Overall, I found the film to be long and disengaging with respect to the characters, especially regarding Mr. Charles Foster Kane. I simply didn’t feel the story enough behind Kane, didn’t really build up the sympathy required by an audience member to put myself fully into it, which produced a lacking force when it comes to my opinion on it. In the end (literally), I just didn’t feel sorry for Kane. If I did, I think I would have enjoyed the film more.

However, with regard to the production aspects of the film (the plethora), I believe this to be one excellent example of film history. I loved the use of flashbacks to tell the story, the fading out of the pictures and scenes from focusing on whatever person was telling that portion of the story at the time. And of course the angles that were shot, many of which never attempted before, also made for a much more interesting and memorable movie-watching experience. I particularly liked how the interviewer, known as Thompson, his face was always hidden in the interview shots, at least until the end when he interviewed one of Kane’s butlers at Xanadu. The camera always shot from behind Thompson’s head to make the focus of the scene about the interviewee telling his or her story, their little contributing tidbit that would hopefully help spell out the life of C.F. Kane.

I also enjoyed the fact that Orson Welles starred, co-wrote and directed this film. That’s not often done in Hollywood and I have to give this film and Mr. Welles a great deal of respect for that. It made the film seem all the more real, I think, knowing this as I went into it.

In regard to the word that sums this film up in two syllables, “Rosebud,” I thought this was a wonderful addition to the film, and especially the plot. It carried the story, really, keeping your interest, even if only for the fact of figuring out in the end what the word meant, why this word meant so much to Kane that he would make it his last dying breath. Of course, in the end when the viewer finally seems to get an answer, one that ties the word to Kane’s childhood – specifically his childhood sled – that’s all cast aside when Thompson makes a note that “Rosebud” might not mean anything at all, at least not in a life as deep and as strange as C.F. Kane’s. So, in essence, “Rosebud” is explained, but at the same time, it is not, which, in my opinion, makes for a much more impactful story than most.

And of course we can’t forget about the Citizen Kane controversy, among the most intriguing aspects of the film. Though it was never explicitly stated that “Citizen Kane” was written and produced to model the crazy and controversial life of our famous Yellow Press man himself, Mr. William Randolph Hearst, it’s hard to deny the blaring similarities. Some of these include how the character of Kane worked for The New York Inquirer and Hearts for the San Francisco Examiner and New York Journal; that Kane was a multi-millionaire newspaper publisher, and wielder of public opinion dubbed “Kubla Khan” and Hearst was also a press lord, “yellow journalist,” and influential political figure, and that Kane built the extravagantly palatial Florida mansion he named Xanadu, which he filled with priceless art objects and Hearst built “The Ranch,” a palace in San Simeon, Calif., where he stored his own expensive art collection… and the list could go on and on. In my opinion, it is this controversy surrounding the film that won it such fame and a a place in the running for the title of best picture of all time.

Overall, the Citizen Kane film was a good one, just one I wish I could have had more feeling for. I would definitely recommend it to others, even if only for the brilliant production aspects and the fact that this film is undeniably a classic.

“The Crow,” directed by visionary Alex Proyas, is set in the slums of an unnamed inner city where the sirens of police cars feel incessant and the flashing of red and blue lights is commonplace. Various gangs bully the city’s inhabitants for greed and mere amusement. Homeless people litter the streets and police patrol in fear. Children desperately search for food while their parents spend what little money they have on drugs such as cocaine and morphine.

This film is strewn with blatant depictions of big time social issues, including poverty, gang violence, homelessness, child abuse/neglect and drug addiction.

Basically, this fictional city creates a good illustration of the domino-like effect that a fierce concoction of social ills can have on a group of people. The widespread poverty represented, which is a serious issue that main characters Eric and Shelly had just begun to overcome before their deaths, was caused by an absence of jobs.

This poverty comes from a lack of financial stability. With this comes the inability to afford rent or mortgage, which explains the high amount of homeless people living on the streets, including main character Sarah (Rochelle Davis), a young girl who is forced to call the streets home when her caretakers Shelly and Eric are killed.

Poverty, again, and probably the biggest social issue confronted in this film, can also lead to drug abuse, gang participation and violence. The brutal murder of Eric and Shelly was but one of hundreds committed by the infamous “Motor City Gang,” a team of individuals who have turned to violence in order to fulfill greedy desires and accomplish dastardly criminal goals, all while taking advantage of the decrepit condition of the city.

Something else quite commonly depicted in the film is drug addiction, which can result in child abuse or neglect. An example of which is exhibited by Darla (Anna Levine) toward daughter Sarah. While Darla is constantly obsessed with finding her next drug fix, Sarah is thrown to the way side and must provide for her own basic survival needs herself, such as food and shelter. Darla is simply too busy with the job of getting her drugs, which is demonstrated in one scene as the selling her body for two morphine injections, to worry about her daughter’s life.

Certainly, the hero and main character Eric epitomizes the voice of reason and demonstrates possible solutions to many of the issues brought up in the film. For example, while hunting for one of the Motor City Gang members, Eric finds Darla and tells her, “Morphine is bad for you. Your daughter is out on the streets waiting for you.” He says this while he clenches her arm and causes the drugs to pour out of her body from the injection wounds using one of the abilities he gained by becoming immortal. Of course the solution to the issues of drug abuse and child neglect in the statement made by Eric here, is to simply cease the drug use and concentrate on the wellbeing of your child.

As a solution to the murder issue, Eric gets revenge by killing all the members of the Motor City Gang. To me this is a statement saying murderous violence is wrong and should be stopped; plain and simple. In the real world where we don’t have the ability to crawl out of our graves and become immortal beings with strange powers so that we can avenge the wrongful death(s) of those we loved, I think a more realistic comparison to the solution presented here is capital punishment or life in prison for those who committed the crime(s).

Another character who demonstrates a possible solution to one of the social issues shown is Sarah. In order to carry on her obviously difficult and otherwise rough life, Sarah concentrates on what good there is around her, making friends with people outside the poverty circle such as police officer Albrecht. Sarah is also shown not to partake in any of the crime that characterizes her home, such as drug use and violence. Sarah is a well-rounded child who uses her intelligence and street smarts to her advantage in order to better her chances of survival. To me, this says a possible solution to such social ills as poverty is to keep your chin up and think about the possibility of a brighter future. Be as strong as you can and use common sense to your advantage.

Not surprisingly, some of the “solutions” in the film to many of the social problems raise question. With regard to Eric’s character pointing out that Darla simply give up her drug addiction and take care of her daughter, this task will certainly not be that easy. Morphine is one of the most addictive substances a person can abuse, and turning around a life that years have been spent away in neglect of a child will be more than difficult to amend.

Concerning my implied solution of social justice by capital punishment or the death penalty to such social problems as murder and unwarranted violence presents the issue of controversy. Many people feel as if capital punishment or the killing of criminals is wrong, no matter what their crime(s). So here, the way in which this problem should be dealt with is an ongoing social debate and raises question regarding this “solution.”

As for Sarah’s solution to the problem of being the victim of child neglect and poverty, again, the solution is not as simple as it appears; at least not in real life. A life like Sarah’s is no cake walk, and living it usually leads to others problems such as a tendency for violence and crime, as the members of the Motor City Gang in the film could be examples. It is unrealistic to expect children, or anyone for that matter, living in conditions such as these to simply hope for something good to happen to them and rely on that to get them through each day.

Some other social problems that are easily linked with some of the ones mentioned here are gun violence, suicide and prostitution. I point out gun violence because gangs like the Motor City Gang are infamously known for using weapons such as guns for their operations, as drive-by shootings within many cities nationwide are not uncommon.

An example of suicide was not included in the film, however suicide is many times linked with such issues as poverty, financial instability (as a result of poverty), and abuse, and is certainly a serious issue that afflicts our society now.

Finally prostitution, another issue not depicted in the film, but definitely a problem often initiated by poor home conditions and abuse.

Although “The Crow” is a fictionalized story, many, if not all of its depictions of various social ills are extremely realistic and true. In watching the film, it’s easy to simply view it as just some writer or director’s vision of a man granted immortality to seek revenge on a bunch of scummy, low life men who killed him and his girlfriend in a bloody mess a year before. If you take away the pure entertainment quality of the film you can really see that so much of what is shown is actually happening in our society today, and probably the real life occurrence of much of the inspiration came directly from observation of cities in our nation. Truly the feeling is scary that something that seems so unrealistic at first, is really not just much makeup and special effects but what’s really out there on our streets, in our homes and all around us.

Overall, excellent, excellent film.

Arguably, the most important aspect of the film is the silence, and/or lack of dialogue throughout most of the production (only 40 minutes total in a film that is almost three hours long in total). Kubrick used this to convey the importance of the viewer’s interpretation of what was taking place scene by scene. In this way, the film truly was designed to be a “thinker.” An example of this could be the first two and a half minutes of the film, filled (yes, completely) with total blackness and the sound of strange echoing moans, screams, wails or otherwise unknown noises. Literally, the screen goes completely black and a sort of suspenseful music plays for almost three whole minutes. The viewer could interpret this in many ways. One could be that this is the blackness before the boom or the idea of nothingness before life in relation to the big bang theory. Another interpretation (after finishing the film) could tie into the intelligent life aspect and that the blackness was the intelligent life about to birth new life. Countless other opinions are also possible, and perhaps that is what Kubrick was trying to convey; that in relation to the sheer unintelligible size of the universe – considering man’s small part in it all – infinite possibilities are, well, possible.

Essentially, the film covered life, all of it, from a hazy start (the blackness) to a very uncertain and strange end (the swirling vortex of colors and sound). It told the story of intelligent life breeding our way of life; however, the film focused mainly on the aspect that human life is nothing without its originator, which seemed to be some ultra-intelligent alien creature that came in the form of a giant monolith. And although the film followed the story of life according to the Big Bang theory (for the most part), tracing the birth of human existence from nothingness to ape-hood to astronaut status, the whole time the feeling of how small and meaningless the existence of human life was in comparison to the bigger picture; the universe and the ultra-intelligent, god-like alien creatures.

The film is incredibly profound to say the least; not only in its depiction and story of the origin of life, but from a production standpoint, taking into consideration the time period in which it was filmed.

Anyone who watches even a second or two of the trailer for “2001″ can see the painstaking time it took to achieve the detail imagined. This is specifically where the film influenced so much else in terms of media for the future following its release. The detail of space, the transition of the stars in correlation with the speed of the spacecrafts…it’s all there in almost perfect scientific accuracy. (Keep in mind that we hadn’t even visited the Moon yet when this film was in production.)

A movie suggests popular culture, while cinema suggests art and culture. Film – certainly in the case of Kubrick’s 2001 – encompasses all. Almost undeniably, Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” will continue to influence other forms of media for many years to come. It’s the simple fact that the film goes well beyond its time in portraying The Final Frontier, possible explanations for the origin of life and the meaning of life, where the human race will go in the future and why, how technology, one of the biggest aspects of human existence in the civilized worlds today, influences our lives and where it will take us, and simply further provoking of the primeval question of humanity, “Why?” Simply, an excellent film well deserving of its place on the AFI’s top 100 list.