Great "Art", little else

Rating: 2/10 (5 July 2003)

Even though I have studied this film numerous times and fully appreciate its artistry  for which it deserves praise  the basic pace of this film and its script leave me wondering if so many 'critics' place it as the best simply because it is the 'enlightened/snobbish' thing to do.
Although it has a deep, sad story within it; the film, to be blunt, is boring. Each shot truly is a wonder of technical staging, special effect, and cinematography, but the film itself lacks life.
The scenes are presented one at a time as different pieces in the puzzle of who Kane really was, but there are too many pieces and so little connectivity between them that they become a confusing blur from which little understanding is gleaned. The individual scenes themselves actually can be distracting from the overall film in that their rich qualities, lavish sets, and dramatic lighting often overshadow and overpower whatever information they contain. Even though the audience is supposed to be going through the same dilemma as the investigator, there are far too many lengthy subplots and red herrings. By the time the final scene is presented, the significance of what is seen is easily lost on an audience that has to think back across the entire movie to determine how it all fits together. So many with whom I have seen this film were asleep before that last scene.
The film was so well hyped at its release - and has such a great story of Hearst trying to destroy it, that it is a kind of legend in film history. I simply fail to see how it is the 'greatest' film ever made. Technologically beautiful, yes. An overall great film, no.