Over-rated. A Classic groundbreaker yes, but Not the #1 flick of all time.

Rating: 8/10 (1 July 2005)

I rate this an 8 here on the IMDb scale, don't get me wrong. It has great acting, writing, editing, pioneering make-up, writing, flashy as anything camera work. But that is about all you can say, ya know? It's a LOT, but.....
I can't imagine putting Casablanca, The Searchers, or the Third Man beneath this. Welles was NOT believable as a 66 year old lurching around his mansion wrecking 'Singer'-wifey's old room. I thought that scene was laughable. You could just see the make up lines etc on him, Cotton, 'Thacker'--it was great at times, but others-clearly dated and applied with a trowel.
I don't think that the story of Hearst here actually did WRH justice. Having read a rather decent, thick bio on the man this past winter, I can tell ya, there was much more to him than just a cold distant mother, being spoiled, and buying up half of the European artworks available. He was a combo of Murdoch, Trump and Willie Wonka, if you think about it. Plus Marion Davies was Not a singer, but an actress who actually had a fairly decent star run in the 20's on screen. She did wind up a drunk etc but c'mon.....
This film is done w/ tons of conviction, style, very impressive to look at. I'm not so impressed w/ the overall effect though--I didn't care that much about Kane, I didn't quite see what made him into such a 'Monster', as compared to, say, Harry Cohn, for example, nor am I sure that all of really adds up to much.
I put this up there w/ other movies like Annie Hall, the Gold Rush and Vertigo. It's a very well made movie, it is more than worthy of having in your DVD collection and reading about; but it's also frankly guilty of being a Sacred Cow for critics and writers too. I don't see how this is all THAT great. Putting it over even something like 'Notorious' or 'the Third Man'--doesn't hold water for me. Just an opinion for what it is worth.
**** outta **** of course.