There's a certain amount of snobbery going on with some who watch Citizen Kane because they think they have to appreciate it and treat it too reverently (thereby sucking the fun out of it).
I happened to catch it on late night TV in the early 60's and wasn't aware of the accolades the film had garnered. Because I had no preconceived notions, I just enjoyed it for the sheer entertainment value and the fact that it spins a heck of good yarn. Now that I know how great Kane is, when I watch it, I don't let its stellar reputation get in the way. It's just a fine film, with first-rate acting and, as you alluded to, the storyline is compelling.
I think now that the opposite is true. There are lots of young viewers who have little respect for old films. Now you often hear "I don't see what''s so great about Citizen Kane".
An interesting point. It tends to weirdly grate on me the way some old movie ‘classics’ are basically sold in a snooty, pretentious manner to their audiences nowadays, like they are solely to broaden your cultural horizons. Rathery PBS-y. It’s such a turn-off. I just miss when late-shows presented a wild mix of A-films, B-films, good ones, bad ones, and nothing but relaxing entertainment was the name of the game. You could go from “Citizen Kane” one night, to “Ma and Pa Kettle at the Fair” the next! Loved it.
I enjoy other Welles movies more--Touch of Evil, The Trial, Macbeth--partly because I`ve seen Kane over and over. One unfortunate thing is that Kane is usually spoken of as Welles`s triumph, but it is actually a triumph of the studio system--Welles used RKO`s technical staff and art directors etc. to bring Mankiewicz`s and his script to life; the actors, Bernard Herrmann`s score, RKO staffer Robert Wise`s editing, the sound... For all the talk of Welles as a maverick, his films after it were flawed in many ways because he no longer had a studio`s resources to work with.