The best of all time?

Rating: Null/10 (23 December 1998)

Well, I did something I haven't done in a while last night; I went out and rented a movie. After hearing all the hype and kudos that have been deposited upon this Orson Welles' classic, I decided I should watch it for its astounding accolades if for nothing else. Truly, a magnificent movie, but the best of all time? That's a stretch.

Made in 1941, I can see where it puts everything of its time or before to shame, but I can't see it beating everything made since. Definitely a good movie, but it really consists of not much more than an intricate and albeit wonderful character sketch. I thought Welles' acting was impressive, but others were not quite so entertaining, and its not the most entertaining movie, either. My friend fell asleep watching it, which gives me evidence on this front.

A film needs to do two things if it intends to be memorable or considered a form of literature. First, it must entertain. This means keeping people riveted, in order to not miss anything. Second, it should make its statement. If the first is not achieved, it is found that much of the purpose is lost. I can see where many experts and movie pros can keep themselves entertained watching this film, as the meticulousness of Welles is astounding. However, to the average viewer (and my friend), the film is not so entertaining. All in all, a fantastic movie for those who like to watch and expound upon the extreme care taken in its production, but not the best of all time.