User reviews

Why the poor box office performance? Why the bad reviews? Why the bad word of mouth? I really didn't see anything horrible about this movie! First of all, it's a character-driven story. There's little subplots involving jealousy and philandering, but it's not handled in a soapy fashion. I didn't feel any of the characters were one-dimensional.

Of course, Mike Myers steals the show as the homosexual club owner Steve Rubell. I don't know the real Steve Rubell, so you be the judge whether or not his performance was accurate, but I have to say that Myers did an incredible job! And I'm not overstating the least bit! You watch him in this movie and you totally forget that this is the same guy who played Austin Powers. Not to say I didn't realize Myers had talent prior to watching this film. He has definitely proven that he has talent as a comic actor, but I didn't know he had the chops to pull off a straight, dramatic role. Even his accent sounds real, not the least bit phony. I'm surprised Myers didn't even get an Oscar nod. He should've at least gotten the nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Trust me--you will be blown away by his performance in this movie!

The music is great. It's always great to reminisce to the great songs from the seventies. Mark Christopher nicely captured the whole rebellious atmosphere of 54. We're given a taste of the drug addiction and even the sexual promiscuity that made the place famous--there's a scene where a couple shamelessly pounds away on the balcony. I read one person's review, saying that this movie should've been an hour longer. I find it ironic that people watch movies that are two and a half to three hours long and complain, "Oh, this movie dragged! Oh, this movie needed more editing!" Yet they watch a succintly timed film like this and complain it's too short. This may not have been the most thorough examination of the famous nightclub, but I think it got to the point. No reason why we have to go into every tiny detail.

This is a serious, dramatic film but it's also very entertaining. I actually had a smile on my face when the movie ended. It ended on a happy note without having that forced, schmaltzy Hollywood feel. Plus, I really like that song "Knock on Wood" that they played over the credits.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

The studio executives who ruined the first release version of this film in 1998 have a lot to answer for, but the director has had the last word and proved he was right all along, with the new Director's Cut (which I saw at the Sydney Film Festival tonight), which is an ENTIRELY different and improved experience. From now on, I don't think there should be any reason for anyone to watch the original release version again, the improvement is that dramatic. The one aspect that may irritate some viewers is that a few of the 'new' scenes have slightly lower image & sound quality than the rest of the film, as they obviously weren't able to find perfect quality footage for every restored scene, and the editing between some scenes doesn't always feel entirely smooth. And some weaknesses in the film still remain - such as Ryan Philippe, who is a bit limp despite being more than pretty enough for the role. But in so many other ways this is a far far better film, taking a film I'd only have rated maybe a 4 in the past, to at least a 7 now. About 40% of the film feels entirely changed, all for the better. There's a lot more life to the nights at the club, now that they've been able to put back the sex & drugs the studio removed (no movie about 1980-era disco makes any sense once you remove them). The parties are wild and bisexual and very disco. And the whole direction of the drama has been altered, now that the dull studio-imposed romance with Neve Campbell has been removed. Neve is still there in a small role, but the film now focuses on Ryan's love triangle with Salma Hayek & Breckin Meyer instead, which is far more interesting. Everyone who worked on the film should be happy with the Director's Cut, which proves they were making something pretty decent (until the studio stuffed it up).

Writer-director Mark Christopher worked hard at recreating the sinfully decadent magic of Manhattan's Studio 54, the number-one celebrity hangout from the late-1970s into the 1980s, but he skimped on the most intriguing part of the nightclub's history: the relationship between business partners Steve Rubell and Ian Schrager. Mike Myers was a terrific choice for the flamboyant, eccentric Rubell, but Schrager has gone missing. Instead, the story is told from the point-of-view of a busboy-turned-bartender (!), a muscular rube whose innocence is soiled by boss Rubell's dirty business dealings and hedonistic trappings. The film has a low-budget feel which doesn't make itself present in the production so much as in the character-driven scenes, which are underpopulated, padded with real and faked black-and-photos, and further undermined by stilted dialogue. Ryan Phillipe is well-cast as the young stud from New Jersey whom Rubell takes under his wing, yet his voice-over narration is uncomfortably omnipresent, telling us things we can see or perceive for ourselves, and the interrelationships between the club staff are uninteresting. Some of the music is good, bringing back those long-ago nights of carefree sex and dancing-the-night-away, but Christopher doesn't grasp the big picture. As a result, the film (at best) is a series of precious little moments struggling to surface. ** from ****

One does not usually expect a popular movie to be much good, namely because it caters to the tastes of a crowd, which are notoriously un-demanding. Rarely, however, one finds a film which delivers on its promises. This, fortunately, was one of these films. The acting was the high point of the film. Mike Myers wore his role like a skin, naturally and easily. Ryan Phillippe proved that despite occasional bursts of negative popular opinion he is more than a simple dime-a-dozen pretty boy, and possesses both skill and talent, both of which are put to good use. (And he is good looking, which despite all else, never hurts. But, let's not belabor the obvious). The filming was excellently done, with a good eye towards shock and an occasional shot of strangely unexpected beauty. The only real objection one could put to this film is that it was far too short. Several sub-plots came up which were either abandoned or underdeveloped, and the ending, while highly effective, had a slight air of "deus ex machina" about it. On the whole, though, a talented, unusually intelligent film with excellent actors and direction. Well worth watching.

Once upon a time in the not too distant past a man named Steve Rubell who to look at in this film and in real life was not all that much decided to create a playground where only the elite could participate. Two criteria decided who was among the elite, power and beauty. Rubell courted the powerful and selected only the beautiful. He created Studio 54 on West 54 Street in Manhattan and people would beg to be admitted. I was actually in the place once, not on charm, beauty, or personality mind you, but for a political fundraiser when it was rented out.

One who got in on sheer beauty in this film was New Jersey kid Ryan Phillippe and it is through his eyes that the story of 54 unfolds. And we see Mike Myers as Steve Rubell who reveled in the company of the powerful and beautiful, indulged in all the vices, and stole from his own business like the wise guys in Goodfellas used to rob the cargo shipments at JFK Airport like it was an ATM. Missing from the story is his partner Ian Schrager, still very much with us, still very much a power player. It's for that reason he is missing, but it renders 54 inaccurate from the start.

Phillippe has no problem using his looks and body to get all the sex he wants and to advance himself and establish. It's the main lesson he learns from Myers. What he sees as an ultimate goal in life, is something in the end he rejects.

Myers is fascinating and repellent at the same time. You've got to wonder why people would curry favors from this man, but in point of fact it happened. You know where he's headed and 54 makes you want to see him fall, at the same time you wish you could be part of the 54 scene.

Selma Hayek and Breckin Mayer play a couple who work at 54, a married couple who take Phillippe in. The hedonist atmosphere puts a strain on their marriage like few others are tested. Also Neve Campbell, a soap actress who is from New Jersey like Phillippe is also an ambitious woman who teaches Phillippe a thing or two. They all register well.

In the end though 54 is in the joint custody of both Ryan Phillippe and Mike Myers. This was Phillippe's breakthrough part and Myers is not in this role a part of Wayne's World or Austin Powers. No this is the story of a self indulgent man who had a heady ride and a tremendous fall.

The director's cut is much more interesting, definitely.

This movie is a gem. If you can get your hands on the Directors Cut, do it! It's brilliant, and you can see what the film was meant to be. I made my own edit with the Directors cut, and I added all the additional Neve Campbell scenes they filmed for the theatrical version.

All in all, I think it's a great look at what the 54 nightclub must have been like. But seriously, get the Directors cut.

Beautiful teenager Ryan Phillippe (as Shane O'Shea) is tired of cruising New Jersey with his plain boyfriends, and aches to go to Manhattan's famous "Studio 54" disco. There, he hopes to meet his idol, soap opera star Neve Campbell (as Julie Black). Taking off his shirt for "54" manager Mike Myers (as Steve Rubell) helps Mr. Phillippe gain admittance to the club. Working in his gym shorts gets Phillippe invited to hobnob with celebrities like Princess Grace and Andy Warhol. Eventually, Phillippe gains celebrity status. He models for magazines and gets "the clap". Will the world of sex, drugs, and disco get Phillippe down?

Probably, you won't care, because there is so little depth to this film. Phillippe is very attractive, but the character is limp. Ms. Campbell is seen little, and adds the same. The second tier coupling of busboy Breckin Meyer (as Greg) and singer Salma Hayek (as Anita) adds some sexual energy. Mr. Myers is wasted. You may get a kick out of drug-snorting grandma Ellen Albertini Dow (as "Dottie" aka "Mona"). And, Heather Matarazzo (as Grace) does well as Phillippe's sister. Reportedly censored, Mark Christopher's "54" holds back far too much. It's almost impossible to believe anything this bland could have been so popular.

***** 54 (8/28/98) Mark Christopher ~ Ryan Phillippe, Mike Myers, Salma Hayek, Breckin Meyer

The irony that my 54th review should be on this film....

As a big fan of Salma Hayek I had a long wait for '54', one of a slew of late 1990's projects that examined the decadent and excessive 1970s club scene. If Boogie Nights (a personal favourite of mine) set the pace, what could I expect from a high powered cast of (mostly) then favourites and a young director who was considered to be in the rise?

Truth be told, I found 54 something of a frustrating experience. This ought to have been a powerhouse drama, with a dream back story, and an equally able cast. Yet it never really ignites the way it ought to have done. Firstly, there was not enough focus on Mike Meyers's ruthless, materialistic club svengali. It was a pity that Meyers never sought to build on this dramatic success, instead opting to spend the remainder of the decade in misfiring comedies (Austin Powers excepted); had 54 concentrated on the relationship with an effective Ryan Philippe - tailor made for a pretty boy reliant on looks and shallow charm- then this might have been a different film. Phillippe manages to a fair job here, but cannot quite make the effort required to stamp himself on proceedings.

Instead, there's too much emphasis on a tepid 'love triangle' between the underwritten Salma Hayek (who later disowned the role - nothing particularly wrong with her effort but see above), and a hopeless Breckin Meyer. Meyer's hapless everyman routine is fine in the likes of Road Trip or Rat Race, but he totally lacks either looks, charisma or credibility that his role demands. Neve Campbell puts in little more than a glofied cameo; sorry to say, but almost anyone could have played her part.

I'm not being overly harsh or unfair. This is not a disaster by any stretch of the imagination, but I honestly felt that it could have been better. It makes a fair stab in terms of atmosphere and pathos, but I just felt it was lacking in certain areas where the likes of Boogie Nights, Go or even Party Monster succeeded. I understand that there's cut footage/deleted scenes out that there that may have made a major impact on the storyline - perhaps the kind of impact that Mark Christopher, Salma Hayek and Ryan Phillipe intended (perhaps). Until this material is properly assessed, I'm only reluctantly willing to endorse 54. A bit like that party you were looking forward to going to. You know, the one that never quite got started?

54 is a film about a club with that very title in the setting of the 70s era. It features the classic good-looking bartender. The sexy females. The high powered owner. The partying. When all entwined together chaos ensues, and the bartender (played by Phillipe) seems to be at the brunt of it all.

I'm going to be as blunt and honest as possible, whilst avoiding any outright unfair or untrue comments (like, it's an 'ok' film). I really do find it a completely dire film complimented by it's dire cast. Every time I sit down to watch a film casting Salma Hayek, I am always awaiting to see her beauty, radiantly expressed simultaneously with a great performance, but, reality invariably reminds me quite abruptly how utterly talentless she is. I mean, really, what has she ever bequeathed the masses with, other than her immense table dance in 'From Dusk Till Dawn'...? The same goes for Ryan Phillippe, another poor actor who gives nothing to the screen but his good looks and insanely dull facade otherwise known as 'acting'. Mike Myers, isn't quite as bad as these 2, he does at least give the Film something worthy. Playing the seedy, extroverted co-founder of the 54 Club. The type that the majority watching would hate (i.e. job well done), he puts in a somewhat convincing performance that gave me rare enjoyment from the flick. But alas, it is not enough to rescue the film from it's baseless and flat nothingness. Most 'bad' bad films I find something to take from the film, but this has nothing to it, really. Neve Campbell isn't too bad, but she is just 'there'. The storyline is dull, it appears the writer was more bent on making a film of this style and embellishment and forgot to add anything else. Any meaning. Any class. Anything at all. Because like most ornaments, they are just hollow pointless objects, that are merely pretty to look at, much akin to the basis of this disastrous film.

Genuinely an hour and a half of time I could have spent better doing something much more exciting, like talking to 90 year old relatives on the phone about the weather.

While the acting is pretty dull in this movie, Mike Myers proved that he can handle serious drama. Shortly after this movie came out, it was rumored that Mike Myers would receive an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor for playing the Studio 54 owner. I would have strongly agreed with this nomination, and I only recommend 54 to anyone curious about the serious side of Mike Myers.

54 is the story of the famed New York night club by the same name. The movie was OK at best. The main problem is that the characters do not live up to the excitement of the famed club.

The story revolves around Shane (Ryan Phillipee) WHO is a Jersey boy and lands a job at the club. He is soon promoted by Steve (Mike Meyers). I have a problem with this for what boss promotes someone to bar tender with no previous experience. Well Steve is skimming money from the till to hide it from it from the IRS. In the mean time Anita who works in the coat check (Selma Hyak) is aspiring to be a singer.

While Meyers gives a very good understated performance as Steve the rest of the characters are only marginally interesting. So the movie just kind of winds down to the eventual conclusion. Making this a rather forgetful movie experience.

This is the second worst, and most disappointing film I've seen this year. With such a great potential given the history of the club, it's well know patrons, and the endless possibility of storylines, the film is wasted on ficticious characters and their moronic, boring storylines. I knew the that the film was bad, when the only references to real people were those who were deceased (Steve Rubel, Andy Warhol, Truman Capote). My guess that every person associated with the movie still living threatened to sue if the were portrayed. Forget this movie, and catch the "Behind the Music" documentary of Studio 54 on VH1. It is much, much better.

It's unknown to me why this movie got such a bad review from critics. There are alot of factual errors about the club, yes. But this seemed to be a great movie. Mike Myers was an excellent pick for Steve Rubell, he had the same personality as Rubell in the movie.

Another thing is the story is so interesting about Studio 54, it was a fad, hip, and unusual place for it's time. Not only that, the story of the controversial club is one that really is unknown to some.

The story might not be dead on accurate, and some of the characters might be factual, and there could be alot of mistakes in the movie, but it's still a great one to watch when you get past it.

I would suggest watching VH-1's Behind The Music on Studio 54 first before seeing the movie, for a clear understanding on the club. That way you don't get freaked out.

A look down the cast list of Mark Christopher's "54" might provide a few surprises. Yes, before he decided he wanted to be the King of the World Donald Trump turned up as a patron as did Michael York, Sheryl Crow, Cindy Crawford, Heidi Klum, Art Garfunkel and Peter Bogdanovitch but I wouldn't waste my time trying to pick them out of the darkness. The film is a 'biography' of New York's famous Studio 54 as seen through the eyes of hot young busboy Ryan Phillippe, (he spends most of the film with his shirt off). Michael Myers is Steve Rubell, the club's manager and the cast also includes Salma Hayek, Neve Campbell and "Welcome to the Dollhouse's" Dawn Wiener herself, Heather Matarazzo. It's not much of a movie; it's mostly like a sex obsessed music video but the music's great which makes up for a lot and it does capture the hedonistic, drug-fuelled atmosphere of the place while Myers is surprisingly good, Still, maybe you would be better off buying the double cd instead.

If you have a great home sound system and a big plasma TV then 54 can be a spectacular home experience. Unlike the real thing. STUDIO 54 as a disco scene is legendary but lemme tell ya, in Sydney in 1988-1994 we had the gigantic real thing: massive and spectacular dance parties (no NOT raves) but massive disco nights in a place that held 5000 people and staged Busby Berkeley sized massive dance entertainment. See any Kylie Minogue concert today to get a sense of we had for free at the time! They were called RAT parties and BACCHANALIA events. Often our own big disco clubs competed and it was massive and musical and a throb of wild night fun unlike anything I have seen in any movie anywhere. STUDIO 54 as a small movie version of what we know as gigantic and real in our own Australian lives and makes us look like Hollywood epic disco. What is in this film is quite puny and tacky compared to the real thing here. I thought the film was a good but could have been great disco drama. There has always been a call for a great BIG disco film or a dance party spectacular and Saturday NIGHT FEVER and 54 and even parts of WEST SIDE STORY about as close as we will get I guess. Ryan Phillippe is cute and Adonis and well cast as the pretty chipmunk bar boy, Brecken Myer believable in their NY suburban angst.... as is all the cast esp the girls Selma Hyack and gorgeous Neve Campbell...however the dialog at the end of the film where they reconcile is truly lame and lets the film down. I real life these characters would both end up as prostitutes. But it is Mike Myer pulling off another creepy performance (see CAT IN THE HAT for the other) that is the core of the film. Studio 54 as depicted in this almost-there setting looks like a stinky old cinema with nut-case clients and ghastly B grade celebrities. (Do The Time Warp, anyone?)

I am glad I wasn't there for real as what happened here was real and astonishing. I hear there is a very sleazy and sexually explicit directors cut of 54 and that would be more to the mark as this is an almost-Disney version of what we can see had greater depths of nude depravity... all to a pulsating disco beat!

Elite nightclubs are all about hedonism and the power of the young, rich, and beautiful; places where a rigid hierarchy holds sway, albeit an alternative one. One may understand why those in the in-crowd may enjoy such places; but to suggest that they symbolise "freedom" is a rather strange interpretation. But every Hollywood film has to pay homage to this virtue, however still defined, and so '54', Mark Christopher's film about a once-fashionable New York venue, tries to suggest there was something idealistic about the place, in spite of the fact there seem few ideals on view. To strengthen this rather weak idea, his script casts lead actor Ryan Phillipe as a young Adonis, who is far too sweet to serve as a useful vehicle into the dark side of this underworld; but he tells us there was something mystical about the place, and as the audience, we're expected to believe him, although all we see are a lot of dancing, drug-taking, and sex. Which might not be unbelievable, but is hardly unique. Meanwhile, the film's plot goes nowhere and even seems to bottle out of it's own natural climax. The real Studio 54 might indeed have been where it was all happening; but this gentle homage is really very bland.

54 is above the avearge with its recreation of the late 70s club scene in New York. The story of a New Jersey guy dreaming of the big city, and making it to the center of the sparkling night life is quite well done, with a good recreation of the athmosphere and some truth in the psychology of the characters. Acting is fair to good, music is fun, and there is less melodrama than in similar epoch stories. 7/10 on my personal scale.

"54" is a film based on the infamous "Studio 54" of the 1970s - the hangout for the social elite and party clubbers. In the film, Ryan Phillippe is the main character, based on an actual employee of Studio from 1977 - 1982.

The film's problem is that it's all glitter and style and no substance. It tries to be a really grimy and probing satire like "Boogie Nights" but ultimately comes across as an inferior wannabe. Mike Myers is given the thankless task of playing cocaine-snorting club owner Steve Rubell. It's only a slightly comedic role and if this was Myers' best attempts at sliding into drama like Lemmon and other comedic actors did in their time, it's a total failure.

"54" could have been insightful and interesting but instead it's just another dumb teen flick that isn't entertaining or even remotely engaging. View at your own peril.

I liked this movie, it's not a 10 but certainly not a bad picture. I do agree that the focus should have been more on the happenings of the club itself but this happens a lot in true life stories turned into movies. Actually the movie could have been a lot worse.

I think they did a reasonably good job, though not an exceptional one, of capturing the Glitz, glamor and mystery of the greatest nightclub in the world. You feel the appropriate sense of loss at the end of the movie and wish you had been there. I know I did. The NYC club scene is still alive and kicking but no other club will probably ever be as notorious as 54. I was really shocked this movie didn't do better at the box office but though I liked it, I agree it had flaws. The movie while capturing the atmosphere and time period strongly, and making one curious about Studio 54 and maybe wishing they'd gone at least once, didn't succeed in making the club's allure irresistible and the movie compellingly unforgettable and an instant classic as it should have, because all the tools were there for an unforgettable film.

The movie should also have been MUCH LONGER. It still turned out much better then it could have though and is most definitely entertaining. I thought it was MUCH better then The last days of disco which I thought was horrible. I'd give it a 7 or 7.5 of 10 for the movie making, 8 of 10 for personal enjoyment though I'd really like to have seen this be a 10 all around, in the way of a "Boogie Nights." Still worth seeing though.

When "54" got released, many critics claimed that it was just another attempt to get into the '70s nostalgia that had swept the country. It's more than that. The movie shows New York's Studio 54, an unusual club where young people danced to disco and could meet celebrities, as seen through the eyes of employee Shane O'Shea (Ryan Phillippe). At the end, he talks about, how after the government closed the place down, a corporation took it over and did what corporations always do: make the place safe and sterile. Steve Rubell (Mike Myers) built it up into a most unique hangout, and the corporation drained the life out of it.

So don't trust the critics. This was a really good movie.

First off I would like to mention that I wasn't born until many years after 54 closed its doors. So, I don't really have anything to compare the film to. But despite of not knowing about the real club, I enjoyed the movie very much.

Many people criticize '54' saying that it did a terrible job of depicting the actual club scene while others commend it for bringing the New York happening spot to life. All I know is that I love anything 60s and 70s so I obviously liked this film. The clothes are good, the music is better than today's and Studio 54 looked like THE place to be.

The story line following a New Jersey nobody seems pretty simple. He hits New York, visits the club and in no time is the bartender. I thought that it was an excellent choice in casting Ryan Phillippe in the role of Shane O'Shea.

Phillippe's role doesn't look like it needed a whole lot of work put into because once again, it is a simple picture of a young man set out to make something of himself. But he does his best nonetheless. O'Shea was created well. Another young actor I particularly like is Breckin Meyer. He did a very good acting job but there was something wrong with his character. Greg seemed as if he had a purpose there in the beginning but after a while he slowly moved into the darkness and just became someone who hooked Shane up with a place to stay. Salma Hayek seems to be a popular name now days. I must say that I'm not too interested in seeing her anything. I've seen her in one or two movies before seeing her in '54' and I still don't get why everybody likes her. Not good acting on her part. Neve Campbell who is definitely not one of my favorite actresses plays a minor role in this film but they make it seem like she's in the lead. I won't comment too much on her since she once again chose a bad character to act out. And Mike Myers who plays the club owner, Steve Rubell, probably does the best next to Ryan Phillippe. It's not that Myers is such a terrific actor, it's just that he didn't have any competition (sorry Breckin). But still he played out the role his best. The cast was pretty good overall.

I thought that the re-creation of Studio 54 was very good. Again, I didn't know the real one but it looked so fantastic in there. Lights, dancing, music, it seemed as if the people had it made. The score for the movie wasn't anything too too great. The music was good, don't get me wrong, but I've heard better.

So, the story line following O'Shea was good. The acting was mixed with some good some bad. The writing was decent and the script as a whole was one of the better ones. See this even if you aren't familiar with the club itself. '54' gives a pretty good idea of what went on and how it finally came to an end.

As you can see from my summary, I think this movie is pure hell.

Perhaps author/director Mark Christopher might have made a decent movie had he been allowed to stick to his original ideas. However, considering how contrived and threadbare the whole script as we see in the movie, I doubt this could have been anything close to a great movie.

The director seems to have assembled the worst cast possible, or at least made sure that most of them gave their worst performance possible. Ryan Phillipe proved in this movie that he is nothing more than something nice to look at. If your idea of a great actor is one who looks great in tight jeans or short shorts and a tight tank top (not that using acting ability would ever matter), he's perfect in the role.

His character is not a loveable one, but Phillipe doesn't even make us regard him in any matter. He does not develop his character's thoughts or emotions. He could have been a villian or some cocky bas**rd whom the audience loves to hate. Yes, Phillipe was limited by a poor script, but I can't say he has ever excelled as an actor in any movie.

Neve Campbell was also extremely dissappointing in her performance, in her battle with Phillipe for who could be the worst actor in the film. Her performance is also uninvolved and bland. She was better in the "Scream" movies and even "Wild Things." She failed to show us why Phillipe's character would even possibly be infatuated with her.

For the most part, the rest of the cast was also terrible. Salma Hayek proved why I don't like her acting once again, and the stoner from "Clueless" was also rather bland.

The "dirty old lady" bit is becoming too much of a bad Hollywood cliche these days. I liked Ellen Dow's character the first time I saw it--in "The Wedding Singer."

One great thing about "54" was Mike Myers' brilliant performance. He really threw himself into the role, and proved that he, as a true actor, might be more gifted than we have previously given him credit. He used the terrible script to his advantage, using the contrived, false dialogue to show the pathetic nature of his character. I only hope that Peter Weir will cast him in a movie and do for him what he did for Robin Williams (Dead Poets Society) or Jim Carrey (The Truman Show).

Perhaps if Mr. Christopher had the type of controll that Orson Welles had over "Citizen Kane," he might have had a decent movie. But to even mention the two in the same sentence seems sacrilege.