🎦 Citizen Kane full movie HD download (Orson Welles) - Drama, Mystery. 🎬
Citizen Kane
Year:
1941
Country:
USA
Genre:
Drama, Mystery
IMDB rating:
8.4
Director:
Orson Welles
Joseph Cotten as Jedediah Leland
Dorothy Comingore as Susan Alexander Kane
Agnes Moorehead as Mary Kane
Ruth Warrick as Emily Monroe Norton Kane
Ray Collins as James W. Gettys
Erskine Sanford as Herbert Carter
Everett Sloane as Mr. Bernstein
William Alland as Jerry Thompson
Paul Stewart as Raymond
George Coulouris as Walter Parks Thatcher
Fortunio Bonanova as Signor Matiste
Gus Schilling as The Headwaiter
Philip Van Zandt as Mr. Rawlston
Georgia Backus as Bertha Anderson
Storyline: A group of reporters are trying to decipher the last word ever spoken by Charles Foster Kane, the millionaire newspaper tycoon: "Rosebud." The film begins with a news reel detailing Kane's life for the masses, and then from there, we are shown flashbacks from Kane's life. As the reporters investigate further, the viewers see a display of a fascinating man's rise to fame, and how he eventually fell off the top of the world.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1480x1080 px 13461 Mb h264 15762 Kbps mkv Download
DVD-rip 512x384 px 683 Mb msmpeg4 836 Kbps avi Download
iPhone 320x234 px 296 Mb h264 346 Kbps mp4 Download
Reviews
The Title MAKES it Important Enough!
I was troubled by a lot of aspects of the AFI's 1998 list, but Citizen Kane wasn't one of them; it thoroughly deserved the #1 spot. A magnificent story regarding the search for contentment and happiness among the squalor of cold material things. Kane's search is a paradox in itself; his happiness lies in a single material object - Rosebud - which represents his innocence and carefree happiness of childhood. The irony is that the other material objects he procures in this search only hinder his efforts. Welles' dramatic effects and his symbolic method of storytelling would make Melville proud; he always notes who is in shadow, what music is playing where, what position his characters are in, etc. The best ever.
1998-08-11
See it for what it is
OK look, let me settle something between those who love and hate this film. A lot of people hail this film because it is technically brilliant and ground breaking. Director Orson Welles did a lot of things visually that no one had ever done before. Nearly every film maker was in some way influenced by this movie. This movie also had a great impact in its time. The title character was based on media giant William Randolph Hearst. He was that generations Donald Trump. He opposed this film so much he did everything in its power to stop its release and almost succeeded. Lastly this film contains some of the strongest and most common themes in literature; Life versus death. It is for these reasons why this film is so revered.

On the contrary people who hate this film mainly complain that it is boring. Which is a legitimate complaint. The story is slow compared to today's standards, and there is no real Hearst character alive today in which to relate. So yes, the story on the surface is outdated. However, this does not make it a bad movie. It was not made as a Matrix/Star Wars type of movie which can be enjoyed even at surface level. This is not pure entertainment. Remember there is more to film than storytelling. This film was designed to be cinematically beautiful and to tell a basic story of love and redemption. There is much more to the story than the thinly veiled attack on Hearst, one just needs to look deeper. Look at Shakespeare or Hawthorne for example, their literary works are universally loved. Yet, many people blow them off because they refuse to look past the outdated language into the beautiful prose and simple ubiquitous themes. Just because something is outdated does not mean it lacks worth in today's world.

My advice to those who did not like it the first time or have not seen it yet is simple. Watch it again for what it is. Do not expect to be on the edge of your seat for two hours. Watch it for the cinematography that alone makes this film among the best (I don't agree with AFI's number one ranking but I think it still ranks high). Look deeper into the story and try to connect with it on some level. At the very least appreciate how influential this film was and where the industry would be without it. If you can do this, then maybe some of the naysayers will change their minds. Again, you do not have to love Citizen Kane, but at least respect it for what it is.
2004-04-21
Why the viewers of Citizen Kane are an essential part of the film
Famously in the film Citizen Kane the title character Charles Foster Kane dies in his bed, muttering "Rosebud" and dropping a snow globe, without anybody other than Kane being visible in the room. Yet the whole film is based on the premise that "Rosebud" was Kane's last word and a reporter tries to find out the meaning of the word by interviewing people who knew him. So how could he do this if nobody heard him say the word? Towards the end of the film the butler claims that he was in the room when Kane died. We never saw him in the bedroom but not the whole room was shown to us, so it is very much possible. But why is it that he wasn't shown to us being in the room when Kane died? Given how extremely well thought through the film is it is more than likely that this wasn't only done intentionally, but with a purpose.

The film mostly is told to us (quite literally) from a subjective point of view and through opinions of people who knew Charles Foster Kane. And Kane was a different kind of person depending on who told the story. A main message of the film - so to speak - is that there is no actual picture of a person, there are just many different fragmented pictures of which none are true or false.

In the very first scene of the film we see a sign that says "No Trespassing". This sort of makes us the intruders to Xanadu and to Kane's life. The camera goes through his garden around the castle leading into the castle. So in the beginning we, like, become another one of those subjective witnesses who try to get the "full picture" and who eventually will form an opinion about this person. And to include the viewer into this bunch of unreliable witnesses and to manifest the concept that we are in the same position as all of those characters who told us THEIR story of Kane's life, the viewer obviously (for now) is the only witness to the first act of 'Citizen Kane' and the last chapter of Kane's life. It is this very event that gets the stone rolling. It makes us a witness and now the investigation of Kane's past life can begin.

Now if you think of the interviewer/reporter who asks the people for Kane's story, we mostly see him from behind with the camera looking over his shoulders. Or he is obscured by shadows, a hat and (observating) glasses. Often he simply is off-screen altogether and we apparently are the interviewees' only listeners. The poor man is pretty much faceless. One could say that the interviewer, who never is fleshed out as a character - if you can even call him a character with an own identity - is taking the position of the viewer who witnessed his last word and who wants to find out what it means.

You could look at it as an inside joke by Welles, that the very premise of the film is based on what initially looks like a goof. He waits until the last interview to tell us that the butler was actually in the room to witness the word, and now the film doesn't need us as witnesses anymore. We are done being witnesses, as now we have created our own individual image of Charles Foster Kane in our mind, based on everything we saw and heard. Maybe soon another viewer will trespass the the barriers of Xanadu, wondering who this man was. And this time he will walk up to us and ask us who Charles Foster Kane was, and we will be glad to tell him.
2009-01-20
A timeless classic!
Orson Welles' Citizen Kane (1941) is easily the most beautiful movie I've ever seen for so many reasons. It is visually stunning, the composition is amazing. I loved the focus techniques of a wide range of depth of field and the massive sets the most. It's a gorgeous film to look at but it also tells a great story.

Charles Foster Kane lived an incredible life and the most important and significant thing in his whole world was tragically destroyed. Kane lived a successful life, he made a great fortune out of the poor lifestyle he was born into. Hidden deep behind the fame and fortune of Kane's life was a sad man who never found true happiness. The only thing that ever mattered to him in his entire life was tosses aside and burned without a second glance. The last scene was so painful, and as a viewer I felt so helpless for Kane. The writing was great, I loved that it made me feel so strongly.

The camera work was wonderful in this film, a different way of focusing was introduced. In certain scenes the foreground, middleground and background were all in perfect focus. In other scenes everything would be in focus but the middleground. Unusual camera views were also used that had not been seen much before. Extreme high and low shots were often used, seeming disorienting to the viewer.

I believe this film will continue to blow away viewers of any age no matter how old the movie gets. The cinematography is so beautiful, even by today's standards, which makes Citizen Kane timeless.
2009-12-01
New review from first time watcher: Kane still good today?
Why another review of Citizen Kane, a movie that made its mark in cinema history and is often regarded as the best film of all time? I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's to put my two cents in and to share what a 36-year old first time watcher but movie aficionado thinks about it. I was amazed it was made in 1941. It's in black and white but has modern original cinematography. It was revolutionary back then and I still regard it as original today. The plays of shadows and lights, who is lit up or not, and how, are not only beautiful but are evocative and serve storyline purposes. The transitions from scene to scene, backgrounds and foregrounds old and new fading out or in, are amazingly well done. Even today, you rarely see anything as artistic as this. The flashbacks and flash-forwards are very cleverly done (witness the diner table scene between Kane and his wife going from early twenties to middle age). The makeup in Kane is for the most part positively astounding and ages the characters better than most modern films. The camera angles are mostly unconventional, playing often with perspective for story purposes (notice Kane smaller in the background during bad moments or bigger than life when things go well). There are quite a few shots (Kane standing underneath a giant poster of himself for one) that are quite memorable and still powerful. I could go on but technically this movie is a marvel even today.

Despite the unconventional story structure, you never get lost, although you might be temporarily confused, and it makes the whole storyline very engaging. It follows the trials and tribulations of a very rich and influential newspaper mogul from childhood to his death but not in chronological order. As a matter of fact, the film starts with the death of Kane, followed by a newsreel (like in old World War II screenings) recapping his whole life and then followed by an investigation into Rosebud, his mysterious last word. It's inspired by the life of real newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst who tried his very best to destroy this movie... literally. There are lots of creative liberties taken but if you study the background, you will notice the similarities. It's a great story extremely well told. You might not care about Kane but he's certainly a rich, complex and fascinating character. He's played by the director Orson Welles and he shows a wide range of emotions and acts differently according to age, not just in demeanor but physically. The other actors, most of them newcomers to cinema, are very fine although a few succumb, including Welles sometimes, to overacting just a tad (they were mostly theater actors which would explain the theatrics I suppose). On first viewing, I found the mistress of Kane particularly annoying and badly acted to the point of being grating but on second thought, I think she was supposed to be that way, a bit of a superficial simple floozy.

Overall, I was impressed, despite high expectations, at how original, enjoyable and artistic Citizen Kane remains in 2009. It might not be one of my favorite films, nor would I consider it the best film of all time but I think it still appeals to modern sensibilities and deserves its reputation as a masterpiece. I highly recommend finding a copy of your own, preferably with the great commentary track by the famous critic Roger Ebert (Kane being his favorite film of all time) and with the illuminating documentary about the Battle of Citizen Kane showing the conflict between director/main actor Orson Welles and Kane's inspiration: Hearst, as well as their biographies.

Rating: 9 out of 10 (not a 10 because I wasn't moved or awed as much as a few other select films)
2009-07-30
Undoubtedly the greatest American film ever created.
Citizen Kane, the film, is many things. It is a brilliantly crafted series of flashbacks and remembrances. It is an engaging story of a dynamic man in a dynamic world. It is a remarkable statement for the wide range of time periods that it covers. It is a deceptively simple story centering on perhaps the most meaningful word in all of moviedom. Behind all that, Citizen Kane is the American cinema. There is not a major director today who has not been influenced by the genius Orson Welles put forth in his debut masterpiece. The film centers around a group of reporters investigating the origin of the dying newspaper tycoon (loosely based on William Randolph Hearst), Charles Foster Kane's last word: Rosebud. The movie begins with an unforgettable newsreel montage summarizing the man's life.

From there on, the viewer is thrown into a gloriously chaotic world of flashbacks upon flashbacks, in which the viewer slowly learns just about everything about Charles Foster Kane's enthralling life. From his trying childhood to his rise to power to the pinnacle of his success to his marital difficulties to his fall from grace, the story of Charles Foster Kane is presented for the viewer in a way that few other movies can offer: magically. Citizen Kane, undeniably, is THE triumph of the American cinema, and one of the greatest films every created.
2001-07-19
The Melville of Cinema
The careers of Orson Welles and Herman Melville are eerily similar...there is the great early work that is thought by some to be the alpha and omega of their respective forms (Citizen Kane and Moby Dick), there is the long eclipse, there is the great late work rediscovered (Touch of Evil or (the yet to be rediscovered and absolutely flabbergasting) Chimes at Midnight and Billy Budd, sailor), and there is the irrepressible mindf**k (F for Fake and The Confidence Man). But even more than that, Welles and Melville were the two most disillusioned artists America ever produced, which goes a long way toward explaining why average people interested in the arts as mere "entertainment" don't like their work. Both Kane and Ahab are singularly unpleasant individuals who are crushed by the cosmos in one way or another in spite of their indomitable defiance. These are not pleasant archetypes in the least...but they are infinitely more valuable than all the "heroes" of popular fiction. Welles and Melville take a speculum to the human condition by testing these characters to destruction. Citizen Kane has one of the most difficult structures in film. Its fractured narrative prevents the viewer from truly understanding Kane--but this is the point of the movie...why else would the film conspicuously leave out one crucial viewpoint (Kane himself)? In this respect, Citizen Kane is also a lot like Hamlet, which is similarly impenetrable. Anyone who demands identification with the "hero" is going to be sorely taxed by Kane--this separates the men from the boys, so to speak.

Is Citizen Kane THE greatest film of all time? Of course not. To declare that any film holds that honor is ludicrous. After all, once a certain level of craftsmanship is attained, once a certain level of insight is expressed, these distinctions become meaningless. Star Wars lost the best picture Oscar to Annie Hall in 1977--is one better than the other? The experience of watching either of them is so radically different that the comparison is absolutely invalid...they have nothing in common except their relative excellence. Kane's hold on the honor stems from the fact that it invented more of the language of sound filmmaking than any other movie, but no one claims that the other contender based on that criterion is the greatest film of all time (that would be the extremely controversial Birth of a Nation). Dont get me wrong...Kane is ONE of the greatest films...but no film could or should be asked to stand as the alpha and omega of the art.

Even so, Kane is a harrowing aesthetic experience.

And Kane IS massively entertaining. I resent the notion that a film has to elicit some knee-jerk emotional response to be considered entertaining--having the eye engaged and having the mind challenged ARE entertaining...but I sometimes forget that we as a people more and more value feeling over thought...God help us all.

(If anyone is interested, I also reviewed Cat People (1942)
1999-03-01
the studio process at its very best
I think that the making of a movie is truly a collaborative process, thus the films of the studio era are without doubt the most fascinating and inventive to date. This does not mean that an independent film cannot be a good movie, it just doesn't have the expertise and resources behind it to make it a truly great movie like Citizen Kane. It also doesn't mean that the big bygone studios didn't turn out their fair share of clunkers, but in my mind, to find the best movies of the last century you have to look to the big studios.

As to Citizen Kane in particular, it is always fascinating to watch. Unfortunately when we think of special effects these days, it's with action films of dubious quality, but Citizen Kane probably used more and to better advantage.The innovations, such as deep focus, sets with ceilings, the mixture of newsreel footage(both real and staged),the effect of overlapping dialogue are amazing. And to think that this was at a time when sound movies were only about a decade old and the movies themselves weren't even a half century old. It's amusing to think that when these techniques were used to create a realism unseen in films up to that time, the audiences were put off, since it was so different than anything else they had seen and they thought it looked phony!

I recently heard a comment from Richard Chow(the editor from Star Wars) on TV that he is still learning things from Citizen Kane, and its great cinematographer Greg Toland, decades later.

So in conclusion to me Citizen Kane stands head and shoulders above any movie before or since.
2005-10-31
A must film for any film maker
There's something worth stealing from Citizen Kane if you're a film maker. What else can you say about this film except for it being the greatest gift one can give to the film industry. Having it have been a box office bomb when it opened in LA in the 1940's only adds to the films greatness. Citizen Kane was before its time and still remains today a movie marvel. There is not a single film school in the World that will not show this film at least twice to its students. A perfect film to watch and discuss for the entire class period. Citizen Kane has more examples of modern movie making than any other film made before or after.
2001-04-15
surprised and disappointed
If you consider just the content, then all this movie does is make the following point: Charles Foster Kane wanted to be big and important to all American people, however he had nothing to give, he just had a lot of money. I should rather say that the movie hammers this point home, since the above point is stated explicitly by Kane's best friend and by his second wife (and probably one other person, I didn't want to take the time to check). Just in case you wouldn't get the message.

This movie is in my opinion crude and simplistic. We are dragged through the life of Kane at high speed. The movie doesn't flow naturally, there is no real development. It feels like nothing happens, you just get a single idea pushed down your throat. Throughout the movie there is the same atmosphere of doom and of emptiness. Even as a young man Kane is not an idealist. None of the characters is given any depth, there is no one you can identify yourself with or sympathise with.

The only quality of the movie lies in the camera work, the tricks with the lighting and the music. This should make it interesting for movie directors and people interested in the technical side of film making. I suppose it's is interesting to see how Welles manages to create a certain atmosphere in this way, but since it is always the same atmosphere, this is in my opinion rather limited.

I cannot possibly understand why this is considered the best movie ever made. The only (unsatisfactory) possible explanation I could come up with was: a) The average person is far more visual than me, or easier satisfied with single impressions, b) People like to parrot the "experts".
2016-09-15
📹 Citizen Kane full movie HD download 1941 - Joseph Cotten, Dorothy Comingore, Agnes Moorehead, Ruth Warrick, Ray Collins, Erskine Sanford, Everett Sloane, William Alland, Paul Stewart, George Coulouris, Fortunio Bonanova, Gus Schilling, Philip Van Zandt, Georgia Backus, Harry Shannon - USA. 📀
×