The post-dubbing was pretty irritating. Still, incredibly oblique and crazy.

Call me a philistine, but I found this difficult to sit through. Certainly Welles's original vision shows through at times, but the editing and dubbing is headache-inducing.

Welles does what he can with the money he has . . . and almost fashions another "Kane."

996

A mess. Often so over-the-top (Welles, in his urges to do larger-than-life really can be quite pretentious) that it's almost funny... but it never quite works either way. The mystery might've been interesting if the plot wasn't so transparent and preposterous.

Welles is, as usual, terrific and dominating, a perfect fit for his shady character. Everyone else kind of pales in comparison but there are plenty of great moments that build up the intrigue into who, exactly, Mr. Arkadin is and what the next big turn of events will be. I enjoyed it and it is very well shot, but the audience isn't given much stake into the unraveling mystery, so for a chunk in the middle it becomes repetitive without much tension beyond Arkadin's looming presence.

Orson Welles's great acting with his almighty character integrates with his weak side, his daughter. Conversations with Van Stratten (I think he is well acted) are the most remarkable scenes combine with Welles's great camera using. Despite all his power which are position, money, intelligence, Van Stratten sometimes overcomes Arkadin. You can see Arkadin's funny facial expression in this weak attitudes. Besides unusual complex fiction make the movie more mysterious, suspenseful, dynamic.

It's a good story: kind of a twisted, noir-ish version of Kane, where the identity of a powerful figure is gradually revealed through interviews and flashbacks. There are oodles of spectacular shots. Where it truly fails, however, is the casting of Robert Arden. This is a horrible, horrible actor with zero screen presence. The fact that he dominates the movie, especially in the beginning, makes it a chore to sit through.

A second viewing of Mr. Arkadin doesn't help you to sort through any of the mess, but it certainly made me appreciate it more. Robert Arden's performance was still miserable, and the fact that he's the lead makes him all the worse, but the labyrinthian story Welles weaves becomes even more compelling, even masterful, with a second look, and the technical virtuosity is all there: oblique camera angles, brilliant intercutting and use of flashbacks, camerawork, all that. Flawed as hell, but great.

Break neck pace, break neck direction and Paola Mori who breaks men's necks because they turn 'round too fast to look at her. I think of it almost as an inspired take on James Bond, a grittier more down to earth look at investigating crime across the globe. As always Orson knows how to stage scenes.

I hate loving this movie and love hating this movie. It's half parody, half mystery, half B movie, half art movie. But it has a second rate, hamfisted theatricality that turns my crank. Welles fans should find it (or what remains of it) interesting.

Needs further viewing. The mess of it all dominates my thinking more than I'd like.

Despite apparent budget problems and a messy post-production, this is an engaging mystery. The photography stands out immediately with baroque, gothic qualities worthy of film noir. Unfortunate that Arden is limp in the lead, but Welles compensates with his own dominating presence as the mythical Arkadin character. I like the parallels drawn in J Hoberman's essay on the film, in which he compares the Arkadin character to Welles as director, enticing the viewer into a cinematic labyrinth.

I'm just going to call this 'unfinished' and put the blame on the studios for this trainwreck of a film. Naturally there is good cinematography, but it feels tossed together by someone who has no idea how to make a good film. The story (or what I could make of it) seemed rather interesting and it is sad that we will never know what this could have been.