IslandGuru Who payed the critics

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

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.

zaremskya-23761 Kurosawa, the master of cinema, provides a truly epic retelling of King Lear in "Samurai format". Kurosawa has a taste for Shakespeare, retelling much of his works in his films.The spectacle is overwhelming, with long, drawn-out battles with flowing, colorful flags and lots of blood. The battles rage a little too long for my liking, and take the story away. The film is very long and tends to drag, with some of the dialogue adding to the plodding pace.The story revolves around a warlord and his sons who vie for power, resulting in much bloodshed and strife. There is a jester who adds comic relief, and his wild antics are quite the bizarre contrast to the otherwise serious tone of the film.Kurosawa fans should watch this, but alone it is not the most impressive story, even as a retelling of Shakespeare. Lots of epic battles though.

Tweekums This film, Akira Kurosawa's version of 'King Lear' set in feudal Japan, tells the story of Lord Hidetora Ichimonji and his three sons Taro, Jiro and Saburo. The elderly lord gathers his family and talks about how he started off in a small castle but gradually defeated all his rivals and now controls the entire area from the largest caste. He finishes by saying that he had decided to retire; he states that Taro, his eldest son, is to inherit the absolute leadership and Jiro and Saburo will inherit the second and third castles respectively and must support Taro. Saburo, the youngest son, suggests that his father must be mad to stand down arguing it will only be a matter of time before Taro and Jiro turn on him. This leads to Saburo's banishment but it isn't long before his words start to be proved right; first Taro makes his father's position at the First Castle untenable then Jiro refuses his men access to the Second Castle forcing him to head to another castle. Here Taro and Jiro's forces attack; Taro is killed and Jiro takes his place as dominant warlord; Hidetora escapes with his fool but Jiro still wants him dead… anybody familiar with Shakespearian tragedies will know that there won't be a happy ending for any major character.As with his previous adaptions of Shakespeare plays director Akira Kurosawa does a brilliant job transferring the stories to Feudal Japan… their themes fit the era perfectly. It explores the idea of revenge as Lady Kaede, Taro's wife whose family was killed and lands taken by Hidetora, seeks to destroy the family from within. Likewise it shows the thirst for power as Taro then Jiro try to destroy their elderly father despite the fact that he has handed over all the real power. The battle scenes have an epic feel; especially when Hidetora is the sole survivor as the castle burns and arrows fly past him. Hidetora's subsequent descent into inevitable madness is shown as he travels through various places he destroyed on his rise to power. Overall I'd certainly recommend this; you don't have to be a fan of Shakespeare or familiar with Kurosawa's other films to enjoy this.These comments are based on watching the film in Japanese with English subtitles.

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.