>Even in it's present form I thought it was better than
>"decent". Going into to it I questioned if it would live up
>its lofty reputation, and my expectations were sort of
>dominating my mind for the first 20 minutes or so.

My favorite part is those first 20 minutes. Talk about confidence and assuredness, he goes through about 25 years of history in 10 minutes or so. Welles can direct.

Certain parts had me positively riveted - the dinner
>table outburst of George telling Eugene how he felt about him
>(and automobiles) was exceptional. (Joe Cotton killed.)

Any and everything about automobiles is great, and it was the element which I thought worked best in the book as well. Joe Cotton did kill it, but everybody kills it in Welles movies.

At that age, to
>have a technical mastery that impressive (as well as an
>incredible level of insight into the human psyche - and the
>knowledge of how to convey it through film) is mind blowing to
>me.

I think his insight for "Ambersons" is mostly from the book. However, I do agree that his knowledge of how to convey that through film is phenomenal. How was this guy so fucking good?

>
>I'm checking out the other titles you mentioned soon, as well
>as The Lady from Shanghai.

The Lady from Shanghai is good and has one absolutely breathtaking sequence, but it suffers in my mind for the same reason MacBeth does: Welles should not do accents.

I do hope you enjoy your time with him though, even when he is imperfect (and trust me, his later work is chopped and refiltered plenty) he still presents a lot of stuff that has stuck with me for years. Few people have understood the purpose AND artistry of film at the same time so strongly as Welles.