your best work.
And thus, ranking art is always weird, because there are so many ways to be great, and some of them are mutually exclusive. There is no one yardstick.
all of these films pale in comparison to Lords of Dogtown, which criminally holds a 55 percent on RT.
Black Panther isn’t even the best Marvel movie.
So now Marvel fans can proudly tell everyone that Black Panther is a better movie than Citizen Kane with the stats to back it up.
I suppose the pertinent question here is “better at what?”. They are both entertaining, artistic films with entirely different purposes in mind. Neither is the greatest film or even the best films in their genre (BP is not better than Into the Spider-verse, The Incredibles or The Dark Knight). What they are is creatively (and in Citizen Kane’s case, technically) groundbreaking and culturally impactful.
Black Panther isn’t even in the top 20 MCU movies. Boseman is great, but it is long and dull and has worse cgi than Phantom Menace. And Michael B Jordan seems to have forgotten he’s a good actor.
It is depressing to see AVC devolve into such a suckjob for corporate monoculture.
And Rotten Tomatoes doesn’t even measure quality, it measures consensus. Check the dictionary for more.
Interestingly enough, despite being tied at 99 percent, Black Panther beat Citizen Kane at 96 percent, and is now in the #2 slot with Welles’ film following it, because the Marvel movie had more reviews, totaling at 520. So now Marvel fans can proudly tell everyone that Black Panther is a better movie than Citizen Kane with the stats to back it up. But you just said that Black Panther had more reviews! You can’t compare them if they have different sample sizes, that’s not how statistics work!
do statistics work?
One changed the way films are made while the most power person in the united states attempted to kill the film and the careers of those involved.The other is CIA propaganda about a CIA coupe in the global south in order to get their hands on mineral wealth. Where the revolutionary leader trying to overthrow a monarchy and elite class system while uniting with other oppressed POC in a world wide struggle.
I usually look at a film’s reviews after I’ve seen the film, just to see how they line up with my own personal take-aways.And that shit almost always never do, in either direction. Most of their talking points often note things that don’t really factor into the success or failure of them. Is it because they do reviews for a living, so they can’t really repeat themselves and subsequently have to do a lot more superfluous reaching? I don’t know.
The spirit of Orson Welles is kicking himself that he cut the villain with a sonic arm cannon out of ‘Citizen Kane’.
What amazes me about all of this is 1) that the review is positive after all, and 2) the amount of people that have a beef with Citizen Kane. Why? If it was a bloated thing like, idk, Ben Hur, I would understand. But something as tight as Citizen Kane?
“Rotten Tomatoes’ ratings are arbitrary and ultimately meaningless…”This. I generally ignore most critics in general, and that site in particular. Especially when a critic allegedly understands English as a first language and does not understand the difference between “its” and “it’s.”Not slinging anything here just a general complaint.