The child prodigy that was Orson Welles. A theater genius who wowed everyone in his heyday, Welles was a hot commodity, turning down offer after offer in the ’30s until he was sent an offer he couldn’t refuse: Complete artistic control in acting, writing, directing, and producing any feature film of his choice. “Citizen Kane” was the next step — a bracing movie that, to this day, is still heralded as the greatest ever made (although “Vertigo” is now a contender).
And yet, the greatest movie of all time no longer has a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. The moviereview-aggregation website added a negative review to the 115 positive ones already there — one that was published more than 80 years ago by a Chicago Tribune film critic. Kane’s score stands now at 99% fresh.
“It’s interesting. It’s different,” wrote the Tribune critic in his 1941 review, adding “In fact, it’s bizarre enough to become a museum piece. But its sacrifice of simplicity to eccentricity robs it of distinction and general entertainment value.”
‘Kane’ was a film so innovative that it widely considered to be the most influential film of all time. The fact that Welles was just 25 years old when “Citizen Kane” premiered at the Palace theater in 1941 is staggering and almost unheard of for a film this revolutionary and iconic. The technical aspect of the film is what astounds most people, but the fact that it was released 74 years ago is even more mind-blowing. It’s not surprising that a film critic was caught off-guard by the film’s innovation back in 1941, I’m sure there were more just waiting to have their reviews dug up by RT.
EDIT — Wikipedia quotes a few more film critics who were mixed-to-negative about ‘Kane’ back in the day:
”Otis Ferguson of The New Republic said it was "the boldest free-hand stroke in major screen production since Griffith and Bitzer were running wild to unshackle the camera", but also criticized its style, calling it a "retrogression in film technique" and stating that "it holds no great place" in film history.[122] Ferguson reacted to some of the film’s celebrated visual techniques by calling them “just willful dabbling” and “the old shell game.”
“In his 1941 review for Sur, Jorge Luis Borges famously called the film "a labyrinth with no center" and predicted that its legacy would be a film "whose historical value is undeniable but which no one cares to see again."[124]”
“Eileen Creelman of The New York Sun called it “a cold picture, unemotional, a puzzle rather than a drama”.[43]. Other people who disliked the film were W. H. Auden [46]:98 and James Agee.[46]. After watching the film on January 29, 1942, Kenneth Williams, then aged 15, writing in his first diary curtly described it as "boshey rot",[128] bosh meaning empty or meaningless, nonsense or foolish.”
Paul Greengrass’ "The Uprising," starring Andrew Garfield, opened to $3.2M from 2,068 theaters this weekend. Yikes. The budget hasn’t been disclosed, but is said to be in the $20-$30M range.