Reviews (499)

What else is left to say?
This is the greatest American film ever made, as entertaining as it is revolutionary.

When it was made, Orson Welles tackled a seemingly simple topic, a reflection back on a dead man's search for love and happiness in his life, and made a film that's epic in scope, gorgeous in its visual execution, brilliantly written, incredibly acted.

All in all, it's inspiring to filmmakers looking for a great debut film from a new director. "Citizen Kane" also works for regular moviegoers just looking for a good drama.

Using interviews with all his closest friends and colleagues, Welles uses flashback to create a portrait of the life of millionaire media magnate Charles Foster Kane. Kane was, in conflicting accounts of those who knew him, a man of great character and potential or a wealthy, cold, manipulative scoundrel.

What, if anything, can be learned about the man from his last word? What does "Rosebud" mean?

The answer makes for good mystery, and it leads the viewer to ask key questions about what defines our lives and gives them meaning.

This film is fantastic, one that should be watched once a year to help you keep perspective on life.

One of the Best.
Even after sixty years, CITIZEN KANE remains as one of the greatest movies of all time. Though it is true that some are bored by the movie because it's "just a boring black-and-white movie with no action", those who hold that opinion are in the minority. KANE is often held as the pinnacle of filmmaking by movie buffs not just because of the advances the movie made in film production, but also because it set the standard that all filmmakers wish to reach: the total director's vision; a movie made with total control and no studio intervention. With that said, what does KANE hold for the average film-goer? The movie has an excellent script (it won an Oscar), great acting, and a haunting score. The story, though loosely based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, is an old one: powerful man starts out promising and full of ideals, becomes consumed by greed and looses his vision, and ends up loosing it all (anyone read MacBeth or ALL THE KING'S MEN?). Overall, a deeply penetrating and thinking movie that film buffs usually love and that most everyone else will at least enjoy if they don't mind a strong drama filmed in black and white.

AFI got this one right
Can you imagine what the perception of RKO was at the time they made this decision? Let's see, how about we give complete control of a major film to a twenty five year old radio voice with zero film experience (whose claim to fame was scaring the life out of the public with a fake story about aliens landing on earth) and even better, let him staff the movie with actors who have little to no screen experience. On top of that, we'll let it become one of the most controversial pictures of its time because it mirrors the life of one of the biggest names in America today. Why, it may never be able to be released because of the lawsuits-- Great idea!

I have just described Citizen Kane. All of the above is true, which makes the fact that it is possibly the greatest film in American Film History even more amazing. Everything is perfect. The script (which Welles co-wrote), the actors (all relative unknowns except Welles and Joseph Cotton), the special effects (listen to Roger Ebert's Commentary on this special edition for details) and finally, the makeup-- You won't believe how great a job they do making 25 year old Welles look 60.

As for the story, it's done in a most interesting fashion. Charles Foster Kane (Welles) dies at the very beginning of the movie and utters his famous last word "Rosebud". A reporter is given the task of finding out just what that one word meant. So he goes and interviews all the people who knew Kane to try to learn the meaning of the word. In the process, we are shown Kane through the eyes of those who knew him. We never see Kane through his own eyes, always what his former associates saw.

This is interesting, because Kane is a tragic figure as seen by just about everyone. He is unhappy and lonely. We as an audience eventually learn the meaning of Rosebud. I have read reviews that complain that the movie is about this one thing (I won't reveal what it is). But long before we learn the identity of Rosebud, the film has made its point. What is the point? My opinion is that the film shows us basically the worthlessness and despair of materialism. Loving "stuff" or money will ultimately lead to unhappiness.

By the way, this movie almost was never seen. The man I spoke of at the beginning of the review is William Randolph Hearst, former newspaper magnate. He saw too much of himself in the film and sued to squash it. Fortunately he lost. The second disc in the set is a two hour documentary on this topic. It is also excellent and well worth a viewing.

One last thing. Although this movie has been ranked on the AFI list as number one American movie of all time, it did NOT win Best Picture in 1941. That film? "How Green was my Valley"

Review of Review
The best review of Citizen Kane - perhaps of any film - I've ever read is the one titled "Narrative and Eye Disconnect" posted by "A viewer from Richmond, VA USA" on March 21, 2004. I recommend searching through Amazon's reviews to find it, then watching Citizen Kane and re-reading that review. Even though the reviewer gives Kane just one star, s/he writes with great insight into the movie and cinema in general, and has enhanced my appreciation of Citizen Kane exponentially. Thank you, "Viewer from Richmond," whoever you are!

Works on the basic levels as well as artistically
So many of the films that critics unanimously pick as the greatest of all time are overrated, confusing, ponderous, overly symbolic art pieces that leave viewers scratching their heads. The collective reaction is, "What in the hell was the director smoking?" Arty camera work and tons of symbolism and metaphors can never take the place of good acting, solid direction and, most importantly, a good script.

Much has been made of Citizen Kane's technical brilliance -- Welles' use of overlapping conversations, Gregg Toland's deep focus photography, set design that incorporates ceilings, etc. However, none of this would really mean anything if the film didn't have a great story and screenplay. Citizen Kane may be a triumph in filmmaking technique, but it is also a deeply engrossing story with characters we can relate to and sympathize with. Welles' Kane is a selfish, unhappy, overly controlling dictator who has everything and yet still manages to make himself more and more unhappy. Most of us know the feeling of not appreciating someone or something good in our lives until he/she/it is gone. We see the promise and idealism in Kane's early life, like him and believe, as Joseph Cotten's Jed Leland does, that Kane is a great man who can do so much good in society. As Kane's life progresses, however, he becomes more and more bitter, alienates everyone who cares about him and dies alone, longing for the simplicity of his early life before he became wealthy. When Kane, as an old man, loses control when his second wife Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore) leaves him, we can't help but feel for him -- even though most or all of his unhappiness is his fault. That the audience feels such empathy for such a flawed character is Citizen Kane's greatest triumph and is the true basis for Kane's reputation as one of the greatest films of all time. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Orson Welles's 1948 Macbeth is an expressionist masterpiece about a doomed man of ordinary ambition who believes an evil prophecy that he will become king. As depicted by Welles, the title character is not a warrior king or a conscience-stricken, poetic soul on a par with Hamlet; rather, he is a facile, superstitious man consigned to fate even as the character does not trust fate. For her part, Lady Macbeth (Jeanette Nolan) is merely obsessed with the unimpeded exercise of her will to power, viewing her husband's life as a tale told by an idiot. Welles has also created some new scenes here, conflating several characters into a "Holy Father" (Alan Napier) while eliciting strong supporting turns from Dan O'Herlihy (Macduff) and Roddy McDowall (Malcolm). Though the technically poor soundtrack and the occasional indecipherable Scottish brogue make the film seem a trifle compromised at times, each moment feels preternaturally alive. --Kevin Mulhall ... Read more

Reviews (22)

A Fair and Foul Shakespearean Rendition
Any film directed by Orson Welles is engrossing and worth the time. MACBETH is no exception. For those of you familiar with the 1971 Roman Polanski version, Welles brought to the screen a darker, more nightmarish world than Polanski could envision. The lighting is stark and the shadows ominous. Macbeth's madness increasingly pervades the atmosphere of the entire film, making the viewer unwilling to view this film with the lights out. The restored version presents Welles's original conception; the actors speak their lines with authentic Scottish burrs (Welles was forced to redo the soundtrack by the studio brass). A fascinating journey and imaginative interpretation of Shakespeare, Welles's MACBETH remains a major additon to American cinema and reveals the classical literary talents of one of the US's greatest visual artists. END

Orson Welles And Shakespeare At Their Best
Without a doubt Orson Welles is the perfect American compliment for William Shakespeare. Superbly directed and acted on a melancholy stage in haunting black and white, the poetic license with Shakespeare's Macbeth can be forgiven because of the intensity and brilliance with which this play is performed. There is a great supporting cast which includes Roddy McDowall that as in all ensemble productions draw the viewer into the play not as a witness - bystander but as a performer in concert with the actors. Welles of course was a genius, being one of those rare performers - entertainers who made the audience beg for more! I wish he had produced versions of Hamlet, Othello, King Lear and other Shakespeare plays. Even if you already own a good version of Macbeth, you must have this version! Welles set the standard by which all others are measured.

"Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
The good news? For his last Hollywood film of the 1940s, Orson Welles delivered a low-budget, inventive, expressionist Shakespeare adaptation that served as a template for his experimental European films. The bad news? Welles perhaps captures the eerie mood of "The Scottish Play" all too well; the film is an unrelentingly dark and often uncomfortable experience. The lugubrious pacing and indifferent acting offer little respite from the play's fatalism.

A little background helps one better appreciate this film. After a string of box office failures (including "The Magnificent Ambersons" and "The Lady from Shanghai"), Welles signed on with Republic Pictures to do a low-budget "Macbeth," hoping that he could popularize Shakespeare on film as he had done on radio and in the theatre. His actors rehearsed the play on tour, and painstakingly pre-recorded their dialogue in Scottish brogues. Welles then shot the film in 23 days, some kind of record for him. Well, you can guess what happened: The studio hated it. They forced Welles to cut 20 minutes from the film, and made the actors re-dub their dialogue with "normal" accents - wasting all that time they spent in pre-production. The film bombed on release and Welles spent the next 10 years working in Europe.

Years later, the original prints were found and released as another "Lost Welles Classic." Unfortunately, time has devalued that label; "Macbeth" doesn't quite meet the standard set by "Othello" or "Touch of Evil," two other films that were restored after Welles' death. While the Scottish accents are a nice touch, the extra running time actually robs the film of some momentum. Welles did wonders with the cheap Republic sets; the film is a masterpiece of expressionist set design. The same can't be said of the costumes, which make Welles look like the Statue of Liberty at one point. Constrained by having to sync their movements to pre-recorded dialogue, the actors deliver wooden performances (only the soliloquies, delivered in voice-over, resonate). Fortunately, the last twenty minutes are visually captivating and offer enough Wellesian moments to make the viewing worthwhile.

If Welles fails to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear - as he would later do with "Othello" and "Chimes of Midnight" - he succeeds in developing an expressionist style that he would later perfect with his bizarro masterpiece "The Trial." "Macbeth" isn't exactly an enjoyable movie experience; indeed, "returning were as tedious as go o'er." But for the Welles aficionado, "Macbeth" provides an essential link between Welles' Hollywood years and the independent style of his European work.

Another Great From the Master
I own this film on VHS and on Laserdisc and I am hoping that it will soon come out on DVD. Certainly there are some technical problems with the production, but it is a 1948 film so some of that can be excused.

Welles vision of MacBeth has the texture and feel of a nightmare. The backdrops are unfinished, muddy charicatures of the objects and places they represent. Scotland is an eerie, nightmarish landscape that is constantly misty and partially unformed. The use of the b&w medium superbly creates a feeling of dread and foreboding in the audience who is drawn ever deeper into the madness of the story. This is vintage Welles, who loved to make the tone, timbre, hue and texture of every part of the movie relate to and support the story he was filming. Certainly the work of a genius.

Most people know the basic story. MacBeth (Which literally means "Son of Life"), is given a prophesy that he will become king of Scotland and tells his wife of the prophesy. Lady MacBeth then uses MacBeth's insecurities to manipulate him into murdering the true king and assuming his throne. Guilt-ridden and paranoid, MacBeth begins a reign of tyranny and sinks into madness. Finally, the English invade and end his reign of terror. MacBeth, who is shown as no more than a pawn in this story, finally gains a measure of grace and dignity when he faces MacDuff in combat. We finally see in death the couragous man MacBeth could have been - indeed was before he allowed his and his wife's greed to corrupt him - MacBeth rises above his fate and becomes master of his own destiny by crying-out the infamous phrase "Lead on MacDuff, and damn the man who first cries hold - enough".

All in all, I have been impressed with this film from the first time I viewed it and I do hope it comes soon to DVD.

A note on the soundtrack - In 1949 the studio refused to release this movie until Welles overdubbed the original Scottish Brogue with more traditional Shakespearian English-accented speech, arguing that the Scottish was unintelligible. I think the most important part of the reconstruction of this film is the return of the original Scottish soundtrack - It adds so much to the grittiness and the darkness of the movie. After two or three viewings, most of the dialog comes clear, so in the first viewing the accent is just a bit of an inconvenience.

Orson Welles was an egomaniac
Yes Orson Welles was one of the most influential filmmakers in the United States, but he was also an egomaniac. Orson takes on William in his adaptation of 'Macbeth'. Orson, do you feel the need to be in EVERY SCENE? I know you think you are a great actor and director, but do you need to put yourself in EVERY SCENE?? ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

"By the time you read this letter, I may be dead," reads aging bon vivant Louis Jourdan from a letter found in his tiny hotel room. With tousled hair and a tux tired from yet another night of meaningless flirtation, he's startled by these opening lines and suspends his preparations to flee a duel in order to read the history of a love affair that he can't remember. For the rest of the film we're transported to the life of Joan Fontaine's awkward young Viennese woman, who has been hopelessly enthralled by the dashing pianist ever since adolescence. For a moment she was his lover, the emotional pinnacle of her life but for the philandering rogue simply another fling in a blur of women passing through his bedroom. This was Max Ophüls's first personal project in Hollywood, and he injects this exquisitely stylish romantic melodrama (based on a novel by Stefan Zweig) with his continental sensibility. Both lush and restrained, the endlessly moving camera tracks, cranes, and circles around the characters while maintaining a measured distance. Fontaine delivers one of the best performances of her career, vulnerable and yearning without lapsing into sentimentality--and ultimately showing a hidden strength as she risks all for one more moment with the love of her life. Jourdan is genial and callow, an empty figure faced with the meaningless of his life and shamed with self-discovery. It's a sensibility more European than American, right down the empty gesture that concludes this sad melodrama. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Bittersweet, memorable, tragic love story
This bittersweet turn-of-the-century romance about a young girl who falls in love with a narissistic, womanizing, concert pianist may appear to a cynical viewer as a somewhat obsessive love story of unrequited love. Lisa (Fontaine), the "Unknown Woman," turns a adolescent crush into a lifelong love for someone (Jourdan) who scarcely knows she is alive. Nonetheless, the story is a wonderful tale of hopeful and innocent love which is able to last a lifetime, even if unrecognized and unappreciated until the very end. Max Ophuls's wonderful directing abilities completely pulls one into the movie, the time, the setting, and the characters, making one feel genuinely sorry for not only Lisa, whose love is ultimately in vain, but also for Stefan, who realizes too late the love he has been searching for all his life in this tragic love story. It is truly a classic in its elegance and timeless beauty.

Masterpiece not always recognized
LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN remains one of those cinematic masterpieces that has never gotten its rightful due. In Europe, it has been listed, in various cinema circles, as one of the 10 Best of Films. But, here, it has been unjustly ignored, perhaps due to its initial lukewarm public and even critical response. The superb Max Ophuls has directed a mood piece of substance, one that captures its milieu and time period with perfection. Joan Fontaine, who, at her best, was one of the best of American film actresses, here is remarkable, always capturing the changing character tones of a young woman growing into a lovesick woman. Louis Jourdan is impeccable as well.... the rogue, the handsome and dashing man who favors his romantic interludes over his composing acuumen. Everything is right in this film, and its black-and-white photography is expertly reproduced in the VHS version. Music and supporting players (including Mady Christians) add to the piece's effectiveness. It is a treasure of a film, a romantic work that eschews the pitfalls that make some moviegoers avoid love stories. Excellence is paramount.

An odd, brittle melodrama
Joan Fontaine stars as Lisa, an odd, possibly mentally disturbed young woman who adopts a stalkerlike, lifelong fixation on a rakish concert pianist, played by Louis Jordan, who beds her then forgets her, leaving her with child yet still obsessed with her one true love. Fontaine's cockeyed performance may project more creepiness into the role than was originally intended -- her Lisa is a genuinely disturbing character, and her clumsy attempt at an Austrian accent (the story is set in late-19th Century Vienna) gives her lines that much more of a twisted feel. It's an odd film: Jordan's character is a complete cipher, and nothing in the script redeems either one of them, really. It's hard to tell what the moral of this melodrama may be, but it will definitely elicit a visceral reaction, either of repulsion or boredom.

Unforgettable... An Exceptional Film
"Letter From an Unknown Woman" is a touching, emotionally-involving movie about a
woman's life-long obsession with a handsome, charming musician who is truly not worth all of her
love and devotion. This is the kind of movie you watch when you want to lose yourself in
a whole other world--it's that engrossing. Joan Fontaine and Luis Jourdan are excellent in
their roles, and Fontaine is especially convincing as a woman hopelessly in love with
Jourdan (or the perfect man she imagines him to be). I agree with the previous reviewer
that the scene where she realizes for a second time that he doesn't recognize her is just
agonizing to watch. At 87 minutes, it doesn't drag on like many classic movies do.
Nothing is superfluous--every scene and line of dialogue is essential. I'll also mention that
besides the great acting and storyline, the direction and cinematography are also
exceptional. This is an unforgettable movie that is so overwhelming that it will literally leave you speechless. It's one of my favorite movies and I can't recommend it enough.

Enduring Classic, by fermed
Stefan Zweig wrote tales of obsessions (Amok, Royal Game), and this is one of his creations. The problem with obsessions as a theme of literature (an by extension, of movies) is that there is very little room for character development...in fact there is no room for development of any kind. The obsessed are to perish, consumed by their narrow, intense, cravings; thus obsessions lend themselves more to short stories than to novels, and indeed "A letter from an unknown woman" is based on a short story.

I had read the story as a kid, thinking I was as expert on matters of love which, of course, I was not. A few years after reading the story (and after experiencing love) I saw the film "A Letter..." and I was shocked. For one, I understood the story better, and was saddened by it; but in addition I gazed upon Joan Fontaine and became convinced that she was the most beautiful object in the entire Universe. I promptly fell in love with her and started hating Louis Jourdan, the sociopath who could have made her happy and did not. I saw the movie over and over, just to feast my eyes on Joan, and in the hope of a miraculously happy ending (that never took place).

Now, in what seems like a couple of hundred years, I revisited "A Letter..." and it still holds up. It is not as dramatic as when I was full of youth and hope, but the movie still stirs this old codger; and it does so strongly enough to allow me to recommend this dramatic tale, this fine classical film, to all who have not yet seen it. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Citizen Kane is considered by many to be Orson Welles's masterpiece, but more than a few prominent critics have argued that his second film, 1942's The Magnificent Ambersons, is an even greater artistic achievement. It's certainly the source of the most painful injustice of Welles's brief career in Hollywood, having been seized from the director's control, drastically cut from over two hours to merely 88 minutes, and reshot with a different, upbeat ending that Welles vehemently disapproved of. Adapted by Welles from thenovel by Booth Tarkington, it remains a truncated masterpiece, as impressive for what remains as for the even greater film it might have been. The story is set during the late 19th century and follows the rise and fall of the wealthy Amberson family of Indianapolis, Indiana. Central to the drama is George Amberson Minafer (Tim Holt), who is snobbishly to the manor born, and whose petty jealousies and truculent pride compel him to prevent a wealthy inventor (Joseph Cotten) from marrying his widowed mother (Dolores Costello). This in part is the cause of the Ambersons' downfall, and ultimately leads to George's humbling "comeuppance" at the film's dramatic conclusion. It's an absorbing tale of fading traditions and changing times, and it's also a magnificent showcase for Welles's cinematic audacity, famous among film students for its long, fluid shots and ambitious compositions. Responding to the film's drastic cutting and re-editing, Welles justifiably complained that "they destroyed the heart of the film, really." And yet, the director's stamp of genius is evident throughout--the work of a young master (Welles was only 26 when the film was made) that still shines despite its unfortunate fate. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (19)

The Magnificent Magnificent Ambersons
Orson Welles's adaptation of Booth Tarkington's award-willing novel and follow-up to Citizen Kane is a true screen classic. As with Kane, this film contains many wonderful performances by all the leads including Joseph Cotton, Agnes Moorehead, Dolores Costello, and Tim Holt as George Amberson Minafer. Welles continued his experimentation with film technique and you will notice similar camera angles and lighting, to those in Kane. The lighting is something exploited to good affect here, especially in the scenes inside the Amberson mansion. The story is a simple one: Eugene Morgan (Cotton) and Isabel Amberson (Costello) young lovers, who through a somewhat frivolous circumstance end up marrying other people. After they've both raised children, they again find themselves free to begin where they left off in their youth. But Isabel's son (Holt) does not approve of their relationship, in spite of the fact that he is in love with Morgan's daughter, Lucy (Anne Baxter). Set at the turn of the 20th century, the movie has a wonderful feel and texture, which effectively evokes the period. An interesting backdrop is the development of the automobile, with Cotton an early proponent and tycoon, and its effects on not only the American economy, but on the changes it brings to society as well. Morgan, once spurned as a little too common for Isabel returns again to his hometown a successful industrialist. As his fortunes climb, those of the Ambersons fall. As already mentioned, the film is packed with wonderful performances. Agnes Moorehead was nominated for Best Supporting Actress and won the Best Actress award from the New York Film Critics Circle. As the lonely, sorrowful Aunt Fanny, hers is a delicately crafted characterization. Cotton as the auto tycoon Morgan, gives another understated and subtle performance; a young Anne Baxter is lovely as Cotton's daughter Lucy; and Tim Holt, a name all but forgotten today, is magnificent in the pivotal role of George Amberson Minafer. One of the most interesting scenes in the film is the ball at the Amberson mansion. The camera seems to float along with the players seemingly without a break, putting the viewer right in the midst of the cast. A great film, worthy of multiple viewings, The Magnificent Ambersons has earned its place among Hollywood's greatest films.

Brilliant followup to "Kane"
What a travesty it is that as of this writing, Orson Welles' "The Magnificent Ambersons" is not available on DVD, while the far inferior 2002 remake is. Welles' managed to follow up his landmark debut "Citizen Kane" with another masterpiece, despite studio meddling which reduced the film's length by 43 minutes.

Eschewing "Kane's" fragmented structure, "Ambersons" employs a linear narrative to chronicle the rise and fall of the Amberson family, who become an allegory for pre-industrialized America. Though the film undeniably laments the passing of the simpler, 19th century way of life (most effectively in a nostalgic prelude narrated by Welles himself), the conflict between past and progress is complicated by the impudence of George Minafer (Tim Holt), scion of the Ambersons, and the amiability of Joseph Cotten as the inventor whose automobiles contribute to the decline of the Ambersons' magnificence. "Ambersons" is characterized by masterfully choreographed long takes, which allow Welles to extract thematic content from the material through sheer compositional virtuosity. "The Magnificent Ambersons" remains a powerful experience despite the loss of several key scenes; RKO chopped Welles' diamond, but could not obscure its brilliance.

Butchered masterpiece
After making "Citizen Kane," Orson Welles proceded to this equally ambitious film version of a classic American novel about the decline of a wealthy family, using much of the same good cast he used in "Kane" (though not acting in this one himself.) The result was to have been rather long but visually stunning and virtuoso. Unfortunately, the studio got tired of wrangling with Welles and his high budgets and took the film away from him, cut the film's length, and tacked on a ridiculous happy ending. (You can see the very moment the tack-on ending begins, because the footage suddenly becomes visually dull instead of magnificent as it was with Welles behind the camera.) Thus what we have left is flawed, but all that survives of Welles' original vision - and much of it does - is wonderful. See this film for the camera work alone. It is breathtaking.

This is why we watch movies
"Of all sad words of tongue or pen. The saddest are these 'it might have been' " That proverb seems made specifically for this film. Orson Welles' big screen adaptation of the "Magnificent Ambersons" was cut from two hours down to an hour and a half. The excised footage was destroyed so there will be no 'directors cut' of this film.

Lavishly shot, wonderfully directed, and superbly acted this film takes it rightful place as a movie classic. It consistently makes the list of the all time greatest films.

HOWEVER, the loss of 1/3rd of the film shows throughout. It is a masterpiece of design and acting, but I found the plot to be jumpy often skipping over important elements from the novel. The characters (with the notably exception of Agnes Moorhead) never really get a chance to grow and develop or show their inner selves.

The basic plot centers on new money versus old money. The Ambersons are the acknowledged masters of the town and their crown princess Isabelle spurns the advances of Eugene Morgan a young inventor. Twenty years later Morgan, now a rich widower, and his comely daughter return to the town and meet up with the Ambersons. George Amberson Minever scion of the clan falls in love with young Lucy and the elder Morgan begins to renew his courtship of the widowed Isabelle. George objects to the match and places all possible obstacles in the way of the automobile magnet and his mother. As progress moves forward the automobile changes the way of life for everybody and the rich and powerful Ambersons find themselves behind the times and losing both thief fortune and prestige.

This is a classic movie and what is left is well worth seeing over and over again.

How George Orson Welles Got His Comeuppance
"The Magnificent Ambersons" is two stories rolled up into one. I will explain them one at a time.

First of all, it is the story of a late nineteenth century family, the Ambersons. The Ambersons are a large, wealthy, New England family who are held in high esteem in their community. They live in a large, beautiful mansion where they hold balls and invite all the town folk.

Unfortunately, the Ambersons are also very old fashioned and are unable to keep up with the changing times. When Wilbur Minafer dies, it is discovered that he has made some bad investments that has left the Amberson clan bankrupt. Meanwhile, his widow Isabel Amberson begins to see her old flame Eugene whom she had stood up years before. Eugene is in the process of developing a new contraption called an "automobile". Eugene is prospering while the Ambersons are going bankrupt. Also, as one of the Ambersons points out, if automobiles become common and roads are built around their property, then the houses will lose their value. This leads to a wise speech that Eugene gives in response to a rude comment that George makes about Eugene's profession.

Indeed, it's not only financially that the Ambersons have trouble adjusting to. George Amberson Minafer, the son of Isabel, has grown from a spoiled young child to a spoiled young adult. He is the scallion of the Amberson clan and the Isabel's pet son. He is the person that the neighbors keep predicting will one day get "his comeuppance". George does not approve of his mother's relationship with Eugene and is determined to pressure her into breaking things off with him.

"The Magnificent Ambersons" is an affectionate look at a bigone era and a dark look into the changes that the automobile brought to some families at the dawn of the twentieth century. It was adapted from a novel by Booth Tarkington and directed with care and affection by Orson Welles. Welles had previously done a radio play adaptation of the Ambersons with himself in the role of George. As in that play, Welles narrates throughout the film, even signing off at the end. The black and white cinematography is gorgeous, indeed some of the shots bring to mind some of the pictures I've seen of nineteenth century houses. The music score by an uncredited Bernard Herman adds just the right touch.

However it's impossible to watch this film without thinking about the effect it had on Orson Welles. Which brings me to the second part of the story. George Orson Welles was a child prodege who, as he put it, had "genius" whispered into his ear from the time he was born. Starting in the thirties, sixteen-year-old Welles bluffed his way on stage into a Shakespearian production carving out a career as an actor. He also formed the "Mercury Theatre" which produced some highly original stage and radio plays. His radio production of "War of the Worlds" scared people across the country into believing that Martians had invaded Earth. On top of all that, Welles successfully broke into films making "Citizen Kane" for RKO, arguably the greatest film of all time. And this was all before he was twenty-six!

By this point, many of Welles' detractors were just waiting for Welles to get his "comeuppance". They wouldn't have to wait long. While Welles was away shooting a documentary in South America, RKO cut 45 minutes from the Ambersons and added three minutes after the film tested badly at a preview screening composed of rambunctious teenagers. RKO then put a stop to Welles' documentary and released the Ambersons with few previews where it flopped badly. While it's a testament to Welles' talents that a film that was so obviously butchered can still get a five star rating, the lost footage is still one of the ultimate Hollywood tragedies.

As for Welles, he suddenly found himself with an undeserved reputation as an unreliable director and a spendthrift. Welles' career never fully recovered, and although he would manage to cough up enough money to continue his film career, he would never again have the artistic and financial freedom that he had once enjoyed.

Like George Amberson Minafer, George Orson Welles finally got his comeuppance. He got it three times over and brimming. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Milland in his element
Ray Milland again delivers a fine performance, in the tradition of "Lost Weekend" and "The Big Clock". A fine outing for Lang; his angles and lighting in this genre are second only to Herr Siodmak (Siodmak was German; Lang Austrian). Marjorie Reynolds' performance, however, is wooden, and her "Austrian" accent leaves much to be desired. Sure, she's beautiful: But her faux German accent alongside brother Willi is hideous (he's obviously a native speaker) and adds nothing to the sense of reality of the film. Scene with "blind" man on train during Nazi bombing raid is particularly gripping. True noir devotees will want this for the collection.

It Begins At 6 O'Clock
Director Fritz Lang masterfully blends Nazi espionage, psychological intrigue, and dangerous romance into the 1944 noir classic Ministry of Fear. Ray Milland stars as a man wrongfully accused of murder who must prove his innocence. Stephen Neale (Milland) innocently guesses the correct weight of a cake at a charity fair and immediately becomes entangled in a series of bizarre events. Lang's suggestive use of camera angles, dark ominous lighting, and slow tracking frames provide added suspense to his mysterious sets which include: a seance, an asylum, a train car, and a book store. Probably the most innovative murder scene ever captured on film is when Carla ( Majorie Reynolds) shoots her brother Willi ( Carl Esmond) in the pitch darkness of a hotel room. Frequent noir visitor Dan Duryea appears as Mr. Travers, a well groomed tailor who actually is a Nazi spy. The film's shadowy mood pervades the context, which is a testament to Lang's creative genius. Ministry of Fear was one of the films that inspired Alfred Hitchcock to new artistic heights.

One of the best mysteries from the 40's with great imagery
This mystery has many interesting plot changes, great photography and is one of Ray Milland's best. Highly recommended and not as overplayed as many of the WWII era films are. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

An old sea yarn
This tale is narrated from the perspective of the first mate of "The Red Witch" when the incidents at the beginning of the film occur. Of all the characters in this tale, the narrator seems to have the most dignity. None of the characters are lacking in pride, and all but the women are greedy.

For a sea yarn set in the late 1800s, the sea captain has to be a bit of a rogue and a rascal, but still possess heart. This is difficult, in my opinion, for John Wayne. I have seen him in too many movies where he is the gallant working to save the day here. In this movie, he is trying to play a conniving sea captain, and I can't get past my image of him. This will make it difficult to understand his character.

To look at the story, the box is a little off. It places the focus where the movie does not focus its attention. The attention is on the relationship between Captain Ralls (Wayne) and Sidneye (Adler). Both are greedy, but have to have the other to give life some meaning. Parts of the story seem add a love story to bring in a wider audience, but it really doesn't flow, nor does it fit the story.

I would not go out of my way to see this movie, but if it happened to be on, I would give it a view.

Widescreen????
People are wondering why this movie is presented in Full-Screen format. The answer is simple...Widescreen movies weren't made until 1953. This movie was made in 1949. All movies made until 1953 were filmed in the 4:3 ratio. When TV came along, and used the same ratio for picture tubes, the movie execs came up with a wide format to lure back moviegoers.

So, if you see a movie release on DVD, and it was made before 1953, don't look for it in wide screen...

Good Duke, good DVD, but are we missing wider format?
Here's a Duke movie to like. This DVD, which has been previoulsy released, is full screen. Whether or not widescreen was in regular use, it seens obvious to me there's more information on the sides. I saw a wider version on, I think, TCM, also colorized. I don't think it's just a matter of chopping the top and bottom off the full screen version and making it look wider. I think there is more information out there. So given the excellent movie at its heart, it would be nice to have whatever extra picture there is. This is a story that can take advantage of wideness. Apart from that, it's a Duke DVD for every collection, a good story, nice effects and the video transfer and sound are very good. You'll like it. But watch for the wider, colorized version to be broadcast and tape it.

Good John Wayne
It's in full screen instead of widescreen. As a result this good, fun movie loses some of its visual spendor. Also, it's the original BW version. Still, right now it's the only version available. The picture and sound are fine on DVD but look elsewhere for the widescreen and the computer colorized version, which shows up on satellite TV now and then.

The DUKE and Gail, together again!
After the classic "Angel and the Badman", DUKE and Gail Russell paired again for this effort, "Wake of the Red Witch".

A tale of the effects revenge, greed, and bittnerness can have on people, the story traces the duel of words and intrigue between two men; Captain Ralls (The DUKE), and shipping magnate Mayrant Sidneye.

DUKE skippers Sidneye's prize ship, the Red Witch, and purposely wrecks her in a plan to cheat Sidneye out of a cargo of gold. Turns out that Sidneye had plotted to steal away DUKE's girl, Angelique Desaix (played by the lovely and angelic Gail Russell).

Tricking DUKE into a fatal confrontation with the girl's father, Sidneye is able to marry Angelique before The DUKE can set things right. This leads to her unhappiness, and The DUKE takes revenge on Sidneye by wrecking the Red Witch.

A wonderful study of greed, revenge, and redmption, we see the tale through the eyes of a young seaman (Gig Young), who Ralls sees as his younger self.

Familiar faces in the cast include Paul Fix, Henry Daniell, Jeff Corey, Erskine Sanford, and Grant Withers.

Gail is gorgeous, as usual. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Legend has it that Orson Welles more or less conned studio boss Harry Cohn over the phone into making this movie by grabbing the title from a nearby paperback. In any case, The Lady from Shanghai is one of Welles's most fascinating works, a bizarre tale of an Irish sailor (Welles) who accompanies a beautiful woman (Rita Hayworth) and her handicapped husband (Everett Sloane) on a cruise and becomes involved in a murder plot. But never mind all that (the aforementioned legend also claims that Cohn offered a reward to anyone who could explain the plot to him). The film is really a dream of Welles's driving preoccupations on- and offscreen at the time: the elusiveness of identity, the mystique of things lost, and most of all the director's faltering marriage to Hayworth. In the tradition of male filmmakers who indirectly tell the story of their love affairs with leading ladies, Welles tells his own, photographing Hayworth as a deconstructed star, an obvious cinematic creation, thus reflecting, perhaps, a never-satisfied yearning that leads us back to the mystery of Citizen Kane. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (39)

Fun-filled parody of film noir
An often bewildering parody of film noir in particular and Hollywood conventions in general, Columbia relegated "The Lady from Shanghai" to B-movie status due to objections over Orson Welles' manipulation of soon-to-be-ex-wife Rita Hayworth into a ruthless femme fatale. However, Hayworth's metamorphosis is the most superficial of the caricatures that populate the film, among them Everett Sloane (Bernstein from "Citizen Kane") as a leering, corrupt, crippled lawyer, and show-stealing Glenn Anders as the giddily inscrutable Grisby, whose machinations drive what passes for a plot. Amidst this gallery, Welles' own sublimely ridiculous presence, as a hopelessly idealistic sailor with a phony "Black Irish" accent, becomes the most obvious tip-off that the proceedings are anything but serious fare. Once the comic tone is established, the film lurches forward with manic energy, throwing plausibility to the wind as it careens toward the climax in the expressionistic Crazy House and its Hall of Mirrors. The flattering close-ups of Hayworth (inserted by the studio to "save" the picture) clash marvelously with Welles' vertiginous camera angles, adding to the film's discontinuity and enhancing its satirical nature. My favorite line: "I came to in the crazy house, but for a moment there, I thought it was me who was going crazy!" My advice: forget the plot and enjoy "The Lady from Shanghai" for its many guilty pleasures.

"He who follows his nature,..."
The first time I saw this Welles classic, I didn't get it. Apparently, neither did Paramount Studios head Harry Cohn. Many people have complained that the plot is incoherent. That was my initial impression as well.

However, after watching it again for a second and third time, I am of a different opinion. This film CAN be followed, but not in the conventional way. While the film's twists and turns and double-crosses make little sense story wise, thematically everything falls into place. My appreciation for this film has grown over the years.

Orson Welles plays Michael O'Hara, an Irish drifter and Spanish Civil War veteran who's troubles begin when he falls for an alluring woman by the name of Elsa Bannister (Rita Hayworth). Elsa is married to Arthur Bannister (Everett Sloane), a crippled, sinister old man who happens to be the world's greatest lawyer. Bannister hires Michael to go on a cruise through the Caribbean with him and his neurotic partner George Grisby.

...This entertaining film noir doesn't make a lot of sense story wise. People double-cross each other for no apparent reason. There are many twists and turns that are virtually impossible to follow. Even the title is somewhat misleading, as the film has little to do with Shanghai, apart from the fact that the title character was born there. Like that other film noir classic, "The Big Sleep", "The Lady from Shanghai" is more about style than substance. One must listen to some of the characters' quotes to make sense of what is going on.

They are as follows:

"It is difficult for love to last long, therefore one who loves passionately, is cured of love in the end."

"He who follows his nature, follows his original nature in the end."

There's also a memorable speech that Michael gives about some sharks he once saw and what became of them.

...

"Are you looking for a good paste in the eye?"
No, not Welles' best film. It couldn't be, since "The Lady From Shanghai" was actually a chance for Welles to get back in good with the studio system, a.k.a. the money picture that gets made when they won't let you be an artist. (Too, he saw it as a chance to rebuild the waning relationship he shared with then-wife Rita Hayworth.) However, the problem with Welles is that he excels so much at filmmaking that his worst still runs circles around most other directors' best. At 90 minutes long, this is basically an annotated version of the 2 1/2-hour cut Welles had submitted for release prints. Once again (reiterating Welles' career-long battles with his producers) unapproved editors were cut lose on it. But it's still one of the most gleefully dizzy and fun time machines I've come across. The colorful black-and-white cinematography comes off as disjointed due to the editing. But it's a blessing in disguise. Film noir dictates that shadows rule, both literally and figuratively. The darkness pulls the strings, and "The Lady..." lives up to that. It becomes a whirlwind journey that lands Mike O'Hara between South America and San Francisco's Chinatown, not to mention rendering him (and us) helpless under Hayworth's mesmerizing crooning on the deck of a boat. Yes, and the infamous, unparalleled "showdown" in a funhouse hall-of-mirrors, bringing the thematics of the genre to life as reflections and each spouse's altar ego are shattered into shards one by one. But I also harbor a cheap fascination with the world as it existed long before I was previed to it. '40s and '50s noir have the ability to instantly transplant viewers to forty or fifty years before whatever is presently happening outside their window. By no means the deepest picture released under the Welles filmography, "The Lady From Shanghai" remains a joyous, unabashed rollercoaster through the seediness of negative human nature. Capital escapism.

"I came to in the Crazy Room."
Michael O'Hara "Black Irish" (Orson Welles) is hired by famed criminal lawyer Arthur Bannister to work as a crew member on board his yacht--the Circe--for a trip down to Mexico. O'Hara agrees--he's already got an eyeful of Bannister's extremely attractive wife, Elsa (Rita Hayworth). Then Bannister's sleazy partner, Grisby approaches O'Hara with a strange offer. Grisby offers O'Hara a quick $5,000 if he agrees to "pretend" to kill Grisby. Grisby's hardly credible explanation for this outlandish behaviour is that he wishes to disappear with the insurance money.

The plot of "Shanghai Lady" has more holes than a slab of Swiss cheese. Added to that, Orson Welles has the absolutely worst Irish accent I have ever heard. But the film works ... in some ways. The Bannister's marriage is incongruous at best, and it's easy to slip Rita Hayworth in as the femme fatale who married for money. Some of the minor characters are guilty of extreme over-acting, and Welles doesn't put his heart into the role. However, the scenes in the courtroom and the over-the-top ending make the film worthwhile. The DVD comes with a few extras--including a worthwhile interview with Peter Bogdanovich, Talent Files (bios of Welles and Hayworth), vintage advertising (depictions of numerous posters advertising the film) and four film trailers ("Lady of Shanghai" "The Loves of Carmen" "The Last Hurrah" and "A Man For all Seasons").

"Shanghai Lady" was the victim of the decaying marriage between its two stars--Welles and Hayworth. The final film length was 155 minutes, but the studio slashed it down to 88 minutes. Who knows what the director's cut would look like?--displacedhuman

"Innocent is a big word--Stupid is more like it"
Stupidity--not innocence, not heroism, not any virtue at all--is the major theme of *The Lady from Shanghai*. Therefore, to some viewers this film will appear to be a stupid movie. That's unfortunate, but that's Orson Welles.

Everybody--EVERYBODY--is stupid in *Lady*! The Welles character, Michael O'Hara, admits he is stupid right off the bat. Elsa, played by Rita Hayworth, seems to be the cleverest of them all until the end...when she and her husband Arthur Bannister die together in the Crazy House, her husband gasping at her, "For a clever girl you make a lot of mistakes." Arthur, "the world's greatest lawyer", obviously has brains and knows what's going on through the whole story, but he's so grotesque (practically crawling through his scenes like a daddy longlegs spider) that his intellect is self-defeating: he's just one of the sharks that Welles describes in the beach scene, ravenously devouring himself. And the Grisby character...take one look at this guy and it's hard to believe *Lady* was made in 1946. Grisby's right out of David Lynch, or more like it, David Cronenberg! The judge, the folks in the courtroom...all STUPID and distorted, just like the images in the funhouse mirrors!

Portraying American people in that unflattering light was just not "on" in the early postwar period. No wonder Orson Welles was being watched by the FBI during those years. Even today, many filmgoers expect movies to give them at least one or two heroic characters that they can identify with. Sorry, friends, *Lady* jumps right into your face and right into your space (like the scene with O'Hara and Grisby overlooking the ocean) and blurts drunkenly, "Yer STOO-pid too, FELLAH!"

But why on earth is Orson Welles telling us we're all stupid? That's made very clear. We are blissfully living out our grubby little lives on the brink of self-destruction. "Do you believe the world is gonna end?" asks Grisby of O'Hara in that ocean overlook scene. That's the question Welles tells us we should be asking ourselves. But just as O'Hara was too stupid to ask himself a few simple questions, like "how can Grisby collect the insurance money if he's declared legally dead?", we don't ask ourselves the important questions that overshadow our silly little existences.

A lot of people won't like it. They sure didn't when *Lady* was released in '48.

But I love it! *Lady* was "postmodern" before postmodern was cool (before anybody knew what postmodern was)! It is deliciously self-referential: the scene in the Shanghai Low Chinese theater, with the strange Oriental play being performed onstage, instantly reminds one of all the strange characters and goings-on in the "real" story, the movie itself. But the movie itself is not real either, of course--it too is a play that reflects the bizarre world of human events, OUR world, the world of the moviegoer who seeks meaning in film and theater. House of mirrors! Movies of the '40's were just NOT self-referential, they really tried to create an alternative world that the audience could escape from its troubles into. Almost all movies then, and still most today, do not hold up a mirror to the audience. But *Lady* does. And still today many people aren't going to like what they see. "It's a bright guilty world," sayeth Welles/O'Hara.

The close-ups of Rita Hayworth singing "Please Don't Kiss Me" establish her as THE most beautiful woman to have ever graced the silver screen. Sorry Marilyn, Lana, Bette, and you too Nicole. "Rita Hayworth gave good face" indeed. I'd have paid the price of the whole DVD just to have those few seconds of film. But there's so much more in *Lady* that's worth watching than the lady.

Peter Bogdanovich's interview and commentary is pretty good, though as a Welles/Hayworth fan there was a good deal of stuff I already knew. But some stuff I didn't know, so I appreciated Peter's contribution.

*The Lady From Shanghai* and *Gilda*...movies just don't get any better! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Arguably the greatest of American films, Orson Welles's 1941 masterpiece, made when he was only 26, still unfurls like a dream and carries the viewer along the mysterious currents of time and memory to reach a mature (if ambiguous) conclusion: people are the sum of their contradictions, and can't be known easily. Welles plays newspaper magnate Charles Foster Kane, taken from his mother as a boy and made the ward of a rich industrialist. The result is that every well-meaning or tyrannical or self-destructive move he makes for the rest of his life appears in some way to be a reaction to that deeply wounding event. Written by Welles and Herman J. Mankiewicz, and photographed by Gregg Toland, the film is the sum of Welles's awesome ambitions as an artist in Hollywood. He pushes the limits of then-available technology to create a true magic show, a visual and aural feast that almost seems to be rising up from a viewer's subconsciousness. As Kane, Welles even ushers in the influence of Bertolt Brecht on film acting. This is truly a one-of-a-kind work, and in many ways is still the most modern of modern films from the 20th century. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (499)

What else is left to say?
This is the greatest American film ever made, as entertaining as it is revolutionary.

When it was made, Orson Welles tackled a seemingly simple topic, a reflection back on a dead man's search for love and happiness in his life, and made a film that's epic in scope, gorgeous in its visual execution, brilliantly written, incredibly acted.

All in all, it's inspiring to filmmakers looking for a great debut film from a new director. "Citizen Kane" also works for regular moviegoers just looking for a good drama.

Using interviews with all his closest friends and colleagues, Welles uses flashback to create a portrait of the life of millionaire media magnate Charles Foster Kane. Kane was, in conflicting accounts of those who knew him, a man of great character and potential or a wealthy, cold, manipulative scoundrel.

What, if anything, can be learned about the man from his last word? What does "Rosebud" mean?

The answer makes for good mystery, and it leads the viewer to ask key questions about what defines our lives and gives them meaning.

This film is fantastic, one that should be watched once a year to help you keep perspective on life.

One of the Best.
Even after sixty years, CITIZEN KANE remains as one of the greatest movies of all time. Though it is true that some are bored by the movie because it's "just a boring black-and-white movie with no action", those who hold that opinion are in the minority. KANE is often held as the pinnacle of filmmaking by movie buffs not just because of the advances the movie made in film production, but also because it set the standard that all filmmakers wish to reach: the total director's vision; a movie made with total control and no studio intervention. With that said, what does KANE hold for the average film-goer? The movie has an excellent script (it won an Oscar), great acting, and a haunting score. The story, though loosely based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, is an old one: powerful man starts out promising and full of ideals, becomes consumed by greed and looses his vision, and ends up loosing it all (anyone read MacBeth or ALL THE KING'S MEN?). Overall, a deeply penetrating and thinking movie that film buffs usually love and that most everyone else will at least enjoy if they don't mind a strong drama filmed in black and white.

AFI got this one right
Can you imagine what the perception of RKO was at the time they made this decision? Let's see, how about we give complete control of a major film to a twenty five year old radio voice with zero film experience (whose claim to fame was scaring the life out of the public with a fake story about aliens landing on earth) and even better, let him staff the movie with actors who have little to no screen experience. On top of that, we'll let it become one of the most controversial pictures of its time because it mirrors the life of one of the biggest names in America today. Why, it may never be able to be released because of the lawsuits-- Great idea!

I have just described Citizen Kane. All of the above is true, which makes the fact that it is possibly the greatest film in American Film History even more amazing. Everything is perfect. The script (which Welles co-wrote), the actors (all relative unknowns except Welles and Joseph Cotton), the special effects (listen to Roger Ebert's Commentary on this special edition for details) and finally, the makeup-- You won't believe how great a job they do making 25 year old Welles look 60.

As for the story, it's done in a most interesting fashion. Charles Foster Kane (Welles) dies at the very beginning of the movie and utters his famous last word "Rosebud". A reporter is given the task of finding out just what that one word meant. So he goes and interviews all the people who knew Kane to try to learn the meaning of the word. In the process, we are shown Kane through the eyes of those who knew him. We never see Kane through his own eyes, always what his former associates saw.

This is interesting, because Kane is a tragic figure as seen by just about everyone. He is unhappy and lonely. We as an audience eventually learn the meaning of Rosebud. I have read reviews that complain that the movie is about this one thing (I won't reveal what it is). But long before we learn the identity of Rosebud, the film has made its point. What is the point? My opinion is that the film shows us basically the worthlessness and despair of materialism. Loving "stuff" or money will ultimately lead to unhappiness.

By the way, this movie almost was never seen. The man I spoke of at the beginning of the review is William Randolph Hearst, former newspaper magnate. He saw too much of himself in the film and sued to squash it. Fortunately he lost. The second disc in the set is a two hour documentary on this topic. It is also excellent and well worth a viewing.

One last thing. Although this movie has been ranked on the AFI list as number one American movie of all time, it did NOT win Best Picture in 1941. That film? "How Green was my Valley"

Review of Review
The best review of Citizen Kane - perhaps of any film - I've ever read is the one titled "Narrative and Eye Disconnect" posted by "A viewer from Richmond, VA USA" on March 21, 2004. I recommend searching through Amazon's reviews to find it, then watching Citizen Kane and re-reading that review. Even though the reviewer gives Kane just one star, s/he writes with great insight into the movie and cinema in general, and has enhanced my appreciation of Citizen Kane exponentially. Thank you, "Viewer from Richmond," whoever you are!

Works on the basic levels as well as artistically
So many of the films that critics unanimously pick as the greatest of all time are overrated, confusing, ponderous, overly symbolic art pieces that leave viewers scratching their heads. The collective reaction is, "What in the hell was the director smoking?" Arty camera work and tons of symbolism and metaphors can never take the place of good acting, solid direction and, most importantly, a good script.

Much has been made of Citizen Kane's technical brilliance -- Welles' use of overlapping conversations, Gregg Toland's deep focus photography, set design that incorporates ceilings, etc. However, none of this would really mean anything if the film didn't have a great story and screenplay. Citizen Kane may be a triumph in filmmaking technique, but it is also a deeply engrossing story with characters we can relate to and sympathize with. Welles' Kane is a selfish, unhappy, overly controlling dictator who has everything and yet still manages to make himself more and more unhappy. Most of us know the feeling of not appreciating someone or something good in our lives until he/she/it is gone. We see the promise and idealism in Kane's early life, like him and believe, as Joseph Cotten's Jed Leland does, that Kane is a great man who can do so much good in society. As Kane's life progresses, however, he becomes more and more bitter, alienates everyone who cares about him and dies alone, longing for the simplicity of his early life before he became wealthy. When Kane, as an old man, loses control when his second wife Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore) leaves him, we can't help but feel for him -- even though most or all of his unhappiness is his fault. That the audience feels such empathy for such a flawed character is Citizen Kane's greatest triumph and is the true basis for Kane's reputation as one of the greatest films of all time. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Watch This Film And You Won't Be Sorry!
Impact has a very simple plot Walter Williams is marked for death by his cheating wife but when the plans go wrong and Williams is alive the film plays a great game of catchup! Donlevy is the star of the flick and he does more to draw you into the flick than dialogue ever could. He may not be tall but he has an imposing facing! His eyes and strong facial structure is a sight to see! I have to say that the film could have been shorter but in doing this some amazing cinematography would have been lost the image of a prisoned Willams (Donlevey) looking through a gate at his future love is amazing and the scene where his lover chases a woman who is crucial in freeing Williams of a crime through the narrow streets and shadows of chinatown is perfection. Impact may not be perfect but is is a very atmospheric and engaging ride non the least!

Starts out 40s noir, ends up 30s melodrama
Impact shows great promise in its first half, when industrialist Brian Donleavy's wife (Helen Walker -- the psychologist in Nightmare Alley) gets up to some homicidal duplicity. It's hard-core noir all the way, especially when push comes to shove on a dangerous mountain road. But then Donleavy ends up in Larkspur, Idaho, apparently suffering from amnesia, and falls for a girl mechanic. From here on in the tone grows sentimental and "women's-picture"-ish. When the climax comes, everybody seems suddenly to start behaving like imbeciles. There's enjoyable moments in Impact, but it's too compromised to be vintage noir.

Pretty entertaining
Totally implausible film noir but complex & entertaining nonetheless. Bear in mind its a Wade Williams release which ain't exactly Criterion. Picture quality is good; sound is so-so. The 4-star, rave review on the box is written by....Wade Williams. ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Bittersweet, memorable, tragic love story
This bittersweet turn-of-the-century romance about a young girl who falls in love with a narissistic, womanizing, concert pianist may appear to a cynical viewer as a somewhat obsessive love story of unrequited love. Lisa (Fontaine), the "Unknown Woman," turns a adolescent crush into a lifelong love for someone (Jourdan) who scarcely knows she is alive. Nonetheless, the story is a wonderful tale of hopeful and innocent love which is able to last a lifetime, even if unrecognized and unappreciated until the very end. Max Ophuls's wonderful directing abilities completely pulls one into the movie, the time, the setting, and the characters, making one feel genuinely sorry for not only Lisa, whose love is ultimately in vain, but also for Stefan, who realizes too late the love he has been searching for all his life in this tragic love story. It is truly a classic in its elegance and timeless beauty.

Masterpiece not always recognized
LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN remains one of those cinematic masterpieces that has never gotten its rightful due. In Europe, it has been listed, in various cinema circles, as one of the 10 Best of Films. But, here, it has been unjustly ignored, perhaps due to its initial lukewarm public and even critical response. The superb Max Ophuls has directed a mood piece of substance, one that captures its milieu and time period with perfection. Joan Fontaine, who, at her best, was one of the best of American film actresses, here is remarkable, always capturing the changing character tones of a young woman growing into a lovesick woman. Louis Jourdan is impeccable as well.... the rogue, the handsome and dashing man who favors his romantic interludes over his composing acuumen. Everything is right in this film, and its black-and-white photography is expertly reproduced in the VHS version. Music and supporting players (including Mady Christians) add to the piece's effectiveness. It is a treasure of a film, a romantic work that eschews the pitfalls that make some moviegoers avoid love stories. Excellence is paramount.

An odd, brittle melodrama
Joan Fontaine stars as Lisa, an odd, possibly mentally disturbed young woman who adopts a stalkerlike, lifelong fixation on a rakish concert pianist, played by Louis Jordan, who beds her then forgets her, leaving her with child yet still obsessed with her one true love. Fontaine's cockeyed performance may project more creepiness into the role than was originally intended -- her Lisa is a genuinely disturbing character, and her clumsy attempt at an Austrian accent (the story is set in late-19th Century Vienna) gives her lines that much more of a twisted feel. It's an odd film: Jordan's character is a complete cipher, and nothing in the script redeems either one of them, really. It's hard to tell what the moral of this melodrama may be, but it will definitely elicit a visceral reaction, either of repulsion or boredom.

Unforgettable... An Exceptional Film
"Letter From an Unknown Woman" is a touching, emotionally-involving movie about a
woman's life-long obsession with a handsome, charming musician who is truly not worth all of her
love and devotion. This is the kind of movie you watch when you want to lose yourself in
a whole other world--it's that engrossing. Joan Fontaine and Luis Jourdan are excellent in
their roles, and Fontaine is especially convincing as a woman hopelessly in love with
Jourdan (or the perfect man she imagines him to be). I agree with the previous reviewer
that the scene where she realizes for a second time that he doesn't recognize her is just
agonizing to watch. At 87 minutes, it doesn't drag on like many classic movies do.
Nothing is superfluous--every scene and line of dialogue is essential. I'll also mention that
besides the great acting and storyline, the direction and cinematography are also
exceptional. This is an unforgettable movie that is so overwhelming that it will literally leave you speechless. It's one of my favorite movies and I can't recommend it enough.

Enduring Classic, by fermed
Stefan Zweig wrote tales of obsessions (Amok, Royal Game), and this is one of his creations. The problem with obsessions as a theme of literature (an by extension, of movies) is that there is very little room for character development...in fact there is no room for development of any kind. The obsessed are to perish, consumed by their narrow, intense, cravings; thus obsessions lend themselves more to short stories than to novels, and indeed "A letter from an unknown woman" is based on a short story.

I had read the story as a kid, thinking I was as expert on matters of love which, of course, I was not. A few years after reading the story (and after experiencing love) I saw the film "A Letter..." and I was shocked. For one, I understood the story better, and was saddened by it; but in addition I gazed upon Joan Fontaine and became convinced that she was the most beautiful object in the entire Universe. I promptly fell in love with her and started hating Louis Jourdan, the sociopath who could have made her happy and did not. I saw the movie over and over, just to feast my eyes on Joan, and in the hope of a miraculously happy ending (that never took place).

Now, in what seems like a couple of hundred years, I revisited "A Letter..." and it still holds up. It is not as dramatic as when I was full of youth and hope, but the movie still stirs this old codger; and it does so strongly enough to allow me to recommend this dramatic tale, this fine classical film, to all who have not yet seen it. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

An old sea yarn
This tale is narrated from the perspective of the first mate of "The Red Witch" when the incidents at the beginning of the film occur. Of all the characters in this tale, the narrator seems to have the most dignity. None of the characters are lacking in pride, and all but the women are greedy.

For a sea yarn set in the late 1800s, the sea captain has to be a bit of a rogue and a rascal, but still possess heart. This is difficult, in my opinion, for John Wayne. I have seen him in too many movies where he is the gallant working to save the day here. In this movie, he is trying to play a conniving sea captain, and I can't get past my image of him. This will make it difficult to understand his character.

To look at the story, the box is a little off. It places the focus where the movie does not focus its attention. The attention is on the relationship between Captain Ralls (Wayne) and Sidneye (Adler). Both are greedy, but have to have the other to give life some meaning. Parts of the story seem add a love story to bring in a wider audience, but it really doesn't flow, nor does it fit the story.

I would not go out of my way to see this movie, but if it happened to be on, I would give it a view.

Widescreen????
People are wondering why this movie is presented in Full-Screen format. The answer is simple...Widescreen movies weren't made until 1953. This movie was made in 1949. All movies made until 1953 were filmed in the 4:3 ratio. When TV came along, and used the same ratio for picture tubes, the movie execs came up with a wide format to lure back moviegoers.

So, if you see a movie release on DVD, and it was made before 1953, don't look for it in wide screen...

Good Duke, good DVD, but are we missing wider format?
Here's a Duke movie to like. This DVD, which has been previoulsy released, is full screen. Whether or not widescreen was in regular use, it seens obvious to me there's more information on the sides. I saw a wider version on, I think, TCM, also colorized. I don't think it's just a matter of chopping the top and bottom off the full screen version and making it look wider. I think there is more information out there. So given the excellent movie at its heart, it would be nice to have whatever extra picture there is. This is a story that can take advantage of wideness. Apart from that, it's a Duke DVD for every collection, a good story, nice effects and the video transfer and sound are very good. You'll like it. But watch for the wider, colorized version to be broadcast and tape it.

Good John Wayne
It's in full screen instead of widescreen. As a result this good, fun movie loses some of its visual spendor. Also, it's the original BW version. Still, right now it's the only version available. The picture and sound are fine on DVD but look elsewhere for the widescreen and the computer colorized version, which shows up on satellite TV now and then.

The DUKE and Gail, together again!
After the classic "Angel and the Badman", DUKE and Gail Russell paired again for this effort, "Wake of the Red Witch".

A tale of the effects revenge, greed, and bittnerness can have on people, the story traces the duel of words and intrigue between two men; Captain Ralls (The DUKE), and shipping magnate Mayrant Sidneye.

DUKE skippers Sidneye's prize ship, the Red Witch, and purposely wrecks her in a plan to cheat Sidneye out of a cargo of gold. Turns out that Sidneye had plotted to steal away DUKE's girl, Angelique Desaix (played by the lovely and angelic Gail Russell).

Tricking DUKE into a fatal confrontation with the girl's father, Sidneye is able to marry Angelique before The DUKE can set things right. This leads to her unhappiness, and The DUKE takes revenge on Sidneye by wrecking the Red Witch.

A wonderful study of greed, revenge, and redmption, we see the tale through the eyes of a young seaman (Gig Young), who Ralls sees as his younger self.

Familiar faces in the cast include Paul Fix, Henry Daniell, Jeff Corey, Erskine Sanford, and Grant Withers.

Gail is gorgeous, as usual. ... Read more

Reviews (499)

What else is left to say?
This is the greatest American film ever made, as entertaining as it is revolutionary.

When it was made, Orson Welles tackled a seemingly simple topic, a reflection back on a dead man's search for love and happiness in his life, and made a film that's epic in scope, gorgeous in its visual execution, brilliantly written, incredibly acted.

All in all, it's inspiring to filmmakers looking for a great debut film from a new director. "Citizen Kane" also works for regular moviegoers just looking for a good drama.

Using interviews with all his closest friends and colleagues, Welles uses flashback to create a portrait of the life of millionaire media magnate Charles Foster Kane. Kane was, in conflicting accounts of those who knew him, a man of great character and potential or a wealthy, cold, manipulative scoundrel.

What, if anything, can be learned about the man from his last word? What does "Rosebud" mean?

The answer makes for good mystery, and it leads the viewer to ask key questions about what defines our lives and gives them meaning.

This film is fantastic, one that should be watched once a year to help you keep perspective on life.

One of the Best.
Even after sixty years, CITIZEN KANE remains as one of the greatest movies of all time. Though it is true that some are bored by the movie because it's "just a boring black-and-white movie with no action", those who hold that opinion are in the minority. KANE is often held as the pinnacle of filmmaking by movie buffs not just because of the advances the movie made in film production, but also because it set the standard that all filmmakers wish to reach: the total director's vision; a movie made with total control and no studio intervention. With that said, what does KANE hold for the average film-goer? The movie has an excellent script (it won an Oscar), great acting, and a haunting score. The story, though loosely based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, is an old one: powerful man starts out promising and full of ideals, becomes consumed by greed and looses his vision, and ends up loosing it all (anyone read MacBeth or ALL THE KING'S MEN?). Overall, a deeply penetrating and thinking movie that film buffs usually love and that most everyone else will at least enjoy if they don't mind a strong drama filmed in black and white.

AFI got this one right
Can you imagine what the perception of RKO was at the time they made this decision? Let's see, how about we give complete control of a major film to a twenty five year old radio voice with zero film experience (whose claim to fame was scaring the life out of the public with a fake story about aliens landing on earth) and even better, let him staff the movie with actors who have little to no screen experience. On top of that, we'll let it become one of the most controversial pictures of its time because it mirrors the life of one of the biggest names in America today. Why, it may never be able to be released because of the lawsuits-- Great idea!

I have just described Citizen Kane. All of the above is true, which makes the fact that it is possibly the greatest film in American Film History even more amazing. Everything is perfect. The script (which Welles co-wrote), the actors (all relative unknowns except Welles and Joseph Cotton), the special effects (listen to Roger Ebert's Commentary on this special edition for details) and finally, the makeup-- You won't believe how great a job they do making 25 year old Welles look 60.

As for the story, it's done in a most interesting fashion. Charles Foster Kane (Welles) dies at the very beginning of the movie and utters his famous last word "Rosebud". A reporter is given the task of finding out just what that one word meant. So he goes and interviews all the people who knew Kane to try to learn the meaning of the word. In the process, we are shown Kane through the eyes of those who knew him. We never see Kane through his own eyes, always what his former associates saw.

This is interesting, because Kane is a tragic figure as seen by just about everyone. He is unhappy and lonely. We as an audience eventually learn the meaning of Rosebud. I have read reviews that complain that the movie is about this one thing (I won't reveal what it is). But long before we learn the identity of Rosebud, the film has made its point. What is the point? My opinion is that the film shows us basically the worthlessness and despair of materialism. Loving "stuff" or money will ultimately lead to unhappiness.

By the way, this movie almost was never seen. The man I spoke of at the beginning of the review is William Randolph Hearst, former newspaper magnate. He saw too much of himself in the film and sued to squash it. Fortunately he lost. The second disc in the set is a two hour documentary on this topic. It is also excellent and well worth a viewing.

One last thing. Although this movie has been ranked on the AFI list as number one American movie of all time, it did NOT win Best Picture in 1941. That film? "How Green was my Valley"