The discovery of a contemporaneous negative review of Orson Welles’ masterpiece means that Paddington 2 has overtaken it on the infamous review aggregator.
For decades, the title Citizen Kane has been used interchangeably with the word ‘masterpiece’ to signify an artistic work that is unquestionably the best of its kind. But that’s no longer the case with the cinematic classic itself; Paddington 2 is the Citizen Kane of movies now, according to Rotten Tomatoes.
The upset reportedly occurred when a negative review of Kane published in the Chicago Tribune back in 1940 was unearthed, plunging its overall aggregated score down from 100% positive to a pedestrian 99%. Filed under the anonymous Mae Tinee byline, the withering critique concludes that the film is “bizarre enough to become a museum piece. But its sacrifice of simplicity to eccentricity robs it of distinction and general entertainment value.”
However, for those of us lucky enough to have seen Paddington 2, this news is not remotely surprising. Who could fail to be charmed by the polite young bear with a penchant for marmalade, who is armed with nothing more than a hard stare? It’s certainly a more heart-warming tale than the rise and fall of amoral newspaper tycoon Charles Foster Kane, of whom Paddington’s dear Aunt Lucy would certainly not have approved.
In fact, with news that Paddington 3 is in the works, why not use this as an opportunity to combine the two movies for a truly undisputed movie masterpiece? Just imagine:
A gothic mansion looms above the undergrowth in deepest darkest Peru. Inside the vaunted bedroom, a furry hand flops down lifeless, dropping a half-finished jar of marmalade on the floor. “If we’re kind and polite, the world will be right” is the last thing to be whispered from the bear’s dying lips…
But returning to the debate at hand; who cares about the combined weight of the most highly respected film critics’ opinions on this subject when we could consult the readers of Recombu? Let us know your preferred pick in the poll below: