I have seen it several times and it was enjoyable, but I never understood why it is considered one of the best movies of all time. I thought the plot was predictable. I liked the strong black and white photography and the diagonal shots and lines. I have seen many films I liked a lot better. Is it just me? Is there something I am missing when I watch it?

I agree with Elizabeth.

I saw it on TCM and recorded it from DVR to a DVD disc on my DVD recorder that is connected to my cable box. I now have way more DVDs that I recorded from TCM than I need, and so I have stopped making new ones.

Citizen Kane does not make my top 100 list - not even close - but I do like it. I think it appeals greatly to people who like Film Noir, and I'm not a huge fan of that, although a friend of mine wrote a book about it. It's not my favorite book of his, but I did have him autograph it. I've not seen him in person since the pandemic. He came to my house a couple of years ago for lunch/dinner, and we watched some movies together.

I believe it's considered an important film because of the techniques, especially in cinematography, that Welles used, which were innovative at the time and which had a great influence on later filmmakers.

I'm not sure if there's a consensus opinion but I'll answer briefly with what I remember having learned in a History of Film class I took in college.

For me, it was only because the class took a chronological path (starting with silent films, of which there were very many good ones) and continued along as the industry developed, and had a film school professor as a tour guide telling us what to look for and understand, that a full appreciation of Citizen Kane could be seen. It was innovative and contained many firsts on a technical level - camera shots, movement, techniques and angles, editing techniques, story sequence, story elements, and on and on. Things never done before. Moviegoers walked into theaters and were buried by what was perhaps the most unique, innovative, ground breaking, off the wall brand new feature-filled movie ever attempted. People were blown away. It was also politically and legally controversial because it was an intentionally poorly disguised broad satirical criticism of a rich and powerful man at time, publisher William Randolph Hearst.

If viewed from the perspective of movies of the last 50 years, it may be easy to ho-hum it in part because so many techniques, approaches, tools, and yada yada that are familiar and common today were done for the first time in that movie. At a time when the technical capabilities of the filming equipment were quite limited and not yet well explored, brand new things were done. When seen in the context of the era it came out in, it was monumental in its impact on the film industry and art form.

And, not to be forgotten, the film continues to stimulate interest for visitors to see Hearst Castle on California's Central Coast. The opulence and extremely poor taste in its design and construction, overseen by the very wealthy Hearst, was another satirical element presented in Citizen Kane with the lead character's over the top home called Xanadu.

We love film noir and record TCM's film every Saturday night for later viewing. So many good ones, and amazing what they were able to do on such limited budgets and time schedules.

I never miss TCM's film noir either,

I don't think Citizen Kane is considered a mainstream example of the film noir type.

For those who missed the key features of the movie while watching it thinking it was a movie as like any other (which it's not), there are many books and written guides available to read or review in advance so you can know what to look for if you have a chance to watch it again.

Wells' "The War of the Worlds" was similarly impactful for what it was. If you listen to it today, knowing what the setting was and trying to assess its accomplishments with a perspective from today looking back 80 years, you miss the point. The War of the Worlds was innovative and impactful only when seen in its place and time, and understanding how many people were seriously terrified by what they heard on the radio. In a similar way, you can't understand Citizen Kane by looking back at it from a perspective of today. Only when its contemporaneous times and the state of the movie business at that time are considered is the real impact of it possible to understand.

According to Mark's book, L.A. Times writer Edwin Schallert's 1944 report on a new film cycle asserted that Film Noir began in 1941 with Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon. Whether or not you take his word for it is another story. It certainly influenced Film Noir, whether it belongs in that category or not. My point was that Citizen Kane appeals to people who like Film Noir, especially considering its influence.

I was never a big fan of Citizen Kane, and -- though I recognize its place in film history -- I don't think it's a great film that has held up as well over time. I also don't think it is great film noir (for that, I think The Third Man or Double Indemnity are far better).

But, to each their own.

Toronto, I was going to mention The Third Man also. The soundtrack is great too.

Another swing and a miss for me, a poor and verbose explanation. Maybe to try to focus my comment:

There are different ways to watch movies and different things to get out of them. If the intent is 90 minutes +/- of these things - entertainment, escape, surprise, emotional attachment, or the like typical for most people most times, then you may or may not like Citizen Kane.

If, on the other hand, you're interested in knowing a bit about the technical aspects of movie making, the devices, techniques, approaches, alternatives, tricks and etc. used by movie makers and industry crafts people to produce the entirety of the experience (both in terms of equipment usage and story development and content) that gets projected on a screen, then CItizen Kane is not to be missed. The experimentation and "first time" things that were done that have influenced in some way most movies produced ever since. Or, at least influenced the creative processes of movie makers in considering the numerous tricks and tools they need to chose from.

A parallel example might be the first Star Wars movie and the rest in the series. I myself don't care much for the stories and can take them or leave them as entertainment. But I do like to watch them again periodically - it's impossible to overstate the revolutionary impact George Lucas and his teams had on pushing the limits and inventing new movie making tools and approaches, both equipment wise and content approach-wise. Afterward, the movie industry has never been the same, all for the benefit of audiences and providing rich tools for movie makers to use.

I appreciate Citizen Kane more when I see it in a theater. It's not quite the same (to me) when viewed in a living room. I sort of feel the same about Star Wars, but when I first saw Star Wars at a theater on Geary St in San Francisco, the theater was full of children. I do think of SW as a children's movie (because of the dialog) and I also think that it is basically a 1970s version of a WWII movie, and I saw way too many of those as a child in the 1950s. I do like the special effects in SW, but I am not a fan of movies about wars. If the war is more in the background (as in Casa Blanca) then I like it better. I do not like watching people fight, unless it is just a verbal fight, and then I might be amused. I do not like watching violence. I don't like it when people slap each other in movies either.

I also think that it is basically a 1970s version of a WWII movie

Or Flash Gordon. Star Wars indeed revolutionized the movie business, and while I enjoy the movies (well, the original three) they, along with Jaws, showed Hollywood that the money lay in blockbusters aimed at a younger audience. The great era of '70s directors like Robert Altman, who made movies for grown-ups, was essentially over. Now it's usually only independent films that have that kind of sensibility; the rest is Marvel comics.

"The great era of '70s directors like Robert Altman, who made movies for grown-ups, was essentially over."

Mostly, but there are still good directors making good adult movies -- look at directors like Steve McQueen, Bong Joon Ho, Denis Villeneuve, and Taika Waititi.

After waiting 7 long months for the Netflix dvd to no avail, I was expecting something epic like It’s a Wonderful Life, A Christmas Carol, Miracle on 34th Street, Gone with the Wind, etc. I agree with you Elizabeth; it didn’t sweep me off my feet but I enjoyed it. I’m going to be like most people who don’t think it’s the greatest movie of all time but do acknowledge it for what it was: a movie ahead of its time. Box office was hurt by the Hearst controversy. European critics appreciated it years later which influenced later critics in the U.S.

If you haven’t already, check out Portrait of Jennie (1948), an unusual fantasy movie at the time. It surprised me. It stars Joseph Cotten who played Jedediah Leland in Citizen Kane.

It is on TCM in September.

I really like Portrait of Jenny. I saw it when I was a teen and was impressed even then.

Toronto Vegetarian, I’m looking forward to seeing both The Third Man (1949) and Double Indemnity (1944).

In case anyone wants to see it, The Third Man is streaming free on TVTime on Roku. Double Indemnity is available for free streaming on HooplaDigital on your device but only in audiobook on Hoopla on Roku. You can sign in on your device to HooplaDigital using your email and password for your Hoopla account.