I don't care about lost footage. I can only see what's put on the screen in front of me. And what we see in this movie is an over-wrought, over-rated, ponderous waste of time. Just like Citizen Kane, come to think of it. If it weren't for the brilliant Touch of Evil, which I can watch frame for frame without every getting bored, Welles would have cranked out zero watchable movies. The only drama for me was hoping to see one or more of the characters drop dead. I would have preferred Agnes Moorehead or Tim Holt but turns out one of the Minafers bought the farm (who was this guy again and why should I care about him?). Given it nearly bankrupted RKO, I'm surprised Welles ever got funding to make another movie in his life.

Orson Welles' Version of the Film Seems Forever Lost and it Runs a Full 50 Minutes Longer and is Assembled Differently. The Contrast Between what Welles Made and what Remains is More than Significant it is Profound. But All We Have is the RKO Version and While that has Received an Enormous Amount of Praise, it Must Be Said that the Praise is Singular and Cannot Reflect the Director's Original Intent.Basically it's the Second Half, Not Counting the Interruptions of the Long Fluid Shots and Such, where the Studio did the Most Damage. It has been Reported that Once Welles was Persuaded to Sit Down and Watch It, Decades Later, After About an Hour Stood Up and Said "From here on it's their Film". That Seems to be the Case, Because the Second Half is Not Near as Mesmerizing as the First. All Rushed and Jumbled Up. Choppy and Erratic, and the Ending is Ill Fitting. The Little 88 Minute Butchered, Mutilated, and Mangled Version is a Powerful but Painful Film to Watch. Even if One was to Know Nothing of the Changes it would be Obvious that Something was Not Only Missing but Amiss.Yes, it was Nominated for Four Oscars Including Best Picture and Most Film Critics Agree it is a "Magnificent" Work and Although what is Up There On the Screen is Technically Innovative and Beautiful at Times and is More Artistic than the Majority of Hollywood Product, the Tampering and Fiddling is Evident and Overall, Not at All Welcome. Still the Movie can be Enjoyed as Sort of a "Better Than Nothing" Glimpse at the Movie Making Expertise of Welles and Company (in shorthand).

OK, but disappointing. Produced, written and, most importantly, directed by Orson Welles. That alone would make you think that this can not fail to be great. Consider too that Welles' previous film was the astoundingly brilliant Citizen Kane and you would think that greatness is even more assured.Yet, somehow, it fails to deliver. The Magnificent Ambersons is not bad, but it's not great either. Cinematographically, Welles is in top form. The usual shadows and light tricks and perfect camera angles are there.No, it's not the cinematography, it's the plot, and the characters. The plot started off well enough. You got a sense early on that the movie was going to be a social commentary on change, on social mores and how wealth corrupts. This is all there, but is secondary to a story that more resembles a soap opera. The social scheming by some characters was quite off-putting, and the conclusion was just a bit too neat and convenient. Plus, there are so many contrivances in the plot to make it feel not entirely plausible. The comeuppance at the end doesn't make much sense. Neither does the relationship between Lucy and George.Welles, who made a great social comment with Citizen Kane, could have made an equally important one here, but pulls his punches and misses the mark.

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.