Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Purely Joyful Movie!

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

This is a brilliant movie, not for people with low attention spans which means a lot of modern audiences won't get it, or won't bother to try. It's a pretty deep and convoluted and dramatic story about a lot of characters and their relationships. Would love to see the long version of this one, the long lost Orson Welles director's cut.

What's the date of this story ? Does it cover at least about 20 or 25 years ? Obviously post-dates Victoria most of the time but evidently pre-dates WWI. It feels like it, but then it's meant to be. Heavily dated, I mean.Reading Tim Holt's biography, it seems like his Minafer role was an odd one for him, since he apparently used to play cowboys. His character was so oedipal, unpleasantly rude and offensive it made the entire film intensely difficult to like in any way at all. The other characters were not exactly appealing either, since they provided no opposition. Wimps, in fact. Perhaps that's what was wrong with the whole set-up: no good guys. Feeble men, weepy females.The acting was good in spots, and some of the photography was quite creative, in a Wellesian sort of way. But if you haven't seen this I don't think you've missed much. Is the book read at all these days ? Tarkington's world is lost, they say. Succumbed to the automobile, the agent of Master Minafer's comeuppance.

Fot the longest time I've been conflicted in my attitude toward "Citizen Kane", regarded by many as Orson Welles' and America's finest film. It just didn't grab me that way. Earlier today, "The Magnificent Ambersons" managed to affect me in a way that "Citizen Kane" hasn't done after three viewings; I thought this was a masterful story told brilliantly, and that's without knowing ahead of time how the studio (RKO) butchered the original product.A particular scene that got me, cinematically speaking, was when George (Tim Holt) and Lucy (Anne Baxter) rode past Eugene Morgan (Joseph Cotten) in their horse drawn sleigh while other Amberson family members struggle to push Morgan's car through the snow. The beauty of that snow-scape seemed absolutely surreal and wonderful. Regarding Welles' use of lighting and camera angles, the scenes of George and Aunt Fanny (Agnes Moorehead) arguing up and down the staircase of their mansion was also incredibly effective. Perhaps I'm just noticing these things better now, but they seem to surpass the camera work of Welles' earlier triumph.Storywise, there's no arguing that Welles packs a lot of emotion into his decades spanning history of the Ambersons. Early on it felt as if the story was rushed to get to George's adulthood, but once there we learn that he never outgrew the tantrums of his youth. For Tim Holt to convey such an arrogant character was significant for me, as most of my viewing of Holt's work has been in rather perfunctory B Westerns. So his range as an actor, even if one sided here, was a worthy discovery for me.As regards my own age, I was rather drawn to the impact of Eugene Morgan's letter to Isabel (Dolores Costello) regarding her son George. I've had it personally confirmed repeatedly that '40 can't tell 20', and to see that concept on display in the latter half of the movie was quite impactful. It's probably the main reason that history is doomed to repeat itself with successive generations, even though we have the experience and teaching of many wise men who have gone before.

One of the greatest films ever made, period, end of story. Other reviewers have explained the odd "contract" issues that Welles had which compelled him to take on projects he might otherwise have not. Who cares? Seriously. From the first frame to the last, this is the some the best entertainment Hollywood ever delivered. It is a story about where we (collectively) come from. It is a story about unrequited love. It is a story about what happens when the future meets the past. It is a story about what happens when we spoil our children instead of raising them. And, best of all, it puts in context the expression "whippersnapper" -- which I grew up listening to, but could never place. I explained in other reviews that Welles came from radio, it was his first love, and so did Cotten. The two did amazing work together. (One of the secrets of a Welles film was that you could watch it with the picture off and sound only, and it would STILL tell the story). Wow. What a film.