Opiniones de usuarios

To get the full value out of Arkadin, i recommend you only see it once you've seen most other Welles pictures, from the Good (Kane, Ambersons, Trial, Falstaff, Touch of Evil), The Bad... okay, they're all still interesting, i wouldn't call any of them bad, but some of them were more marred by production conditions (Othello, Macbeth) or cutting by the studio (Lady from Shanghai) than others. If you've fallen in love with Welles' brilliant pictures, seen the times when he wasn't able to realise his ambitions, and heard about all his unfinished films and seen the tantalising segments from some of them (notably, for me, Merchant of Venice and famously The Other Side of the Wind), you'll appreciate that we were able to see Mr Arkadin at all!

So while i know there is so much to admire in Arkadin, that each frame is aching with Wellesian visual beauty (which is closer to unusual/strangeness than classical beauty), i know that most people, especially Wellesian newbies, will find Arkadin inaccessible. The fact that it is quite difficult to follow, and its dialogue is often hard to understand, is made worse by the fact that its picture and soundtrack are in bad condition on all available video/dvd releases. The other notable thing about Arkadin is that it is available in different forms (like most Welles movies). Welles' initial Arkadin must have been quite disconcerting indeed. Like they usually did, the studio cut a fair portion of it, but still left it in its flashback form (which varies from one to two party scenes). Later on, someone, i don't know who, reordered Arkadin so it played out in chronological order. This is the version available for wide release in America, with Tony Curtis (for what reason i don't know) doing an introduction, and talking more about Kane than Arkadin. The only australian release of Arkadin at present seems to be the chronological one, so if i ever get my hands on the others i may write separate reviews on those.

And no it is not sufficient to sum Arkadin up as a poor remake of Kane. It has only superficial elements in common with Kane (mystery into true nature of old man, flashbacks), but visually it is nothing like Kane. I always put off watching it because i was upset by people's saying it was a poor man's Citizen Kane - but whoever said that can't have seen the same Arkadin i did.

For Welles fans there is so much to marvel at. It is one brilliant, original frame after another. I just couldn't watch it slow enough. I had to pause it about every ten seconds to wind back and watch something again and go "oooh" and "aaah." It also has sexy Patricia Medina and a great score.

Some favourite scenes:

The tracking back shot of Van Stratten (Robert Arden) going up the steps to Zouk's place (Akim Tamiroff).

The scenes of snow falling outside Zouk's place.

Every scene where Van Stratten is interviewing an eccentric character from Arkadin's past. All are such wonderful scenes. Especially the flea circus master scene.

The rocking boat scene is incredible. The sexual energy of voluptuous, erect-nippled Patricia Medina, stumbling around the room, giggling and taunting Arkadin as the rocking boat mirrors the shakiness of her drunken state.

There is a magestic tracking shot in the party scene, which takes place in a sort of ballroom resembling the Ambersons' ballroom, where i believe Welles almost made up for the studio's cutting up a similar sweeping unbroken tracking shot through the room in the ballroom scene in Magnificent Ambersons.

This is a highly uneven but interesting mystery from Mercury Productions and writer-director Orson Welles. Two-bit American hustler Guy Van Stratten (Robert Arden) searches for a mysterious, super-rich man named Gregory Arkadin (Orson Welles) in hopes of getting some money from him, one way or another. Surprisingly, Arkadin confesses to Guy that he suffers from amnesia, and he hires Guy to research Arkadin's past to fill in the blanks of his past. Guy suspects there's more to the story when those he interviews start showing up dead.

This movie is a mess, but it's a fascinating mess. The movie was taken out of Welles' hands in the editing phase and was released in various cuts all over the world over the course of a decade or more. The version I watched was assembled from all of the various versions, and supposedly most closely resembles what Welles wanted. It's still a slightly confusing jumble, but it's entertaining. It's unlike most movies of the mid 50's, with rapid edits, odd camera angles, and the aforementioned narrative structure utilizing flashbacks.

The sound is either mostly or all post-dub, which also adds to the disorienting effect. This movie has a lot of flaws (several shots are out of focus, Welles' fake nose looks terrible), but I found it an intriguing mystery, and I was never quite certain what was coming, which is exceedingly rare these days. Plus, the many brief appearances of classic character actors, such as AkimTamiroff, Katina Paxinou, Mischa Auer, and Michael Redgrave, all playing bizarre and eccentric characters, is amusing.

Did I ever mention that I watched Mr. Arkadin every day for three months once? And that I recently bought a version of it different from the one I bought years ago (supposedly the UK print), and enjoyed it like I was seeing it for the first time?

Welles is a childhood hero. There's nothing rational about my feelings about Welles. If there are Welles fan boys, I admit to being one. But I have entertained the notion that I like Mr. Arkadin (also called Confidential Report, sometimes) as much as I do because it so completely betrays Welles as a titanic artist having to deal with the small frustrations and vicissitudes of Everyman. The bones of the thing, the behind the scene life of the film, the fact that the whole thing at one point passed through the man's hands shows through more than on any film he ever made. You actually see the customs stamps at the end of reels! His stratagems are more obvious, his resources more threadbare here than even Othello, his most legendary prolonged/disjointed/truncated shoot. Parts of it look shot on Super8; as good as some of it looks, at other times, the lighting doesn't feel professional (I am thinking of the nightclub and penitent procession scenes). In the end, I think Arkadin is the one completed and released Welles film that humanizes the man, without exactly bringing him low.

Clinching my interest in the film is Welles' comment, reiterated for different interviewers through the years, that Arkadin contained the best story he ever thought up to film. (He made a radio script of it first, and when he refined it for film, he saw fit to keep perhaps 95% intact from the radio play.) I may not agree with Welles' own appraisal of Arkadin as a story, but again, his comments betray perhaps more than intended: Welles' deep, and possibly irrational, feeling of attachment to this film. He said he considered it the most 'destroyed' film (destroyed by outside interference) he ever made. --Worse even than The Ambersons! I really think he never had "closure" with the experience of making Arkadin, and it continued to haunt him the rest of his days.

I invite you to take a look at it (it is available in many cheap public domain DVD versions) and see if you, too, fall under its spell. If it leaves you totally cold, or you can't take it seriously, I understand. But remember, better and worse DVD versions exist. Supposedly, the Criterion Collection will release it sometime in the next couple of years. That may be the version to make your definitive move with.

After seeing Gregoire Aslan knifed on a dock and hearing a couple of last words like Sophia and Mr. Arkadin, Robert Arden and girl friend Patricia Medina know at least part of it.

Mr. Arkadin refers to the mysterious gazillionaire played by Orson Welles. However Sophia is as elusive at first as the mysterious 'rosebud' in Citizen Kane.

Welles seeing that Arden is a man of wit and resource in the seamier side of life, hires him to find out about Sophia. In fact the story that Welles gives Arden is that before 1927 when he found himself in Zurich, Switzerland with several million francs, he has amnesia and has no memory of his past.

It's obviously a lie because one of the reasons that Arkadin is so mysterious is that he has steadfastly refused to be photographed. Not something someone would normally do unless they had a lot to hide.

Still Arden takes the assignment and it leads to some startling answers and puts Arden's life in peril.

Welles came up short with Mr. Arkadin. It's an intriguing story and has some good performances by the cast members already mentioned and people like Mischa Auer, Akim Tamiroff, Michael Redgrave, and Katina Paxinou from Welles's past. Problem is that Welles seems to be using a lot more in his bag of tricks than is necessary to tell the tale.

A little to arty for art's sake. Still it's an interesting story and well acted.

This is a brilliant, beautiful, and almost dangerously unconventional independent production from Orson Welles in 1955. The story follows a small-time blackmailer named Guy Van Stratten (Arden) who meets and falls in love with Raina Arkadin (Paola Mori, who was Welles' third wife), who is resistant of his love for her at first. But he presists and they travel to Spain together, where she soon falls in love with him. In love, they attend a magnificent masquerade ball at a castle, where Stratten meets her father: the mysterious amnesiac billionaire Gregory Arkadin (Welles). Arkadin proposes to Stratten a deal, to research Arkadin's own mysterious past, and in turn, getting a chance to marry Raina. This leads Stratten all over the globe in search of information about Arkadin, including a visit to a flea circus (you read that right). This film is wonderfully confusing, heavily stylized, and also campy. The acting strikes me as very film noir-ish, which makes things all the more fun.

Paul Misraki was a French composer who isn't well-known today (though one of his notable assignments was scoring Godard's Alphaville). I must comment on his score for `Confidential Report,' which is not only serviceable but also a lot of fun, and much of it reminded me of Nino Rota. Misraki's main titles for the film start out with a very bouncy gypsy/carnival-esque theme, then seuging into a slow marching waltz. In the party scenes, he varieties his theme to slow big band cues (Rota did the same thing).

The black and white cinematography is quite a feast.in fact, it is intoxicatingly awesome. More arty camera angles than probably any other film I've ever seen. I can definitely see how the fast-paced editing with the multiple camera angles inspired such directors as Francois Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard, and later Martin Scorsese and Peter Bogdanovich. However, what was the most surprising about this film was the masquerade ball, which was carnival-esque and insane, with people in masks mocking the camera, smiling at it, winking at it, running at it, dancing into it, and storms of people walking in front of it. I felt like I was watching a Federico Fellini film, directed by Orson Welles. This scene had all of the madness and carnivalisms of Fellini, with the camera angles and editing of Welles. What a treat!

Unfortunately, this film surfaces in many different versions. If you are compelled to see it, absolutely don't, under any circumstance, get the DVD from laserlight. It is a cropped (yes, cropped from 1.37.you don't even get all of the square frame!), unrestored, public domain print that looks like it was buried for 30 years. Worst of all, the DVD is cut by ten minutes, apparently deleting the film's important dream-like structure! The version I have, which is of terrific quality, is from Home Vision Entertainment, and is on VHS. The DVD company Criterion owns the rights to this, and sometime in the next few years they will release this on DVD, that is years though.until then, this nice VHS copy will do. This is a film I could probably watch 100 times and never tire of it. It's a feast of artistic camera angles. If you love this kind of stuff, check it out.but only the Home Vision version!

Interesting but odd film about an amnesiac millionaire financier who hires an investigator to find his past . Screenwriter , filmmaker , star Welles adopting from his own novel and directing this strange flick , thematically similar to Citizen Kane . The novel and the screenplay were both based on an episode in the radio series, "The Lives of Harry Lime", in which Welles played his Harry Lime character as rather less villainous that he was in The third man . It deals with an American adventurer who investigates the past of mysterious tycoon Arkadin (Orson Welles) placing himself in grave danger . Guy (the Harry Lime character is renamed "Guy van Stratten" and is played by Robert Arden) finds it most pleasant to investigate Arkadin though his lovely daughter Raina (all of Paola Mori's dialogue was dubbed by Billie Whitelaw and Marlene Dietrich turned down the role), her father's idol. However Stratton learns that all the persons he asked about Arkadin are getting killed. Guy follows the descending and intriguing trail to a surprise final .

This suspense movie contains intrigue , thrills , plot twists and layered dialog prevail . Excellent acting by the maestro Orson Welles playing the life of yet another ruthless millionaire, he stars a famed tycoon with a shady past , similarly to Citizen Kane . It stars newcomers actors , as the credits read "And introducing Paola Mori" who married Orson Welles ; however, she had been in at least four films prior to this ; the credits also imply the "And introducing" refers to Robert Arden as well, who also had had at least two credited big screen performances . Good support cast as Michael Redgrave as Burgomil , Patricia Medina as Mily , Akim Tamiroff as Jakob Zouk , Mischa Auer , Amparo Rivelles , Katina Paxinou as Sophie , Grégoire Aslan as Bracco , Peter van Eyck as Thaddeus and Suzanne Flon as Baroness Nagel ; but even the efforts of a cool cast couldn't help Welles turn this into a critical or commercial success . Filmed over two years around Europe , required seven years of post production , before finding distribution in 1962 . It has recently released a comprehensive three-DVD set of the film, featuring three versions: the "Corinth" version¨ that was generally regarded closest to Orson Welles's cut, "Confidential Report" or European cut, and the newly edited "Comprehensive" version. Each version contains a few shots or lines that are missing from the other two. Because the film was taken out of Welles' control in post-production, we will never know exactly what he had in mind for the complex flashback structure he spoke of later in his life. Mr. Arkadin was created from three episodes of the 1951-1952 radio program, The Lives of Harry Lime: Man of Mystery , Murder on the Rivera and Blackmail Is an Ugly Word. Arkadin is based mostly on the first of the three and centered on a character named Gregory Arkadian , primary characters and set-ups are taken from the other two episodes . Good cinematography in black and white by Jean Burgoin , as in Citizen Kane is plenty of oblique camera angles . Atmospheric and evocative musical score by Paul Misraki .

Mr. Arkadin also titled Confidential Report was well directed by Orson Welles , a genius who had a large and problematic career . In 1938 he produced "The Mercury Theatre on the Air", famous for its broadcast version of "The War of the Worlds" . His first film to be seen by the public was Ciudadano Kane (1941), a commercial failure , but regarded by many as the best film ever made , along with his following movie , The magnificent Ambersons . He subsequently directed Shakespeare adaptation such as Macbeth , Othelo and Chimes at Midnight or Falstaff . Many of his next films were commercial flops and he exiled himself to Europe in 1948. In 1956 he directed Touch of evil (1958); it failed in the U.S. but won a prize at the 1958 Brussels World's Fair. In 1975, in spite of all his box-office flops , he received the American Film Institute's Lifetime Achievement Award, and in 1984 the Directors Guild of America awarded him its highest honor, the D.W. Griffith Award. His reputation as a film maker has climbed steadily ever since.

You guys are great...so much interesting, smart stuff in all the comments. What can I add? Well, I saw it last night, and I was thinking about The Auteur Theory and Roland Barthes' thoughts about the one big book of which all books are a part. And, although I haven't seen Alphaville for years, I realized that the connections between these two films are important: the Mizraki score and the performance of Akim Tamiroff.Godard is such a great mannerist, and this film (Arkadin) is such a basic text for director - driven cinema. How can this film mean anything to anyone who doesn't understand the rage to create - against all odds, against one's self-destructive nature, against one's death wish? It is "breathless", truly. Scenes never give the impression of ending, everything is done in overdrive, people are constantly looming, dizzyingly moving in and out of shot; the grotesquerie of the bad acting rhymes with the grotesquerie of the costume set pieces and with that of the B movie Euro - freak character actors parading, one by one, in front of the camera for their star turns. "Feeding time" indeed! I saw Arkadin shortly after seeing Spielberg's Munich. The only similarity is in the constant change of location. But where in the Spielberg this functions as a celebration of money, budget and the power of illusion, here each location is both overcrowded and threadbare. The Munich of Arkadin is a bombed-out nightmare with traces of its former elegance. The Europe of this film is so haunted and sleepwalking; the world of this film is made up of bits and scraps.

The fact that Arkadin connects closely to Kane or Quinlan is obvious and certainly interesting. Although it should seem obvious at this late date that Welles has patterns and themes that reoccur throughout his films. Does this fact still illuminate anything? If anybody questions the fact that Welles is an artist...well, this film will just add to their confusion. But for us believers this film can function like the ritual suffering of the penitents in the film. It hurts so good!

Essentially, 'Mr. Arkadin' is Orson Welles' attempt in using cinema to elevate Pulp into Myth. Based on "a lot of bad radio scripts" (in Welles' words) written for the Harry Lime radio shows, one could also read it as a more personal attempt to free himself from the shackles of 'Citizen Kane' (with which it has numerous , although superficial, parallels) and be reborn as a Europeoan filmmaker. The fact that (again) Welles was restricted by budget and eventually dismissed from the editing room due to the commercial concerns of his producer Louis Dolivet does not diminish what is still a highly intriguing work. In fact, 'Mr. Arkadin' has become something of an enigma unto itself and the story of it's creation and subsequent undoing is as fascinating as the film itself.

For those interested in investigating further, The Criterion Collection have done a wonderful 3 disc edition which collates all the available edits (including two Spanish versions which are known, hilariously, by the unexplained mis-crediting of the lead actor!?) and working them into a 'final' version hinted at by Welles' notes and conversations with the ubiquitous Peter Bogdanovich (who also features in the documentary, unsurprisingly). This 'final' version, while far from perfect, restores the original flashback structure as well as the original beginning and ending sequences. On the first disc, however, is the 'Corinth' version (originally discovered by Bogdanovich) that already incorporates some of the author's original intentions. This particular edit also features a highly illuminating commentary track by Welles scholars Jonathan Rosenbaum and James Naremore who consider this version to be the most satisfying. Also included are three mp3's of the aforementioned Harry Lime radio plays that had a direct influence on the story, featurettes by Welles biographer and actor Simon Callow, and a highly welcome reprint of the Mr. Arkadin novel (or novelisation? - you decide) with an excellent newly commissioned introduction by Robert Polito. All in all, this set is a must for the Welles aficionado and should be of interest to anyone with a true appreciation of cinema.

Yes, compared to other Welles films, this one had been even more chopped up by his producers than "The Magnificent Ambersons" was. Yes, it's a hodge podge with quite a similar theme reminding the viewer of "Citizen Kane". It's also my favorite Orson Welles movie. Not the best, but my favorite.

There plenty of amazing acting and set pieces. Patricia Medina, Michael Redgrave, Akim Tamiroff, Mischa Auer, and especially Katina Paxinou all terrific. And beautiful Suzanne Flon, an obscure actress who also played a notable in John Huston's "Moulin Rogue" is seen here. There's plenty of typical, wonderful Welles directorial touches and set pieces.

Not to be missed.....Criteron really did a superb job piecing together the various version to create as close to Welles' own vision as was possible. Kudos to Peter Boganovich for his involvement.

Other than "Citizen Kane", most of Welles' films were botched up either by his own financial problems, Studio interference or just just plain weird bad luck. This new reconstruction puts "Mr. Arkadin", easily the most botched up of his films, on a level pegging and it's absolutely worth your time. (original review 2004, edited and updated 2008)

I'm a big fan of Orson Welles and have recently watched the new Criterion release of Mr Arkadin the Corinth version as well as the new Confidential Report and was somewhat disappointed. I had seen Arkadin on TCM (the old Confidential Report version) a few years ago and was equally disappointed. However, I just viewed the Comprehensive Version and I now have a greater appreciation for the film. The Comprehensive Version was created by using five know versions of the film and assembled with the guidance of several experts including Peter Bogdanovich. Welles vision does shine through but the film as it stands does have weaknesses.

I feel the film is weak in the following areas.

Sound: the entire soundtrack was re-recorded during post production with Welles himself doing the voices of many of the male characters and it is a constant distraction. Modern films are also re-recorded but they add room tone to prevent the sterile sound that plagues Arkadin.

Photography: The film has generally good photography but Welles use of weird angles distracts from the story rather than enhancing it. It is almost like another filmmaker is doing a parody of Welles. The footage of the airplane shown at the start of the film is covered by dirt on the lens on within the gate of the camera.

Production Design: Welles has very busy backgrounds shown in many scenes and with the use of deep focus causes a distraction rather than enhance the story. A better choice might have been to show the background at the beginning of a scene sequence and then have the actors appear in front of a more neutral background.

Makeup: Welles makeup is over the top and again is a distraction and lacks believability. The hairpiece, the beard and wedge shape nose are all too cartoonish. Welles also wore a fake nose in Touch of Evil but it worked well due to the quality of studio makeup artists.

Editing: There was many well lit shots that appear too briefly. One example, near the start of the film, at the docks where the lead character (Guy) is lined up with two other men. They are back-lit with their faces covered with shadows; Guy then walks backward into a beam of light which then exposes his face. But due to the erratic cutting, this shot is shown for only a brief second. This could have been caused by the editor who replaced Welles during post production.

The story itself is rather weak and it is often confusing. I didn't care much for the characters nor did I find them interesting. The film's ending was flat and didn't offer much closure to the open issues. The empty airplane shown at the start of the film does not generate enough curiosity for the viewer. Welles based the story on three Harry Lime radio shows (which are included on the new Criterion release discs). Nearly all of Welles other film scripts were based on adaptations of books. Welles seems to be an excellent screenplay writer and editor but perhaps a bit weak when it comes to content creation.

Acting: the actors who played Guy (Robert Arden) and Millie (Patricia Medina) were poorly cast for their parts. Both actors, Guy in particular, overacted most of the time and would be more at home in a B movie. But after watching a clip on Welles directing Arden, it seems that Welles is encouraging him to act in such a manner.

One of the most enjoyable bad movies ever made, this disaster has become something of a cause-celebre in the Welles canon by virtue of hardly ever being seen. It's like a Mad Magazine parody of "Citizen Kane" crossed with "The Third Man" as Robert Arden darts around the world trying to piece together the life of Welles' mysterious billionaire. On route he encounters a whole battalion of eccentrics and guest stars, some of whom (Michael Redgrave, Katina Paxinou, Akim Tamiroff, Suzanne Flon) prove to be highly entertaining while Welles himself, as Arkadian, hams it up ridiculously.

It's Arden's investigator that drags the film down. It's one of the cinema's truly terrible performances, though he isn't helped by the hopelessly banal dialogue. Of course, it looks terrific and almost any frame will tell you you're watching an Orson Welles movie and there are few directors of whom you can say that. Terrible it may be, but absolutely essential at the same time.

This is an insane movie. It's almost as if someone had taken Citizen Kane and the Mask of Demitrios shoved them in a blender then tried to make a coherent film out of the bits while under the influence of heavy medication.

And somehow it works - but only just.

If you haven't watched this film yet and are contemplating doing so I will warn you that Robert Arden's 100% subtlety free performance is incredibly bad and his character (Guy Van Stratten) has to carry the first part of the movie almost alone. Please just grit your teeth and put up with him (and the dodgy lip sync) for a bit, because what comes later is weird, deeply flawed, but bizarrely watchable semi-masterpiece. Dreamlike and occasionally very funny.

I would love to have seen Welles' version.

The music is perfect.

The endless comparisons between this film and Kane made in these reviews goes to show how little people see beyond the obvious "power corrupts" theme that runs through pretty much ALL Welles' films (even Magnificent Ambersons portends the changes the automobile will have on the world). Besides this theme, Kane was a drama about a man robbed of his mother and his childhood who spends his life trying to recapture both, by playing at newspaper tycoon and building his own pleasure palace and by trying to fill the void where motherly affection should have been with the affection of everyone in the world.

Mr Arkadin is a thriller about a man so afraid of losing his daughter's love and esteem he is willing to kill to maintain it. The story is pure genius: after an opening shot showing an empty aeroplane in mid-air, we flash back to a man found stabbed in the back. Hence Welles sets up two mysteries at once for us to think about. When the knifed man tells Arden's girlfriend two names that are worth a fortune, Van Stratten thinks to blackmail Mr Arkadin with this scant information. Arkadin calls his bluff, and instead confides in Van Stratten that back in 1927 he found himself in Prague wearing a suit with a lot of money in his pocket and no recollection of who he was or how he got there - total amnesia. He hires Van Stratten to find out who Mr Arkadin really is, and thus Van Stratten embarks on a voyage around Europe, trying to trace Arkadin's life back from 1927.

At each destination in Europe, Van Stratten finds Arkadin there too, so we learn that Arkadin has more on the mind than tracing his origins. And when the people Van Stratten interviews start dying, the suspense is shifted up another gear.

Were it not for the lame performance by Arden and the odd moment of awful dubbing, this flawed masterpiece may well have been held in as high esteem as Kane, Ambersons, Touch Of Evil and The Lady From Shanghai, rather than being relegated to Macbeth's 'interesting failure' status. Storytelling wise, this is Welles' at his best, and it's surreal, disturbing plot is more a meeting of The Lady From Shaghai and The Trial than Citizen Kane. Personally, I think this is a greater picture than Touch Of Evil's plain power-corrupts line and The Lady From Shaghai which depends on one high-concept set-piece after another.

American Guy Van Stratten (Robert Arden) smuggled cigarettes in Europe. He encounters murdered Bracco at the docks who whispers two valuable names to Mily. She revealed one name Gregory Arkadin (Orson Welles) to everybody while Guy is arrested for smuggling. He uses Arkadin's daughter Raina to get to her father. Mily says the second name is a woman's but she'd forgotten and later remembered as Sophie something. Guy tries to blackmail Arkadin. Arkadin hires him to recover his past prior to 1927 and claims to have amnesia.

I like the premise and I like the first half. Orson Welles is putting in all of his style into this movie. The story does take a lot of twists and turns. Honestly, I'm lost half of the time trying to figure out who's who in this movie. It's convoluted and confusing. The overall effect is a nightmarish tone in a Kafkaesque world.

One of my favorite people to read about and watch is Orson Welles. So I watched "Mr. Akadin," or "Confidential Report," as it is sometimes known, with great interest.

By 1955, Welles was a Hollywood outsider, the great years behind him. He made films on a shoestring and hired himself out to get money to complete them. The most heartbreaking part of one of his biographies is the story of Welles having dinner with Spielberg, hoping the dynamic director could help him get a distributor for his latest movie.

But Spielberg only wanted to talk about the past, about the legendary Orson Welles. No one would help him, not Warren Beatty, no one.

"Mr. Arkadin" is the story of a man, Guy Van Stratten, who runs around the world on the basis of a few words heard as a man is dying, words, the man assures him, that are worth millions. Just seek out Mr. Arkadin and mention Bracco and Sophie.

Van Stratten, a hood, and a woman, Mily, do just that, and Van Stratten meets and later falls in love with Arkadin's daughter (played by Welles' third wife, Paola Mori) and gets inside the man's home and life. Arkadin claims amnesia and hires Van Stratten to find out about his past for him.

This is a good story in a problematic film. There are the Welles touches of the odd camera angles and special lighting, but the film is disconcerting because the dubbing is way off - I at first thought it had been made in another language. Also, some of the acting is just horrible, particularly from Patricia Medina (Mily) and Robert Arden (Van Stratten).

However, Welles assembled a brilliant group of foreign character actors for the other roles - Akim Tamirof, Gert Frobe, Michael Redgrave, Mischa Auer, Katina Paxinou - incredible, and they probably did their roles as favors for Welles for very little.

Welles himself plays Arkadin, and it's a broad performance we're used to seeing when, frankly, he's phoning it in, which he did here as he was busy with everything else involved in the movie.

"Mr. Arkadin" looks like a student film, but it has some wonderful moments, both frightening and funny. A Welles film is always worth seeing even if it doesn't always exactly hit the mark. And he hit the mark so many times - you never know when something he did is going to turn into a masterpiece.

It certainly doesn't rank as one of Welles' masterpieces. It moves too quickly, and it was obviously made cheaply (and he doesn't use this to his benefit, as he would a decade later when he made Chimes at Midnight). The sound is really bad, as it is in a couple of Welles' other late films. The screenplay is rather choppy, and I had difficulty following it at times (perhaps due to the quality of the sound recording). It also, at times, feels like a Frankenstein picture - that is, themes and styles from Welles' other films seem balled together to make Mr. Arkadin. It is most often compared with Citizen Kane. Both are about men researching the life of a great man, Charles Foster Kane and Gregory Arkadin. However, I feel that this comparison is more incidental than important. Mr. Arkadin is of an entirely different genre. It is a thriller, and it reminded me much more of The Stranger and The Lady from Shanghai than Citizen Kane. The basic story is as follows: a small-time blackmailer named Guy Van Stratten (Robert Arden) is hired by the mysterious billionaire Gregory Arkadin to research his past. You see, Mr. Arkadin is an amnesiac. One morning, he woke up with a briefcase full of Swiss money. From there, he built an empire. Now he wants to find out who he was before that morning. Van Stratten flies all over the world following clues. What he discovers is that Arkadin's past is quite ugly. This part of the film reminds me of The Stranger. Van Stratten soon realizes that he's being played for a sucker by Arkadin, which is very reminiscent of The Lady from Shanghai. Mr. Arkadin is also Welles' first attempt at comedy (he'd play this angle in a more sophisticated way in The Trial and Chimes at Midnight). The characters who are interviewed by Van Stratten are such a wacky crew, Felliniesque, I would say. There are several exceptionally entertaining interviews, and a lot of crazy characters. The last is played by the great character actor Akim Tamiroff, who delivers one of his funniest performances. Stylistically, Mr. Arkadin reminds me of Welles' previous film, The Tragedy of Othello: The Moor of Venice. The editing is choppy and the dialogue spoken too quickly to register. In the end, the film just seems too rushed. It's a fun film, but I'm guessing that I won't remember any of it in a few hours. Perhaps it will seem better to me in the future. 8/10.

Confusing, eccentric, frenzied, playful, indulgent. Not much deep meaning, just Orson Welles using the film medium as his playfield. Fanciful camerawork and flamboyant cast. Not althogether successful, but far more modern than your typical mid-1950s Hollywood fare. **1/2 out of 4.

There is a story, but it gets soaked and drowned in a mess of subplots, diversions and detours involving an odd lot of characters all played by great actors, so it is very difficult to get head or tail out of this. Apparently Orson Welles himself was not at all finished with it, as he spoke about re-editing the whole thing to the end of his days. He is a billionaire with unlimited influence who has his one daughter to live for, but he has a problem, which is that he is uncertain of his own past. He is a most powerful and wealthy man who suffers from having no identity. So he hires this Robert Arden to make a full investigation and report of unveiling his past, but for each person that Arden encounters to tell something of Mr. Arkadin's story, that person gets murdered. Above all, Mr. Arkadin is extremely concerned about his daughter never learning anything about this investigation. But his daughter gets well acquainted with Arden, and in the end Arden gets back to her to tell her all about the investigation and his findings, and although he gets no time to tell her much, Mr. Arkadin feels everything is lost. We are left hanging in the black hole of the mystery of Mr. Arkadin's secret, which he made so exorbitantly much fuss about, so it all comes to almost nothing. It's a parallel to "Citizen Kane", a similar investigation is carried out there ending up in what only the audience is informed about, while here not even the audience gets to know anything. At least the music and the cinematography is excellent and worth watching.

While the version I saw of Mr. Arkadin may have been cut down by the studio or distributor, and while some of the dialog appeared dubbed or didn't match the lips the lines came out of, and while the print was spotty at times and over-exposed (the latter could've been Welles' fault with the lighting, I'm not sure), the version I saw was no less what I expected. Mr. Arkadin, one of the very few works by Welles that was not an adaptation (he also wrote a book version of it before-hand, a book I'd love to read to compare), is a mystery that made me feel as if I understood everything and nothing about the lead character by the time the film ended.

We are actually given two leads, to be exact, one is played by Welles himself as the rich, powerful, and sometimes terrifying Arkadin, as a man who may or may not have amnesia. Robert Ardin plays Guy Van Stratten, an "adventurer" who stumbles upon a dying man's last words (no, not rosebud, but the Kane connection is intriguing) as being Arkadin, and a woman. He doesn't find out the woman's name until a little later in the film (a girl he was with, Mily, an innocent), but does find out and meets Arkadin, and his bemused daughter Raina (Paola Mori, Welles' wife).

He gets drawn into Arkadin's past at Arkadin's request - to find out his life before finding himself with hundred of thousands in his jacket out of nowhere - and gets more than he could've bargained for with more than a few eccentrics and cretins. It's in these scenes that Welles shows off his skill at creating an ambiguous, sometimes philosophical, and always 'weirder-than-life' kind of tale that only he could pull off. For example, there is the brief character who owns a flea circus. It's a small role for this actor, but it's pulled off by not just his own skill at it, but also with the little details in extreme close-ups Welles reveals. A couple of the eccentrics were almost too much for me, which was one minor flaw, that they became a little too weird opposite Arden's interrogative, tense state in his performance (which turned out good, not great).

But in this film, with every one flaw comes two or three things that make the film special, and memorable, even when the words come out too quick to totally register (again, I'd want to read the book to see what I missed with some names and lines and such). In every Welles ensemble via his Mercury players, there are always stand-outs (some of the more notable have been Agnes Moorehead, Everett Sloane, and Joseph Cotten). This time, the two that stuck out for me were Akim Tamiroff (who was instantly recognizable after viewing Alphaville) as the mentally deranged, but sympathetic character Jakob Zouk, who becomes important mostly towards the third act, and Katina Paxinou as Sophie, who is one of the crucial pieces in the story. Her performance came out of nowhere for me, revealing how someone I've never heard of can surprise me, even when the usual stylistic flair from Welles is toned down for a little bit.

With Welles himself there is the ever enlightening kind of split, and connect, between him as the lead and as the director. As Mr. Arkadin he's practically humor-less, who dons an unforgettable beard and is seems to be always taller than those he stands with. It's a performance that's on par with his in Touch of Evil for delivering a creepy, strangely cool kind of persona one can only find in film-noirs. Even the accent is not a distraction. As a director, meanwhile, he doesn't spare the audience - even when things in the plot become a little confusing or (appropriately) ambiguous, I could never take my eyes off of where and how he, with Jean Bourgoin, would place the camera and move it around.

Early on in the film, when there's scenes outside of his castle in Spain, there's much a hustle and bustle in the mis-en-scene, from the simple (kids running through the streets, farm animals), to the haunting and foreboding (the hooded people walking through the streets at night, "atoning for sins" as someone observes). Then, as the film progresses, we're given odd scenes like on a boat that rocks back and forth (as does the camera, back and forward), to later scenes in cold, desolated city locations, or bits by the sea. While he proved in Citizen Kane that he was one of the (if not the) undisputed master(s) of the low-angle and deep focus, both are used almost to the maximum here, and it's not over-done either - he balances it out with his expressive, fantastical lighting (or lack there-of). Even if the story is a jumbled mess, or if some of the performances don't work, for a viewer then the visual aspect of the film is a wonder more often than not.

As for the story, and what we can learn from Mr. Gregory Arkadin (if that indeed is his name...), it was one of the most mysterious I've encountered in recent memory. And I did wish it was a little clearer at times. But then it might not have been as fun trying to figure out where Welles would take it. Whatever lags the film down doesn't do it to the extent that it makes the film average. It's the kind of film I think I might enjoy even more on repeat viewings, though I didn't find it to be a flat-out masterpiece right away.

Perhaps it is that underlying frustration with what's going on in the film that makes it one of Welles' lesser seen (and valued) efforts. It's not for everyone, or at least not in the kind of huge mass that adores Citizen Kane (some might see this and say, 'how did Orson fall so hard?'). But then it's kind of like a near-backward, post-WW2 version of Citizen Kane. If you give it a chance, just for the sake of being entertained by an intricate, character-driven (I think more than plot) mystery about uncovering a secret, it's worth a shot...great theme by Paul Misraki, by the way. A-

Were it not the work of Orson Welles, I probably would not have sought out this film. This is a bleak one with undesirable characters, both men and women, selfishly bouncing around in post war Europe. Welles plays Mr. Arkadin, a rich man with a nasty history. He is being approached by another, less than stellar man. Arkadin has a daughter whom he loves but whose relationship he has pretty much destroyed. The investigation into Arkadin's past (at his expense) is the bulk of the story, plus fruitless love for the daughter. The conclusion left me empty and exhausted. While visually the picture is impressive, the story is a real mess.

In this curious film, the ridiculous clashes with the sublime. Robert Arden and Patricia Medina turn in two of the worst, cheesiest performances imaginable. They're both straight out of a Saturday morning cartoon. He's all lock-jawed and hard-boiled; she vacillates between wide-eyed fawning and witch-like threats. The tedium they engender is very difficult to get past, because you can't even watch them as campy.

That's partly because their performances are just that bad, and partly because there is so much else in this movie that works well, or at least strives for excellence. There are a variety of striking images placed before us. Welles' eye for distinctive camera angles and atmospheric lighting was working overtime in this picture. You might quibble with some of his choices as being a tad too melodramatic, but you can't fault him for careful attention to detail. His performance is the usual Welles stuff--overpowering, and perhaps at times almost cartoonish like that of Arden and Medina. But make no mistake: when Welles was cartoonish, it was because he meant to be. Not because that was the only way he knew how to "act." Paolo Mori was also wonderful as as Arkadin's daughter. There were other great characters along the way. Their performances also clash noisily with the wooden hamming from Arden.

And, as others have mentioned, the sound is problematic. Clearly, the movie was overdubbed, and badly, after the fact. In fact, when I first started watching it, I was convinced that it was originally filmed in a foreign language. Nope--something went wrong during filming, it appears, or Welles for reasons of his own decided to re-do all of the sound in the studio after filming. The result is pretty bad. Whether a scene is in a small room, a piazza, an open field, or a vaulted cathedral, the result is the same. Background noise sounds just like that: artificial background noise. The voices sound like they were recorded in a very small, very dead studio. Amateurish and clumsy.

The result is a movie that is, at times, interesting to watch, but it's hard to forget its weaknesses, even for a moment.

One wonders how many times the stagehands had to wrangle a raging Welles off of Arden, prying his hands from the actor's neck, convincing him that murder is illegal, even for a cinematic giant, feeding him rum punch and peanuts, and telling Arden to go hide for fifteen minutes until the anger has passed.