Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Onlinewsma Absolutely Brilliant!

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Anssi Vartiainen Akira Kurosawa returns to Shakespeare in this loose adaptation of King Lear that also incorporates elements from the legends of the daimyō Mōri Motonari. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that those two sources are eerily similar. An aging warlord (Tatsuya Nakadai) that has decided to retire and hand over the three great castles he has conquered during his bloody reign to his three sons, with the oldest named his successor and the head of the great house. But almost immediately the sons begin arguing among one another and soon the warlord finds himself dethroned and wandering the battlefields of the war his sons are waging.Quite like with his previous Shakespeare adaptation, Throne of Blood, Kurosawa delves deep into man's corruptibility and the taint of power in this film. Many of his films are at least somewhat heroic in nature and tone. Whereas the protagonist of this film, the warlord, is anything but. We learn throughout the course of the film that his life is a long tale of conquest, beaten down enemies, blood, fire and destruction. Yet Kurosawa achieves the very hard task of making him sympathetic despite all that. He obviously loves his sons and his anguish at seeing his life's work torn down in a matter of days is real and jarring.Perhaps it could even be said that his character is reflected in his sons. There's the oldest, the one with the power, pride and possessions, but who is brought low by those closest to him and stands on feet of clay. There's the schemer, the one willing to commit atrocities to get what he wants. And there's the youngest, who's the most driven by the love he has for his family, but who's also the one with the most difficulties in surviving the war-torn realm they live in.The film is also massive in scope, budget and length. Its themes are deep, its running time is closer to three hours and its story is a humongous five act monstrosity. It was also the most expensive Japanese film ever made back then and the money is definitely on the screen. Hundreds of soldiers at once on display, all of them decked in armour. Entire castles built and then destroyed. Lavish costumes, ruins and locations. I don't think I've seen a movie with this much handcraft on the screen since The Lord of the Rings trilogy. And this predates those films by almost two decades.Yet the film is always gripping, always interesting and endlessly fascinating. It's called one of Kurosawa's finest, and yeah, I can see why.

classicsoncall I find myself in the same quandary with Akira Kurosawa's movies as I do with Hitchcock. I find some of them great and others just so-so, even if they're heralded by the professional critics. Having just watched Yimou Zhang's "Curse of the Golden Flower", I was pretty well conditioned for another film about Orientals in a dysfunctional family attempting to take each other out. The disconnect I have here is why all of a sudden the three brothers would have turned on each other without their father, Lord Hidetora Ichimonji (Tatsuya Nakadai), having an inkling that they were so mercenary and self serving. I'm also put off by the histrionics and aping aspect of some of the principals. As an example, the facial contortions of Hidetora reminded me of John Belushi doing his eye squints as the Samurai character on 'Saturday Night Live'. Somehow it takes away from the seriousness of the character, as when Hidetora jumps off the cliff and winds up none the worse for wear in the valley below.Maybe it's just the frame of mind I was in when I watched this film. I didn't have a total appreciation of "The Seven Samurai" until a second viewing, so that might be the case here as well. But with so many movies and so little time, it will probably be a while before I get back to this one.

theveneficus The German artist Caspar David Friedrich once said that "The painter should paint not only what he has in front of him, but also what he sees inside himself." That is exactly what Director Akira Kurosawa has done with Ran. The story of a 70 year old warlord in feudal Japan who hastily decided's to split his thrown into three and leave it to his sons. Kurosawa was 76 when he directed this film, and shares many similarities with the central character Hidetora. The eldest Taro receives the first castle and becomes leader of the Ichimonji clan. The other sons Jiro, and Saburo are given castle's two and three. As I'm sure you can imagine things start to rapidly go downhill as Taro and Jiro's motives are soon shown crystal clear. Their greed is ultimately what led to chaos sinking its blooded teeth into the land. And soon Saburo who is cast out by his father raises an army in the hopes of securing peace across Japan. One excellent thing I noticed in this film is the subtle foreshadowing implemented into many scenes. There's an early scene where Saburo (who I initially thought would be the bad egg) insults two of Hidetora's subjects. After he's embarrassed his family the brothers get up and leave, but not before Saburo cuts down some bushes and uses them as shade for his sleeping father. That tiny detail cements his love and respect for Hidetora. The central theme to this film is 'chaos'. The word Ran even means chaos. And there's lots of intelligent scenes which foreshadow the oncoming mayhem. Such as short cuts of clouds ever growing larger until they've become uncontrollable storms. I really cannot say enough good things about this film. But this review has stretched on, so I'll leave it with this. Ran, is without a doubt the best Shakespeare adaptation ever put to screen, and in my personal opinion the greatest Kurosawa film there is.

MissSimonetta It is not uncommon for an artist's output to wane a little in age. Not so with Akira Kurosawa. Even in his late period, his work continued to be inspired and masterful. Ran (1985) is the most regarded of these late works, a ravishingly beautiful and yet bleak adaptation of Shakespeare's King Lear.The Noh-influenced performances and choice to transpose Willy Shakes to 16th century Japan recall Kurosawa's earlier Throne of Blood (1958), which told the story of Macbeth; however, this film is far more downbeat. In Throne of Blood, the tyrant-protagonist is taken down by the people. Though the cycle of violence will go on as long as greed and ambition live within mankind, there is hope that they will always be taken down. But here? Ran is so much more tragic in its view of people and the human condition.As Renoir once said, everyone has their reasons. Here, there really aren't any white or black hats. The treacherous Lady Kaede is a victim of Lord Hideotara, who had killed her entire family. The tragic Hideotora has killed many innocents in his quest for power, yet we still pity his fate and ultimate inability to live peacefully with his sons in his advanced years.From the boar hunt in the beginning to the film's haunting closing image of the blind man on the edge of a cliff, Ran is a nearly three hour movie that doesn't feel its length for a moment. It is perhaps Kurosawa's final bonafide masterpiece, but that is arguable. It's much harder to argue this one is anything less than great.