Buy Citizen Kane movie online, buy Citizen Kane movie download, Citizen Kane movie buy online, where can i buy the movie Citizen Kane, where can i buy Citizen Kane movie, where can you buy Citizen Kane the movie.
Buy Citizen Kane 1941 Movie Online 1080p, 720p, BRrip and MOV
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
Love The Cinematography; Story Not That Appealing
Hey, make no mistake: this film does deserve lofty status. It is a good film, fantastically photographed.....but the greatest of all time? I question that, but that kind of question - Who's number one? - is impossible to answer.

I would think to be number one you would have to have a great technical film, great story, great acting, great camera-work as this has, AND have it generally loved by the public. Then you have a true number one picture of all time. I'm not a fan of "Gone With The Wind," but that was a technical marvel, too, for its day and was universally loved by millions of people....so I can see that being listed number over Citizen Kane. The same goes for Casablanca, Ben-Hur and a number of wonderful films.

Anway, concerning this movie, I enjoyed it best for the cinematography. Orson Welles, the "genius" behind this film, was ahead of his time with his inventive camera-work. The acting is good and it's interesting to note that this was Welles' first acting role. Yes, he was an amazing talent, behind or in front of the camera. The story is pretty unlikable and, in this day and age would be too boring for most people under 50, sad to say. However, even older, more "mature" folks find this hard to get through sometimes from what I have read.

The unlikable part mainly comes from the lead character, "Charles Foster Kane," played by Welles. He is simply a selfish egomaniac. Other unpleasant parts of the story include several scenes with his second wife, in which she berates him in this shrill hysterical voice; the fact there is very little humor in here and the ending is anything but uplifting.

For those who find this a confusing story, I suggest giving it another chance. I found this film better the more chances I gave it. It also looks fabulous on the latest special-edition DVD. In summary, it was a great technical achievement but remember professional critics usually have the same mindset and are afraid to be their own person, so don't feel stupid or inadequate if this film doesn't do it for you. You are hardly alone. But, yet, that camera-work has to be seen and appreciated if you really love movies.
2005-12-13
Timeless
It never gets old. I remember I first watched it back in 2008, and I was mesmerized, it sucked me in like Star Wars did when I was seven. It never ceases to be entertaining and fun, and yet Kane is such a sad character. Seen only from the perspectives of his friends after his death and from the cold machinery of a newsreel, no one really knows Kane, and sadly not even Kane himself, who after being second-guessed out of his childhood and subsequently second-guessing himself throughout life in search of his new stage or "snowglobe" in which to play, finds himself gazing through his own void, in pain and depression, with only the frozen memory of his happiness uttered in eternity through the walls of his palace in a single word. Through greed and misanthropy disguised in benevolent intentions Kane finds himself in a prison of things and empty halls, all new toys he acquired and just as hastily discarded, still a child when he played newspaper man, collecting his statues like action figures, all more things to fill the empty void in his life. When the one person he comes close to loving, Susan Alexander, leaves him, he no longer has anything to cling to and so destroys himself and lives a life of regret and longing. Susan Alexander is the only one who might have got through cage and saved him, someone who knew nothing of his reputation but just liked him for a night, but he imprisons her too like a pet.

The film shows the effect Kane's lifelong self-destruction has on others, particularly Susan Alexander who ends up depressed and alone, and Jed Leland (Joseph Cotten is great as always) the cynic who sees through Kane's glib charm for what he is.

I can relate to Kane, he's a very human character I think many can relate to. He may have had a way out of his pain with Susan Alexander, but it never happened, the damage was done early on. He was taken away from his sled and into the care of a cold, serious, heartless man upon discovery of gold on his mother's land. His mother seemed very attached and maybe he wanted to be perfect in his mother's eyes too, Leland mentioned that he loved his mother.

In the end it seems there is catharsis for Kane, as all his possessions are burned and his precious sled too, the truth of his famous last word incinerated forever into the atmosphere. It's very powerful and striking to see all the worth of this man's life turned into black smoke. The imagery in the film is striking and the way it's filmed too. Seeing Kane walk through a hall of mirrored reflections really makes me you feel his loneliness visually, and that's what cinema is all about.

Citizen Kane is held up on a pedestal, and much has been and written about it, but beyond the huge importance it has in film history, it's just a really entertaining, fun classic that anyone can watch and enjoy and relate to, not just film buffs, and that's why it's so fondly remembered.
2016-01-03
The Distinguished Citizen ...
There is a telling moment in CITIZEN KANE that quietly reveals a lot about what makes the film great. It is a scene set in the dark days of the Great Depression, where Kane is turning over much of his empire to his arch-nemesis, Thatcher. As they talk, Kane casually walks away from the camera and we suddenly discover that the room the men are in is an illusion. The background wall that looks to be right behind the them is actually twenty or thirty feet away, the window sill isn't at waist height, but actually is over Kane's head. The room is huge and Kane is dwarfed by his surroundings. Kane than walks back toward the camera and perspective again creates an illusionary intimate image.

It is a neat camera trick and KANE is full of neat camera tricks. It discretely plays with our perception of reality, just as the story does. Through out, Charles Foster Kane is at a distance and slightly out of focus and then he is up close and personal; he is larger than life and suddenly small and petty; he is always at the center of the picture, yet concedes the foreground to the various witnesses who tell his story. CITIZEN KANE is a treasure chest of cinematic gadgets and gizmos; yet as deliciously stylized as KANE is, the style meshes perfectly with the content. CITIZEN KANE is a story of illusions and perceptions told through illusions and perceptions.

Before KANE, and for the most part afterward, no film has quite taken hold of the medium of film and done so much with it. Other directors have tried to dazzle us with how cleverly stylish they can make their films, but usually the effect is self-consciously arty: Every rabbit pulled out of a hat is greeted with a drum roll and a fanfare. The beauty of KANE and the reason director Orson Welles remains an artist of awed respect, arise from the casual grace with which he performed his magic tricks. His rabbits are in themselves so fascinating that how he produces them is only of secondary interest. Yet for a film obsessed with stylistic trickery, CITIZEN KANE still manages to be an incredibly personal story.

To say a film is efficient may seem like a backhanded compliment, but part of the wonder of KANE is that it tells so much story and covers so much territory on a B-movie budget. It is an epic created on sound stages and with editorial mosaics. Welles begins his film with a mock newsreel obituary announcing Kane's passing, then basically repeats aspects of that same story several times over from different perspectives, maintaining a vague chronology, but jumping around in time to let us know that there is more to a life than the mere passage of time. Welles tells us who Kane was to the world, then who he was to the people who actually knew him -- suggesting that who we are is defined not by what we have done but by who we have touched. It is one of the most effective and insightful film biographies that was ever made. The fact that it is a biography of a fictional character is totally irrelevant.

The essence of CITIZEN KANE is the fable of the blind men and the elephant. Like the blind men, who, upon examining only a part of the beast, assume that the elephant is a rope (the tail), a tree (a leg), a sword (a tusk), etc., the witnesses to Kane's life see him as a spoiled child, an idealist, a hypocrite, a monster and so on and so forth. All are correct, yet all are wrong, only seeing in Kane what they want to see. We never meet Kane the man, only Kane the illusion, yet we end up with a vague grasp of who he must have been. If CITIZEN KANE offers any universal truth it is that a life -- or a movie -- is more than the sum of the parts.

Even given all the well-deserved praise proffered to Welles as a director, he never seems to get his due as an actor. His embodiment of Charles Foster Kane is, simply put, one of the great screen performances of all time. We remember that KANE saw Welles as a first time director, but it was also his first time on screen professionally and he gives a performance that is both self-assured and subtle, bold and bemused. Taking Kane from his twenties to his sunset years without a false note, giving a performance that combines gentle humor with grandiose theatrics, Welles creates a character of shifting moods and conflicting motives, yet always consistently believable. In later years, Welles perfected his persona of larger-than-life bluster and wounded arrogance, on screen and off, but he never again got a chance to play a character of such complexity and nuance.

KANE's status as "the greatest film ever made" is always being challenged, defended and debated, yet it is remarkable how seldom the film itself is imitated. Despite being given this perfect blueprint for how to film a biography, it is rare that any film attempts to break free of the this-happened-that-happened style of storytelling. It is as if the legendary stature of the film intimidates others.

Hitchcock once said that film is life with all the dull parts edited out. Welles adheres to this and goes one better: CITIZEN KANE is all highlights and underlined passages, a Cliff Notes biography of sorts. Does this allow us to get to know the real Charles Foster Kane? Well, yes, and no. We are allowed to solve the mystery of "Rosebud," but Kane the man remains just out of our reach. We never really meet Charles Foster Kane, only his shadows. Welles and screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz give us pieces of a puzzle, but the pieces are not all from the same puzzle.
2005-06-13
This? Boring?
Citizen Kane was the first movie I watched from the pre-war era, and maybe because I kept comparing other movies to this is why I couldn't appreciate some movies the way I liked this. Why's citizen kane this good? Because it has actual thematics even today. The whole movie is a sort of mockumentary/fake biopic of a multi-billionaire and some of the events in his life, a sort of a hunt for the scoop made by a journalist. The way the movie's plot is built is just great. Without counting the cinematographic pros that citizen kane has every other aspect was just great. To those who claim that they're cinephiles yet affirm that they got bored while watching this and fell asleep.... This film is much less slow than any Tarkovskij film, what would happen to them if they watched a Tarkovskij film? Like, they fall asleep at the opening credits?
2015-12-31
Tried it, just can't take it!
I have tried to watch this movie 3 times. Each time I promise myself that I will watch it through to see all the facinating camera angles and light shading. I want to see the last ten minutes of the film and be awed and amazed as I realize that Rosebud is something extraordinary. I want to recognize Mr. Wells' genius, daring, and inventivness. I want to feel the passion, emptiness, and all the other powerful emotions that the actors and "unique" cinematography portray in this movie.

I have not been able to make it yet. This is the single most boring hard to watch movie that I have ever tried to watch. I can usually watch about any movie at least once, but not this one.

I don't need exciting special effects, car chases, shoot outs, or sex scenes to keep me interested. I just need the movie to be interesting. This film is not interesting to me. I love history and I watch many older movies and I appreciate most of them for what they are, and in the time frame that they were made. But this one is just very hard to watch. If you have to have a college professor,(who himself has had to read a book about it to understand it) explain a movie to you so that you can appreciate it, then I'm sorry folks but then it just "ain't good".

I have enjoyed thousands of movies, and I have disliked many also, but very few have I never been able to finish watching and this is one of them.

2004-05-05
Citizen Kane (5/5)
"Citizen Kane" has often been called the greatest film in cinematic history, and with good reason: it is a stroke of genius on the part of Orson Welles. He was only 25 when he directed this film, and yet he pioneered some of the most amazing cinematography and production techniques of his day or any other. At a first glance, "Kane" is a rather simple story: a young boy, Charles Foster Kane (played wonderfully by Orson Welles) inherits a large fortune and winds up dying alone and unhappy--his last words being the infamous "rosebud." Although it seems like a rather cut and dry endeavor, it is so much more than that, mainly because the film is done in flashbacks.

We begin with Kane's death and then move backwards and forwards through his life, in an attempt to find out what "rosebud" means. This is brilliant editing on Welles part; he takes a simple story and creates a complex mesh. Through these many flashbacks we slowly but surely begin to learn of Kane and those around him, and this creates quite the portrait. Welles almost always shoots Kane and other strong characters from a low angle, making them appear lager than life--this especially aids in the character development of Kane. Before this film, using camera angles in such a way was scarcely heard of, but here we see a new technique:Welles shows us that angles can do more than just make a movie look"pretty."

Another fascinating technique Welles employs for character development is set design. Whenever Kane is present, it seems that the ceilings are lower, for examples one should look at Kane's publishing house, and some of the rooms in his mansion. This further demonstrates Kane's massive size and power, and at the same time higher ceilings are used when more inferior characters are used. For example, a newspaper reporter interested in solving the mystery of rosebud, is first shown in a great hall looking at some old records and memoirs belonging to Kane's old guardian, Mr. Thatcher. Because of this we recognize that this reporter is not important, but rather only secondary. Also, Kane's second wife is often sitting in the largest rooms the Kane mansion, which makes her look rather small.

However, the best example of how Welles uses set pieces to enforce Kane's power is when he is running for governor. Here, Kane makes a speech to a very large crowd, and behind him is a mammoth picture of himself. Of course, what is also amazing about this scene is that Welles discovers a new technique called deep focus: he is able to simultaneously keep the large picture and Kane in focus, giving the illusion of depth. After this speech Kane is all set to win the governor's race, but through a twist of some dirty politics, he looses, and soon after, his first wife leaves him. Of course, to anyone paying attention this comes as no surprise--we know there has been distance between Kane and his wife for quite some time. However, we do not receive this information through dialog but rather through Welles brilliance use of subtlety. Welles shows us several scenes of the couple sitting together and having breakfast. Each breakfast encounter comes and goes with great speed leading into a dissolve which then takes us to another breakfast meal. We see the couple slightly bickering, but the way Welles shoots the scene it looks as though they are still eating breakfast right next to each other, which does not usually indicate tension. However, the last frame of this breakfast montage shows a wide shot of the couple, and we see them sitting at a much bigger table then they were first sitting at, and they are also sitting directly opposed to each other. This part of the film tells us a wealth of information, and all because of a set piece (a table), the clever use of editing, and the camera placement. No other film maker before or since this movie has used these technical aspects to flesh out so many details, not only about the characters, but about the story.

The amazing thing about Welles is how much information he is able to convey using subtlety and some simple yet poignant dialogs. Welles does not hit the viewer in the face with his film like so many movies in this day and age (i.e. anything done by Michael Bay), but instead he opts for letting the audience come to their own conclusions. And when I had mulled over this film, the conclusion I came to was rather depressing: Charles Foster Kane had all the money and power in the world but this could not buy him love, and like most of us, he never comes to realize that simple fact, which in the end left him bitter and lonely. Thinking about all of this was rather heart wrenching, but what really drove it home was when I came to discover the meaning of "rosebud": it was one of Kane's childhood toys. That to me is most upsetting of all: the only time Kane was ever truly happy was when he was a child--when he was free from his wealth.

Kane could have said or thought of anything in the world on his deathbed, but instead he chose to reflect on his short-lived childhood. Now if that doesn't get you misty eyed, not much else will. I recommend "Citizen Kane" to any mature person looking for a deep and intricate film, in which there is much more than there first appears. However, it is probably wise to watch the movie twice, in order to discover all the little and large things Orson Welles so masterfully paints on his canvas of celluloid. All and all I give "Citizen Kane": 5 out of 5 stars.

Copyright 2006 Imaginist
2006-02-18
AFI #1 but not mine
Peter Griffin of the Family Guy said it best "It was his sled. It was his sled from when he was a kid. There, I just saved you two long boobless hours". Kane was about the only movie I have never been able to finish, maybe I'll try again some day. I can think of many better ways to spend 2 hours like watching the "Godfather" or "Shawshank". I just could not relate to the story. It is about a tycoon who becomes a recluse, it sounds like a good story but it was so long and drawn out I fell asleep and had to stop watching. I was disappointed mainly because the first time AFI came out with the top 100 movies of all time I wanted to see the best of the best. Many of the top 100 films I had seen, many more I hadn't (seen) and a few of the ones I hadn't seen were films in AFI's top ten. "Casablanca" is good I can see that, it is not in my top ten but its good. The "Godfather" is a masterpiece but for all the talk about the "Kane" I was extremely disappointed.
2007-07-26
All That Ballyhoo!
On the Criterion Collection DVD of Orson Welles' classic "Citizen Kane" there is an original theatrical trailer where Welles cleverly advertises the film by introducing us to the cast including the chorus girls, whom he refers to as some nice ballyhoo. That pretty much sums up my opinion of the often over analyzed film that always shows up at the top of the list of greatest films ever made. Even though this was the first time I sat down to watch the film as a whole, I knew everything about it from studying it in film class and from the countless number of essays, homages, and parodies that have come down the pike over the years. It seems impossible now to judge the film against a blank slate, but with great ballyhoo comes great scrutiny.

Released in 1941 by RKO as a Mercury Theater Production, "Citizen Kane" is the tale of an influential and shockingly wealthy newspaper tycoon (Welles) inspired by the life of William Randolph Hearst. The story follows the investigation into the origins of "Rosebud"-the mysterious word Kane utters on his deathbed. Following newsreel footage announcing Kane's death, we are then thrust into a series of flashbacks through interviews with various people who knew Kane that reveal the nature of his character.

From a technical standpoint, Welles' film is as innovative and engrossing today as it was yesterday. Every single piece of cinematic trickery, every dissolve, every long tracking shot, every seamless edit, every play with chronology, every special effect is perfect. Welles was audacious and inventive with his art, and it is for these technical aspects that "Citizen Kane" will always stand the test of time.

However, the story of "Citizen Kane" remains cold and distant. I didn't instantly connect with the characters and the plot the way I did with other classics from the period like "Casablanca" or "The Third Man" or even more recently, "There Will Be Blood." Often, the supporting players over-act, and the flashbacks are tedious (especially the one detailing Kane's second marriage) or emotionless (like the scene showing Kane's snow covered childhood). There's a certain smug arrogance to the whole production that makes it seem like perhaps Welles was secretly making a comedy. It leaves one wondering how it would've come across had Welles actually been allowed to do a straight up biopic of Hearst.

Is it any wonder that so many critics today hail this as THE all time great? Much of today's cinema is geared towards style and technique over substance, and way back in 1941, Welles was the first to author this very modern brand of cinema where the art is not in the story but how it is told and shown to the audience. His "Citizen Kane" is technically rich, layered, and enthralling but narratively vapid. Did I ever really care about Kane or Rosebud? No, but it was fascinating to watch. It's some very nice ballyhoo indeed.
2008-05-05
A True Classic
Citizen Kane is a classic, a truly great movie, one of the best movies ever, it is completely great. Rosebud is such a great line, I loved this movie. The story is amazing, everything is amazing, it truly won an worthy Oscar. The screenplay is also truly great, the dialogue and characters and everything are great. The acting is great, Orson Welles is amazing in the lead, great. The direction is great, Orson Welles again is a very talented filmmaker in every way, he's a great actor, great writer, great director, and this is his best film. The visual effects are great, amazing. Its great for now, much less 1941, how did they get so great visual effects than, they didn't exist. Citizen Kane is one of the best movies ever put on film, every one should see it.
2005-11-16
Terrible
Yet another movie that people pretend to like just to be like sheep and follow everybody else. The story is terrible and boring. I honestly nearly swallowed my tongue and died when i saw this was in the top 30 movies of all time. Some of the movies it is rated above is just ridiculous. People need to start making their own minds up instead of following others. The Dark Knight was a great movie, but come on people, do you really think its the 3rd best movie of all time. Thats another example of people rating it highly based on other peoples views. Its got nothing on The Shawshank Redemption. I wish they could sometimes re-release movies and erase their history, so everyone can have a blank slate and see what it really gets.
2009-01-01
Georgina Fisher (Houston) Maybe you are looking Orson Welles for where can i buy the movie Citizen Kane? Here you can download it legally. Anne Tran (Indianapolis) It is very likely that you want to find a website Drama, Mystery where can i buy Citizen Kane movie 1941? You are moving in the right direction and are in the right place! Donald Conrad (Brooklyn) Favorite actors: 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 in search of an answer to the question where can you buy Citizen Kane the movie USA? You have found this Drama, Mystery genre on this page. Darren Conley (Dallas) Among the huge collection of films in 1941 in the formats mkv, mp4, avi, mov, and flv it was difficult to find where to buy Citizen Kane movie? But my favorite film director Orson Welles shot this film in the USA in 1941.
×