Mr. Arkadin

An incandescent and mesmerizing dumpster fire. The whole is unfortunately less than the sum of its peculiar and remarkable parts, ripped from its creators vision and surviving in various not-quite-correct incarnations. Is this the film which best encapsulates the legacy of Orson Welles?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

*comprehensive version* This is Welles having fun, indeed it's perhaps his funniest film and likely his most playful. Things move very fast. He really gets to indulge his passion for all things Spanish and Eastern European. Arkadin is a combination of Kane and Lime, but always with the potential for redemption (whereas Kane and Lime were always a lost cause). I like Arden as the lead, for me it's Mori who is the let down (it helps when you sleep with the director). Here's to character!

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

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.

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.

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

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

Highly enjoyable if undeniably messy noirish comedy with one cameo after another where the actors are clearly relishing their unusual characters and amusing dialogue, with plenty of typical Welles angles and darkness, but with a more free-spirited willingness to play around and experiment with what can be done with a camera. Both Welles and Arden had unusual, hard-to-discern characters, but this seemed less a flaw in the writing or performances than a challenge. Saw the "comprehensive version".

Did Welles make a bad movie?

Not perfect, by any means, but it's wonderful to watch movie-making with so much energy and verve. One finds oneself waiting for Robert Arden to shut up--his ineptly conniving character is played with utter mediocrity--but when he does, one can enjoy a succession of marvelous character turns, especially those of Katina Paxinou, Suzanne Flon (world-wearily radiant), and Michael Redgrave. It gets stupidly melodramatic toward the end, but this is clearly the work of the man behind "Citizen Kane".

Robert Arden isn't a great leading man, but this is Arkadin's story anyhow, a reverse Citizen Kane where the every rumor is unearthed until all that's left is dream.

Welles as Arkadin explores another aspect of the Gatsby/Kane great man archetype of the Great American Novel, and almost feels a bit autobiographical in reflecting on Welles's lonely life at the top.

"Comprehensive" version - Broad meditation on themes more coherently explored in KANE is a fascinating curio, especially continuing Welles' interest in the power of illusion (and how an artist can manipulate his audience) - it's a shame the storytelling is such a mess, testing even the loyal viewer's patience, though the rewards are some beautiful set pieces and supporting turns; Welles himself is suitably enigmatic, but Arden's hopelessly melodramatic lead is a serious liability.

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.

Viewed October 25, 2018.

The mystery of Arkadin is quite intriguing and that's what makes this film a pleasant watch. You too want to know all about his background as well as an explanation on the in medias res setting. Same about that intro with the plane, although the answer to that - to be found in the dragged-out final act - is a lot more disappointing than the already flimsy twist. Nevertheless, Van Stratten's global roaming is of interest, even if the cinematography has more bad moments than grand.

Welles' unfinished film is almost like a pulpy underbelly version of Citizen Kane, with hammy acting, but full of Welles' signature style, deep focus, extreme angles, frantic editing, flashbacks within flashbacks, an enigmatic fairytale like story. For obvious reasons, though, it lacks that finishing touch. My rating is based on the Criterion edit.

Muito criativo em certas passagens e com alguns diálogos muito bons. Contudo, me parece que os personagens carecem de uma consistência maior. *SPOILER: Em particular, é incoerente o Mr. Arkadin estar no controle o filme inteiro e no fim parecer uma criança pega de surpresa. Me pareceria mais razoável que tudo fosse um plano desde o início para incrimar Guy por todos os crimes, eliminando seu passado e se isentando de qualquer culpa.

Micro budget Welles that, unlike his Shakespeare films, which were also chronically underfunded, was never fully salvaged in the editing room, regardless of the version viewed. Ultimately, Mr.Arkadin serves as a testament to the limitations of sculpting troubled films in post, even for a gun like Welles. Arden is a well recognised sore point, and the dubbing is bad, but there is enough intrigue and visual ingenuity for Welles fanatics to chew on. Just don't call it a masterpiece.

Even though I thought this movie was one of Welles' in terms of direction, I nonetheless enjoyed the film. The low-angle shots had gotten distracting during dialogue by the end of the film, and the pacing was odd at times, sometimes staying in one place or cutting abruptly and jarringly. Welles gives another good performance as Mr. Arkadin in this one. He is complemented well by Michael Redgrave (Trebitsch) in this film too.

Weird, surreal even with bizarre editing -- one can certainly tell that the film is unfinished. The acting is mostly dreadful and (I found, at least) some of the dialogue practically unintelligible. Mr. Arkadin is never less than watchable and there are flashes of brilliance, but one wonders what might have been.

Looks fantastic, but seriously lacking in charm or intrigue.

77.000

("Comprehensive" version) A bigger-than-life man's past is explored (most often in flashbacks, in a somewhat elliptical style), with some pretty amazing photography and starring Orson Welles. The first time, it worked well; the second time was a bit of familiarity mixing in with extravagance. It feels like it is getting close to touching greatness, but there's always something (poor dubbing, silly character reactions) that pulls me out of that thought.

Terrible, terrible acting. Why is everyone ignoring the fact that Robert Arden looks like someone from one of those awful 50s horror movies? He has had no career before or after this movie, and that's because he clearly can't act, has no charisma, no charm, and no delivery. The pace and editing also suck, and I don't care about whatever happened on the production level. It's not an excuse that Welles can't keep control over his movie.

Almighty Arkadin has a weak side which is his daughter, it is like in Citizen Kane that Almighty Kane dies but all wonder about his only simple last word, i think conversations with Van Stratten (I think he is well acted) are the most remarkable scenes that combine with great camera using. Besides unusual complex fiction make the movie more mysterious, suspenseful, dynamic

This one, unfortunately, has too many camels that need to be swallowed for it to be a truly great affair. But it has some truly great moods and setpieces, as Welles' custom. And I do so like staring at that beard he has in this movie.

78.250

The plot is silly as hell (although engaging enough in it's own pulpy way) but wow did Welles know how to frame shots (the acting, well, not so much...) Meanwhile a young Raoul Ruiz must have been taking voluminous notes...

This is a pretty gloriously pulpy, silly film that bears the marks of Welles' visual flair while also being fairly compromised by a too-low budget, producer meddling and a pretty terrible performance from Arden. Still ... it's a really enjoyable film with a few serious thoughts about postwar Europe on it's mind.

Fast paced globe trotting thrille. Arden is a great antihero and of course welles is always magnetic. The mystery is a good one..both its actual idea and the frenetic pace as Ardens character unravels it all. It comes together in an apt payoff as well. The direction was interesting, particularly liked the scene of milly drunk in a ship buffeted by waves...it didn't exactly work but the low angles and mad movements have to be admired for how daring they were

996

Comprehensive Version: This is often technically fascinating with all sorts of interesting choices, but it didn't really work that well for me. There are certain aspects that come off as amateurish and I would think they are if it wasn't Welles. Some of the editing feels odd, Welles looking directly at the camera often is an odd choice, and sometimes the lines are stepping on each other. I'm not 100% sure what he was going for. I disliked the lead performance. The rocking camera was interesting.

Arden's character is grossly unlikeable, but I think it works in the film's favour.