Why is Citizen Kane so revered by EVERYONE?

Pauline Kael fanously wrote in her "Raising Kane" essay that it was "a SHALLOW masterpiece."

Why is that? This betrays an ignorance of Welles. More than being a fictionalized portrait of William Randolph Hearst, "Kane" also deconstructs the Welles persona – an actor with magnificent authority, a genius, but also a blowhard and self-destructive – with more acuity and daring than any of the wine commercials he filmed in the '70s and '80s.

"Citizen Kane" might be overrated – hell, just about everything is overrated – but it's a fantastically entertaining movie. Energy, brashness, confidence, great performances -- everything, in short, we expect from a mastepiece, even a shallow one. I can't imagine anyone who doesn't love film not acknowledging this.

Read David Thomson's "Rosebud" or Pauline Kael's "Raising Kane," two of the best book length studies on Welles.

All this really proves to me is that Welles was a self-indulgent, self-obsessed egomaniac. "Citizen Kane" doesn't appeal to me beyond is cinematographic accomplishments mainly because it set the tone for future grandiose "one-man epics" that just became more and more shallow.

Performances and sets, for the most part, were good. But that's not enough to carry a film for me, especially a so-called "masterpiece".

So we're back to The Aviator?

well, it's gotta happen every once in awhile.... :)

The "c'mon, it's a masterpiece" think could easily lead into a "film rockism" debate, but god knows I won't be the one to drag it to those levels. I just look at it as an achievement, with as many negatives as positive. The film did some great things for cinema, but it's success also limited it a great deal by becoming the formula or foundation for all dramatic narrative cinema to come after it.

Welles himself acknowledged 'Rosebud' was a cheap gimmick, but the design, script, music etc are all great.