RKO 281

i really liked this movie, even the bits with Melanie Griffith's which is something. I appreciate that people who are familiar with wells work might be a little bit more critical of the piece but i thought it was super. Liev Screiber was outstanding in the lead because he chose to play Wells as a man as opposed to simply doing an impression of an already famous face. He made Wells sympathetic and compelling even though lets face it, as the movie presents it hes not really that likable a man. Id definitely recommend it to any Liev Schreiber fans. Hearst is also presented as an unlikeable character, but Cromwell plays him with great dignity that you almost feel sorry for him.

After seeing this film, the sheer impudence of what Welles was trying to do with CITIZEN KANE really shines through. It really was a world where one powerful man could affect the careers of everybody in Hollywood! Liev Schreiber is terrific; he doesn't look like Welles, but he really sounds like him. He's very good as the possessed obsessed genius totally devoted to his film's vision. James Cromwell is suitably frightening as the multimillionaire. I even liked Melanie Griffith as Marion Davies (the real life version of KANE's Susan Alexander). The scenes shot in San Simeon are wonderful.

This movie had a very good cast. However, the story was a very abbreviated light version of the real one. Better to watch the "American Experience (PBS)" documentary included on the DVD of "Citizen Kane." RKO 281 doesn't really show the severity of the impact that Hearst had on Welles and the beginning of the black listing movement. Welles was pretty much destroyed in his tracks by this and that is not shown at all. Looks more like Hearst got the brunt of it.

Citizen Kane is arguably the best film ever made. And maybe the most controversial. Still what could and should have been a great story with a great cast and the powers of HBO behind it, is at best a routine docu-drama. So much dramatic license is taken with the plot, it tends to border on being a fictional account rather than the real story. While some of the incidents may be accurate(like Welles meeting Hearst in a hotel elevator on the night if Kane's premier) the dialogue in that scene never took place(Hearst admonishing Welles). In addition, Welles never got the idea of doing Kane from his attendance at a Hearst party. The writers tried unsuccessfully to place a direct parallel between the fall of Hearst and the rise of Kane. In truth Hearst still had plenty of power in 1941 when the film was released. Liev Schrieber was OK as Welles, his sedate moments were more like Orson's, but he goes over the top in the more vocal moments. John Malkovich was too insecure as Herman Mankiewicz, dependent on the bottle but still a brilliant writer. James Cromwell who never seems to give a bad performance, is the best of the cast with the perfect reserve as Hearst. The biggest error was Marion Davies. The story tried to make her into a true Susan Alexander when in truth she had some acting ability and was never as insecure as Melanie Griffith portrayed her to be. I love Citizen Kane and have read a lot about the film and the man who made it. Those responsible for this overrated film should have done so as well.

This film, which at first seems rather inadequate, is actually a hugely complex Borgesian mirror-fantasy reflecting the genius of Orson Welles and CITIZEN KANE. Everything that is awe-inspiring, thrilling, dark, problematic, and unique about that classic and in its maker is, prismatically, transferred here into its complete opposite: KANE's bursting out of the straitjacket of convention, is a final entrapment here, in TV-movie hell, just as the real Welles finished his career in advertisements and talk-shows. The enigmatic, unpredictable monstrous genius of Welles becomes sweetly naive and petulant. Labyrinthine sequences even the greatest minds still can't fully comprehend become predictably explicable and slotted neatly into the conservative demands of the genre. Reckless visual excess becomes manageable and smooth. It really is the most remarkable thing.

What an offensive piece of philistine nonsense this film is - and what a disgraceful thing that America's greatest film and greatest film-maker should be so patronisingly denigrated! This film presents Orson Welles as a selfish, lying, destructive monster creating a whole movie purely in order to spite William Randolph Hearst for a mild insult over the dinner-table. But it was Hearst who was the monster - the film can hardly avoid showing this, but seems to find him tragic rather than despicable - and the meeting between Welles and Hearst which sparks off this film never took place, as Welles never went to San Simeon. Their only meeting (and we have only Welles's word for it that it took place) was after the filming had finished. More than that, Welles is shown as occasioning the dismissal of RKO chief George Shaefer, who is said to have been fired on the day "Citizen Kane" opened commercially in May, 1941 - in fact, he lost his job considerably later, I think in 1943, and RKO had not had a hit in many years under his leadership, so it was always on the cards. Welles is shown to be spendthrift and wasteful - but, in fact, "Kane" came in on a budget of just $842,000, more than a quarter of a million cheaper than, say, "Bringing Up Baby". He is seen being arrogant and rude to his cast and crew, even cameraman Gregg Toland and his best friend, Joseph Cotten - whereas it has been widely reported that Welles was the soul of courtesy and charm to everyone on the film with the sole exception of the masochistic actress Dorothy Comingore (to whom, however, this film shows him being only polite!). He's even seen talking idly whilst poor Bernard Herrmann tries to record the music for "Citizen Kane", although Welles, of all people, would know better than deliberately to annoy the terrible-tempered Herrmann, his frequent radio collaborator (who, in reality, always said that Welles knew more about music than any director he ever worked with). It is typical of the ignorance of writer John Logan that his Welles even addresses Herrmann as "Bernie" - the real man was always called "Benny" by his friends. "RKO 281" gives no hint whatever of the great-ness of "Citizen Kane", only a nasty, petty portrait of the genius who made it. What a terrible waste of a great subject.

This film is the story of how Citizen Kane was made. There was much controversy over the production of the movie and its release in 1941. Citizen Kane is based on the life of William Hearst, publishing mogul. The intimate details of his life were showcased by Orson Welles, the director. RKO 281 follows Welles (Liev Schreiber) and his writing partner Herman Mankiewicz (John Malkovich) as they struggle to make their movie. It also follows Hearst (James Cromwell) and his lady friend Marion (Melanie Griffith) as their financial situation dwindles and the release of the film approaches. Orson Welles has some nerve making Citizen Kane as some will say, and others would suggest that it is a masterpiece. The controversy over the film is well presented. The viewer sees both Welles's side and Hearst's objections. The audience is able to see just how personal the film is to Hearst's life. I know I would object if someone threw my life on the screen for everyone to see, especially the comprimising stuff. Welle's justification for this was that Hearst has a monopoly over the newspaper business, and uses those newspapers to promote his own political beliefs. It was well know during this time that Hearst was not just a business man, but a politician, and a corupt one at that. Welles wanted the world to see Hearst for who he was, and what he was actually doing behind closed doors. RKO 281 gets to the root of this, and to the emotions felt by both Hearst and Marion with the making of the movie. An interesting film that goes along with both RKO 281 and Citizen Kane is The Cats Meow (director, Peter Bogdanovich, 2001). This film tells the semi-true story of a murder that took place at a gathering on William Hearsts Yacht in 1924. This film shows how powerful Hearst was, for the murder was covered up and never to be spoken of again, on Hearst's orders. These two movies give us some insight into the life of a very powerful publisher, and they do compliment each other. However, in RKO 281 we do not see the realtionship between Hearst and Welles, and what history drives Weles to make Citizen Kane. Of course he does give some reasons, like to give Hearst what he deserves, but why there is animosity between the two goes largely untouched. I also found it interesting that Welles's friend, Mankiewicz, who actually colected the information on Hearst's life and wrote much of the script for Citizen Kane, was never really given any credit. The boy wonder Welles was given all accolades for his film. RKO 281 shows the viewer the tensions between these two men, which contributed to the making fo the film. Overall, I found this film to be interesting. It was by no means the best I have ever seen, but if one is interested in Welles or Citizen Kane it is a must see.

In the film Welles is seen at San Simeon. According to Peter Bogdanovich Welles was never invited there. Aside: About Marion Davies Tennessee Williams wrote, `She's so wonderful she almost makes up for the rest of Hollywood.'

The battle between William Randolph Hearst and Orson Welles over the latter's classic film Citizen Kane is the stuff that film history legends are made of. And after the amazing PBS documentary on it, it doesn't seem surprising that a film version would follow it. Though this film isn't a documentary and plays many things differently then they really happened, RKO 281 is an excellent film. The cast is first rate from Liev Schreiber's Orson Welles onwards. Schreiber might not do Welles distinct voice, but he captures the arrogance and genies of the young man. James Cromwell brings both menace and sympathy to William Randolph Hearst and for the two scenes in the film when these two are together you can feel the tension. The rest of the cast is just as superb. Of special mention is Melanie Griffith's performance as Marion Davies, the unfortunate victim of Citizen Kane and who becomes the reason for the battle over the film. John Malkovich, Brenda Blethyn, and the late Roy Scheider bring flesh and blood to these long dead members of the battle (writer Herman J. Mankiewicz, columnist Louella Parsons, and RKO executive George Schaefer). The production is a lavish one. The filmmakers take you to San Simon (aka Hearst Castle), the RKO sets for the film, the boardrooms of Hollwood and New York, and the homes of those involved. The effect is giving the viewer a sense of being there as film history happens. It's not of course but one gets that feeling. And now for the writing. The film is not, and does not claim to be, a documentary though it is based on the excellent PBS documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane. The events seen in the film are a mix of fact and fiction. The opening dinner party scene is questionable and the apparent motive for Welles to do the film is likely fictional. But many of the details and even chunks of dialog are real or based on real events. Indeed the final third of the film (apparently) happened almost exactly as it is seen in the film. While some might argue over this, it works in the context of the film. In short RKO 281 is fiction based on fact. From the strong performances to the lavish production values, the fiction gives the viewer a new light on the legendary battle over a classic film and how it almost never made it to the public. If you're a fan of Welles or Citizen Kane, this is a must see. If not, prepare for a journey into the battle over Citizen Kane and how it almost brought down the film industry.

A cheap and dishonest movie that exhibits no love for film-making or for Citizen Kane, but instead goes for an overly-dramatic story at the expense of truth and the character of the people involved. The distortions are too numerous to list, however the worst is completely missing the passion and genuine charm of Orson Welles, instead portraying him as a nasty, brutish brat. What a wasted opportunity to explore the tempestuous and amazingly creative people who produced a landmark film.