User Reviews (351)

Add a Review

  • The 'Kurosawa' adaptation of King Lear in his film 'Ran' is a tremendous memorable film.

    It is a very dramatic film with many soliloquies and dialogue, but if you are patient with it, you are treated to some of the most epic scenes of cinematic brilliance that Kurosawa made. After all it is Shakespeare and one must be patient with it if they are not a fan of the old school theatre.

    Colourfull clashing armies, The lord awaiting his fate in a burning castle, a brilliant execution scene (I consider the BEST I have ever seen film ever), and the blind being left in the hands of Buddha?

    While Seven Samurai will always be his perfection, Ran is more than an enjoyable movie that should be seen. Just stick with it and you'll never forget it.

    Rating 9 out of 10.
  • I am not certain, but I think Ran was Akira Kurosawa's last big feature. Visually, It might be his most distinctive. Being in color opens a lot of doors to cinematography, and makes it easier to see how much artistic creativity went into the sets and costumes. There is something else distinctive about Ran. It is his slowest picture. You need extreme patience to make it through this very long movie, and you also need to understand the context of the story.

    Ran is Kurosawa's retelling of Shakespeare's King Lear, which many scholars say is his most difficult tragedy. The premise is identical, revolving around an old monarch who is ruined by the corruption of his sons, after he gives them power and authority. (In King Lear, they were daughters, not sons, of course.)

    Ran starts and ends strongly, but the problem comes down to a huge, plodding middle section. This part of the film will really test your attention span. Kurosawa deliberately makes sure that nothing happens, because he wants to evoke one single emotion...isolation. He places his principal character (and a couple of others) in the middle of nowhere, with no story progression, music, or major dialog. There are perhaps one (or even two) too many similarly grim scenes.

    The battles scenes are the biggest in Kurosawa's forty year body of work. Not only do they feature swords and spears but guns, cannons, and a cast of thousands. The interesting thing about those scenes is that Kurosawa, doesn't intend them to be rousing or exciting. Instead, there is a strange emotional feeling generated. The most memorable part of Ran is the very last sequence, which is visually brilliant and really disturbing. He makes a metaphor about the frailty of humanity by showing a blind man in a very particular place.

    Ran will leave you thinking long and hard. I have not seen a film like it and I don't think I ever will. It is not my favorite Kurosawa, but it is very much worth watching.
  • Akira Kurosawa's 1985, Ran, is based one of Shakespeare's greatest works, King's Lear. The Film proudly stands along with his other classic such as Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Roshomon, Sanjuro and the Hidden Fortress. He is a master in the art of filmmaking, no one can film an epic battle scene quite like Kurosawa. This is recognized as the most expensive film ever made by Akira Kurosawa, it was at that time, Japan's most expensive film ever. Being at the age of 75, he still showed us, he's one of the best in the business.

    This movie is about an aging lord, head of the Ichimonji family, decides to retire and to pass the power to Taro, the eldest of his three sons. He will however have to banish Saburo, the youngest one, who dared to speak the truth to him. Soon, the former lord is chased away from the castles of his sons and becomes mad when he understands that one of his sons is trying to kill him. The three brothers are fighting for control of the Kingdom, as their lust for power grows every day. Four armies are facing each other on the prairie. Lord Ichimonji's former peaceful kingdom is nothing but a distant memory.

    Akira Kurosawa redefines what an epic film is, with astonishing story telling, entirely believable characters and real life battle scenes without the use of Special effects/CGI. He retells the story of King Lear in his own way and no one would recognize that it was actually a adaptation beforehand. But just like Shakespeare, there is humor, irony, death and not a happy ending. Everyone who played a part in the production of this film, deserves some kind of recognition. The acting is pretty much excellent and certainly believable.

    10/10 Kurosawa is a Genius
  • I would agree with Ebert's review on a point, that Akira Kurosawa, legendary director of such samurai classics as Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Hidden Fortress, and Kagemusha, as well as human dramas like Rashomon, The Lower Depths, and Red Beard, could really best direct this film in his old age. There's something about his version of the doomed King Lear of Shakespeare, his Lord Hidetora Ichimonji that could be truly captured by someone in old age. Not to say that directors can't make great films when they're young, or in middle age, about a man in the dark days of the golden years (About Schmidt, Tokyo Story, Bob Le Flambeur, and Kurosawa's own Ikiru come to mind). But it's clear that Kurosawa must've seen or felt or understood at least an element of Hidetora's character, something that goes beyond tragedy that is stuck with all who are mortal.

    At one point when Hidetora is in a wandering, dazed state he says "I am lost", to which his companion/caretaker Kyoami responds "Such is the human condition." Was Kurosawa lost as an artist and filmmaker as he tried to get his epic (which at the time of it's filming was the most expensive Japan had seen, and got some extra backing from outside European backers) off the page and onto celluloid? Hard to say, but the end result displays that even in his later days he could create a work so wonderful, so sad, so brutal, and so human that it will remain timeless. If Kurosawa deserves praise for look of the film, the pacing, the editing, every single painstakingly storyboarded (painted) shot, and his direction with the two battle sequences as well as with the quieter, more compelling scenes with the actors, the man who plays Hidetora deserves some as well (like any production of King Lear, including Godard's wild treatise with Burgess Meredith in the lead role, the actor is as important as the writer). Tatsuya Nakadai, who had roles in past Kurosawa films as a young man in Yojimbo (the gunslinger) and Sanjuro (the opponent), is awe-inspiring.

    Early in the film, after a mind-shattering dream, his character decides to split up his kingdom unto his three sons (Jiro, Saburo, and getting the first castle and all control, Taro), he still feels in control, and has the look of a Lord with just the right level of stubbornness and, unfortunately, naivety. Then, as everything he owns crumbles before him, there is one scene that struck me as remarkable, and then for the rest of the film I couldn't take my eyes off of Nakadai whenever he was on screen. It involves the first battle sequence, in which one of his son's comes to take over a castle, and killing all of Hidetora's men. Look at Nakadai in the scene where he's sitting down stone-faced amid the chaos going on outside, and then as he somehow manages to walk out, the fellow soldiers making way for him. He then sees one of his sons, the betrayer, and he doesn't say a word- he's already decided that his son Taro has gone too far with his position, as he rules over his domain and scares the peasants right out of the picture- and he simply walks away, as his family continues to crumble under corruption of the mind and heart.

    It's a sequence like that though, where the great Lord makes such a radical change, where Kurosawa and Nakadai have some of their greatest time ever on a screen. As the filmmaker treats the battle, up to a point, like a feudal-Japanese version of a Eisenstein battle (no talk, no sound effects, just the eerie, sorrowful score here applied by Toru Takemitsu) with devastation and visceral nature taken to a poetic, thoughtful level, the actor's eyes and body language are, well, indescribable almost. And if Nakadai gives the finest male performance of the film, credit is equally due to the pivotal female character, Lady Kaede (Mieko Harada), who is like a Lady Macbeth taken to the next level. This is a character that's seen Lord Ichimonji destroy his castle when she was young, and now that she has her son(s) right in the palm of her hand, she'll have her revenge in guise of ego-feeding.

    I may not be able to recommend Ran on one level, despite it being on the painter's equivalent of a splendorous, seething portrait of royalty. Kurosawa takes his time telling the story, and to some it might even feel longer than his epic Seven Samurai. This is a work heavy on emotional nuance, on how the characters (in particular Hidetora) look unto their surroundings, how the presence of destruction and war and slayings are traumatic as opposed to being 'cool' in a stylistic way. If you're looking for a slam-bang action thriller look, elsewhere. But if you're looking for a mature film about life, death, loss, and the bonds that are kept within families, the mind, and how we accept and give forgiveness (a blind character named Lord Tsurumaru is stunning from a certain point of view), this is it. As well for the Shakespeare fan it's an absolute must-see, and it may even turn some onto Shakespeare's classic due to the fact that this film, much like Throne of Blood, contains none of the language style used in the source.
  • Throughout his career Kurosawa strove to achieve what he called "real cinema", proclaiming that "in all [his] films, there's [only] three or four minutes" of such quality. Many would argue that he was his greatest critic. For if not in "Seven Samurai", then definitely in "Ikiru" and if not in "High and Low", then definitely in "Rashomon" he must have achieved this plateau of greatness. Well, if not in any of his other films, then definitely in "Ran" Kurosawa finally came to the apex of cinematic artistry. With the both lyrical and grandiose tone of its craft, its beautifully spare imagery, its haunting score by Toru Takemitsu, and its lead Tatsuya Nakadai's masterful understated performance, "Ran" is perhaps the most fully realized epic ever made.

    The tale, which is an adaptation of Shakespeare's "King Lear", begins as Lord Hidetora Ichimonji and his court are out hunting. During a break in the hunt, Hidetora proclaims his adbication from the hight seat of the Great Lord and bestows his lands unto his three sons, dividing them up equally. He declares his oldest to be his successor in power. When his youngest son and one of his faithful nobles, express their concerns on this idea, Hidetora foolishly banishes them both, mistaking their advice as insolence. With this opening scene, the peaces are aligned and soon 'chaos' as the film is aptly named will break out throughout the land. From here, we see the downfall of Hidetora and all those who surround him. The film retains all the themes of the original play, but also thanks to Kurosawa's own input addresses a slew of even more varied ideas. Like Shakespeare, Kurosawa is greatly interested in the responsibility of the leader and the hypocrisies and ironies of an autocratic system. The most obvious though not the central theme in the whole film is war, and Kurosawa explores this theme to its full extent throughout the film. In perhaps the most grandiose battle scene every filmed, he demonstrates the destructive consequences and the paradoxical beauty of conflict.

    Here, Kurosawa implements the camera with masterful skill not once employing the editing/photography tricks and gimmicks so often seen in films (even the good ones) today. This director has an awareness of the past and the history of film, but also the creative spontaneity of a true genius. In "Ran", he focuses on the more methodically simple yet artistically complex montage of Eisenstein, and on the strict compositions of Ozu. He employs the most basic and yet most artistic of techniques. Each shot is planned to precision, and each cut is made for a purpose. The coreagraphy and blocking of each scene is simple and powerful, and Kurosawa allows the actors to play out these scenes without the intrusion of the camera or the editor. Thus, the director prevents the style from eclipsing the already powerful material he has to work with. Simply put, "Ran" is a masterpiece that flows and develops like an opera, from its forebodingly peaceful ouverture to its bloody Shakespearean heart until its final, quietly subdued, and sorrowful denouement.
  • Based on Shakespeare's King Lear, this film follows the story of the aging warlord Hidetora who, in an attempt to restore peace, divides his kingdom between his three sons - Taro, Jiro, and Saburo - and retires from his duties. However, one of his sons sees this as unwise and is banished by his father, leaving his two brothers in charge of two of the three castles left in their hands. It isn't long before they are overtaken by greed and eventually betray their father, leaving him in the hands of a philosophical jester and a loyal retainer. This betrayal ultimately leads to war, dividing the family and driving Hidetora insane.

    The remarkable script, which contains many of my favorite lines from any film, still manages to break its way through the confinement of subtitles and reveals itself to be one of the richest Kurosawa ever wrote. He has obviously worked equally hard on the look and feel of the film - the cinematography being excellent (example: the long, continuous shot of Saburo's men charging on horseback across a river).

    There's also something rather frightening about it that I can't quite put my finger on. The first battle, which is the film's turning point, is the most horrifying, yet strangely beautiful, battles ever filmed. A good effect used is the loss of sound, with only Toru Takemitsu's haunting score to be heard. The entire battle lasts less than ten minutes and there is no uplifting or bombastic music to be heard, but in my opinion, it's Ran's finest scene, and thus the finest scene ever.

    What Kurosawa managed to get rather than give though was excellent performances from his actors, none more brilliant than Tatsuya Nakadai's Hidetora, Mieko Harada as Lady Kaede (a woman similar to Lady Macbeth but with a different hidden agenda), and the strangely-named Peter as Kyoami.
  • 'Ran' is the Japanese word for chaos, riot, dissension. Akira Kurosawa's masterpiece is indeed a feast of destruction and perdition, charged with symbols and powerful in pictures like it is found very rarely in today's cinema.

    The dusky story is based on Shakespeare's 'King Lear'. In the film a Japanese warlord celebrates his own downfall. Kurosawa devised this with a radical film language which works with certain imageries of colors, rapid cut sequences and a sophisticated sound design. When the colorful flags of the different armies get intermixed in a battle, when the peacefully quiet wind (which carries the soundtrack) swells to a raving storm or when long wide shots suddenly segue into shots of details that follow hot on each other's heels then you realize Kurosawa's incredible style which deeply influenced the cinema worldwide.

    The drawings of the characters are equally terrific. Hidetora's jester is for a certain reason always at the side of the warlord. Their relationship alters as the film continues: Jester and warlord change their roles which makes it hard to distinguish both. Just as the sky turns from blue to grey with dark clouds, the violent past of Hidetora is catching up the aging lord. His trail of murder and predation is not forgotten, the brutally conquered land still carries the old scarves of war and exploitation which now burst out again.

    The viewer can take this monumental work as a warning to the destructive power of war, which is even decades later at present and beset those who seed the violence.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Ran is probably cinema's greatest rendition of a Shakespearean Epic, ironically coming from an oriental film-maker. Adapted by Kurosawa from Shakespeare's King Lear, Ran undoubtedly features amongst the best works of the master auteur. It captures with sheer vividness and surreal resplendence, the true essence of human struggle for survival, highlighting the cruelties associated with life. Ran is strictly indicative of the sole consistency of life i.e. Change, an attribute that not only makes the humans vulnerable but also gives them the hope to rise after a fall.

    The story focuses on a senile warlord, who owing to his senescence is rapidly losing his strength and his ferocious grandeur that he had earned through years of relentless savagery and ruthless slaughter, ergo he renounces to his three sons, hoping them to establish a sort of a triumvirate with the eldest son having a slight edge. His two elder sons accept the proposal with rapturous glee, but his youngest son seems bemused and questions the wits of the patriarch for taking the untimely decision. Though arrantly annoyed by his son's audacious defiance, he tries to console him, only to find him inconsolable. Deeply hurt by his son's impertinence and censure, he reluctantly banishes him and enthrones the two elder sons. The rest is rather worth a watch than a read, for there is nothing that can better the sumptuous elegance of Ran.

    The brilliantly captured scenes are breathtaking to say the least, especially the war scene that depicts fate casting the final blow to the ruthless reign of the warlord. The brutality and the bloodshed depicted in the very scene can make even a cold-blooded appear jittery. Ran portrays the poetic justice in such a relentless and abominable fashion that one can't help but sympathize with the narcissistic warlord, who spent his life arrogating and annihilating the innocent souls. The plaintive score gives the movie a much desired tone, a mood that not only supports its melancholic backdrop, but also immensely adds to its poignant beauty. The final scene featuring the blind boy, deeply clutched by his haplessness and gross solitude, though doesn't feature an utterance of even a single syllable, the playback of the mystical flute makes the scene haunting as well as mesmerising and worth a thousand words. Ran is a classic example of Kurosawa's brilliance and perhaps a consummation of his apotheosis.

    A must watch for eclectic viewers and admirers of pristine cinema. Highly recommended: 10/10.
  • Thankee kindly.

    Kurosawa, while a great director, isn't somebody whose films I blindly endorse.

    However, Ran takes the cake. It easily makes my personal top five films any time I think about it.

    The imagery is absolutely stunning, and the dialogue is quite clever. The battle scenes are suitably horrific, and the humor (and yes, there is humor) is subtle enough not to get in the way.

    All told, one of the greatest films it's been my privilege to see. I watched it to get the nightmare that was Cold Mountain out of my head, as proof that long movies can actually be epic, as opposed to boring, trite, and predictable.
  • The Movie certainly has its qualities: carefully built characters, impressive costumes and scenery and an apparent skill in storytelling, at least in some places: the bigger hollywood productions of these days could probably learn tons here.

    That being said I don't think it's a great movie. It's hard to follow at some points, especially at the battle scene and in its more experimental sequences. Here, heavy with meaning symbols are extensively presented, which not only makes the plot appear very drawn out but also hard to grasp: they are so abstract at times that picking up on them is rather unlikely, unless you have a profound literary background knowledge and a trained eye of course. The strong influence of classical theatre is also only a plus for the more educated: for instance characters proclaiming their thoughts and feelings is a necissity on stage, but in film this feels kind of out of place. The same goes for the demonstrative use of the names of the scene of events: it's obviously a legitimate means of conveying critical information and also meaning in a script of a play, but film offers so many more and much more effective options than that. Also: Why is "going insane" such a must-have plot item in a classical drama?

    All in all it's a movie that definitely will have its place in the collections of enthusiasts, but to everyone else it might just be too tough to chew. If you're not into Shakespeare or theatre in general, this movie probably isn't too enjoyable for you.
  • rbverhoef13 April 2003
    One of the last great films directed by Akira Kurosawa. A father gives his land and his power to his three sons. They turn against each other and against their father.

    Based on Shakespeare's King Lear 'Ran' is a very good film. It was very expensive and you can see that. Over ten years Kurosawa was busy on this project and in 1985 it was finally there. Very well made, with beautiful costumes, music and cinematography, a great direction and some good performances. Although I think Kurosawa has done better ('Rashomon', 'Ikiru', 'Yojimbo' and of course 'Shichinin no Samurai') 'Ran' definitely belongs to his best.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The flaws of this film are numerous; the cinematography seems intentionally primitive, with lots of static wide shots and zero, I mean ZERO closeups in the entire film. It really feels like a stage play on film, with lots of overacting and melodrama.

    The lead character of Hideotora goes mad about halfway through the film and then there are endless scenes of him being wide-eyed and crazy, and it gets old fast.

    The battle scenes are a huge swing and a miss, endless shots of horses and men running around aimlessly, followed by endless shots of them getting mowed down by gunfire. It gets old fast. And the rate of fire of those guns simply is not accurate to the times.

    In short, if you want to get into Kurosawa, watch his black and white classics, Rashomon, Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood...not this, which, IMO, is a sad endnote to a great director's career.
  • Realizing that it is practically heresy in the film world to criticize a Kurosawa film, much less downright dislike it, I'd like to precede my review by saying that I have absolutely loved every Kurosawa film I've seen – until now. "Ran", Kurosawa's 1985 film based somewhat on Shakespeare's "King Lear" is the story of an elderly emperor who hands down his kingdom to the oldest of his three sons. While the oldest and middle son fan over each other, saying that they are not deserving, etc. it is the youngest who speaks his mind about the subject, incurring the wrath of his father and ultimately, banishment from the area. Meanwhile, the two older sons are making a mess of things with the kingdom, leading to wars, fratricide and the dismissal of their father, even attempting his murder. None of their motives are noble or honorable, only avarice and power motivate them, leading to tragedy for all.

    Going into this, I knew that this was not going to be a light story by any means. For anyone who has read or is familiar with Lear, it is a story that is pretty much slogged through, though it is wonderfully told. "Ran" can pretty much be described the same way. While I certainly appreciated the good acting, the unbelievable costumes and the set design as a whole, I found myself unable to become engaged in the story. The pacing was extremely slow, certainly not an easy thing to deal with during a film that lasts about 2 hours and 40 minutes. Unfortunately, for myself at least, it is the pacing, visuals and story that can really make a foreign film a success for me, and I found that "Ran" only had one compelling element out of the three, which managed to save it from being an absolute dud, but not enough to make it as awesome as Kurosawa's other films are. (And in using the word awesome, I really mean the word "awe") Because of the costumes, at times arresting imagery, and the ultimate fate of Lady Kaede (which bumped up the film by an entire point for me because of its bluntness) I'm not completely panning the film. While I feel the film was a bit disappointing, I'm more disappointed in myself for not being able to like it as much as I would have wanted, since it has had such amazing reviews. But since you can't like them all, "Ran" gets a 5/10 from me.

    --Shelly
  • With RAN (1985) Akira Kurosawa seems to be setting up a macarbe trap. The first section of the film is slow, following an aging warlord (Tatsuya Nakadai's best acting in a long wonderous career.) dividing his castles amongst his unsavory sons. The action is slow, people talk in low tones, it's almost at snail's pace. But then, a battle scene like nothing you ever seen before explodes on the screen. The film takes a 180 degree turn and becomes more and more sinister, more compelling. You can't look away.

    Akira Kurosawa (1910-1997) was responsible for elevating Japanese cinema to a front-runner in world cinema. Two of his films, RASHOMON and SEVEN SAMURAI were made in less than ten years after World War II. These films put a spotlight on Japanese culture. Some of his later films, THE HIDDEN FORTRESS, THE BAD SLEEP WELL, YOJIMBO and HIGH AND LOW became the basis for a good percentage of the major American films produced after 1960.

    If you sit down to see RAN, be prepared for a jaw-dropping experience.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    In another lengthy samurai epic, Akira Kurosawa approaches the boundaries between family members and the damaging affects of one of his rather common themes - reckless ambition. This is very clearly a Kurosawa film, a respectable trait that is most clear in the cinematography, in which Kurosawa uses many extensive shots with little to no camera movement, as well as the common natural setting, characterized by the far-reaching landscapes of sweeping hillsides.

    Ran has a fascinating plot about an aging King who considers passing on his empire to his three sons. Lord Hidetora is well into his 70s (maybe Kurosawa saw part of himself in this character?), and he addresses the fact that he cannot go on ruling forever, despite the fact that he fought for his empire for over 50 years. His youngest son disagrees with his proposition of passing on leadership yet maintaining much of his control, yet Hidetora nonetheless divides his kingdom into three parts to his sons, hoping that they will remain allies. As an incentive, he demonstrates with arrows that a single one can be broken easily, but three arrows together cannot be broken as easily. The three sons, Taro, Jiro, and Saburo do not agree with Hidetora's philosophy and, as new leaders of their respective portions of Lord Hidetora's kingdom, they soon begin to fight each other for full leadership. Hidetora is attacked by his own sons and cast out of the kingdom, left to wander hopelessly from castle to castle with no one but his goofy jester at his side, who stays with the Lord entirely out of duty to him. One of Hidetora's three sons eventually returns and tries to patch up their damaged relationship, but before they can do that, he gets killed and Hidetora is left alone again, and the empire that he worked for during most of his life is left in ruins.

    As is also common in Kurosawa's films, there are a lot of interesting and significant characters in the film that play a substantial role in the story. When we first meet Lady Kaede, the woman who was married to Taro but then forced her way into marriage with his younger brother Jiro (the new Lord) upon Taro's death, she is holding a knife to Lord Jiro, threatening him with blackmail if he does not accept her as his wife. The first thing that makes her interesting is that her objective in marrying Jiro is to ensure herself a comfortable life, and so she can avoid fading into obscurity as the widow of a past Lord. Her blackmail threat has a lot of damaging potential for Jiro, and he accepts her as his wife. From the very start of her role in the film, her ultimate goal was to bring about the downfall of the kingdom in order to avenge her family who had been killed when Lord Hidetora was in power. This is not expected or even hinted at previously in the film, and it gives her character much more depth.

    There is some great irony in Ran that occurs after Lord Hidetora is banished and is left wandering the endless plains. He and his jester come across a run-down wooden shack at the foot of a hillside, and they approach it, asking for help and shelter. The occupant, after explaining that his home is too poor to offer any shelter, turns out to be a man who, as a boy, had had his eyes gouged out under the orders of Lord Hidetora in exchange for sparing his life. Once the jester and Hidetora are inside, the man explains that he will offer hospitality in the only way that Hidetora left him able, he will play them music on his flute. In this scene, Hidetora is confronted with the terrible suffering which he once imposed, and it is horribly ironic that he is forced to take shelter from someone that he once devastatingly mutilated without a second thought.

    In Ran, as was also the case in Kagemusha, which is a very similar film in time period and content, Kurosawa again employs a subtler style of directing. Again, he focuses more on the story than on cinematic trickery, and with spectacular results. The extensive use of the motionless camera is stunningly effective, but he also uses it in a different way here. Ran opens with a series of stationary shots of a group of horses standing majestically with their riders on the top of a flowing hillside. Virtually the exact same image is shown from a fairly wide variety of different angles and distances, indicating the vastness of the plains and the power that these characters hold (or will soon hold) over them. Again, a musical score is entirely absent throughout the vast majority of the film, and the same lengthy scenes are employed to a large extent to communicate the story of the film. An example of one of these exceedingly long takes can be seen early in the film when Lord Hidetora first announces his what he intends to do with the leadership of his kingdom.

    The ending of Ran is definitely realistic, for many reasons. There are no myths perpetuated by it; close family members do not always stand together, even the noblest intentions are not always realized, and no one lives happily ever after. Ran is the story of a man in a position of power who makes a trusting decision that backfires devastatingly, and the ensuing madness is not altered to make way for a happy ending. It seems that Kurosawa was trying to capture the militarily charged atmosphere that is present in times of war, and the things mentioned above are some of the many efforts he made to make it all as real as possible, even at the expense of the audience's emotions.
  • sherbetsaucers6 February 2007
    Warning: Spoilers
    At the core of this movie there is a long running philosophical question. Certain characters continually question what is happening around them, and through these questions, the themes of the movie are forthcoming. The most obvious theme is that of war. Here, once again, Kurosawa reminds us that modern warfare is not a place of honour or duels, but massed attacks on faceless enemies, shooting each other from a distance. I will discuss the battle scenes later in this review; they help us examine the chaos that is again consistent throughout the film. It seems that no one in this movie has any control over the events that are transpiring; not even the ultimate manipulator Mieko Harada as Lady Kaede has true control. This lack of control seems to mirror the idea put forward by the only character who is continually able to tell the truth without ramification. Shinnosuke Ikehata (credited here as Peter) is the fool who says 'Are there no gods... no Buddha? If you exist, hear me. You are mischievous and cruel! Are you so bored up there you must crush us like ants? Is it such fun to see men weep?' Even if god exists then the only pleasure he enjoys is watching mankind destroy itself in the chaotic mess that is war. The final scenes see chaos erupt, as through the good natured actions of one man, 4 armies are dragged into a bloody battle. Which leads us to the idea of futility and death. The pointlessness of life is summed up once again by the fool. 'Man is born crying. When he has cried enough, he dies.' Death comes to us all, yet it is far bleaker than that. If there is a god then they allow everyone to suffer. Even a noble character, like Saburo, dies an ignoble and futile death. Everyone within this movie is both hunter and hunted. It is a bleak world indeed.

    Then we have morality. There are very few 'good' characters here, but there are three exceptions to this. Saburo, Lord Hidetora's third and youngest son, who because of his love and loyalty to his father is unable to not speak out at the foolishness he sees around him, which leads to his banishment. Tango, a loyal servant to Lord Hidetora who is banished with Saburo, but through love for his lord disguises himself so as to stay near him. Finally there is Kyoami, the fool. He again is loyal to his Lord, however, he voices ideas of leaving his side numerous times, but again his sense of duty and even affection keep him with his master.

    The movie itself is near perfect. Stylistically it is almost like watching a play. Both the staging and the style of acting are clearly very influenced by Japanese Noh theatre, with the slow and deliberate style of acting used, and the mask-like appearance of age notable in the make up of Nakadai as the seventy year old Hiderota. Every shot looks like a masterpiece, perfectly framed. Kurosawa trained as an artist, indeed he painted the storyboard for every shot in the film. The framing is perfect and in most senses the camera does not move at all, or if it does, it is simply to keep the perfection of the shot intact.

    Kurosawa was a master film maker, this is clear throughout. His confidence with film is breathtaking: only a director totally sure in his craft would dare leave the long, motionless pauses at the end of almost every scene, punctuating what has just happened and allowing the audience to grasp the full implication of the actions taking place.

    Kurosawa is, of course, well known for his ability to direct action, and this movie recreates war in a way few others have ever managed to do. There are two great battles here, one in the middle and one during the end. The final battle is perfectly staged, riveting, and speaks volumes of the futility that the lust and pride of Jiro Masatoras, Hiderotas second son (played by Jinpachi Nezu) has led to. But for me it is the first battle that is the one of the greatest moments in cinema. Due to council given by a traitor, Lord Hidetora has led his household, which includes 30 warriors, to the castle of the outcast Saburo. It is a trap, and Taro Takatora (Akira Terao), his first son and Jiro strike. What follows is horrific. This is the purist language of movie, and a thing of true genius. On the battlefield, even in the world of the Samurai, there is no honour, no real glory, only ugliness and death.

    It is interesting to note that seeing someone actually kill another person in this movie is rare. Considering the acclaim Kurosawa has garnered for the sword fighting sequences in so many of his movies it is interesting to note that not once do you see a sword kill another person on screen. Indeed, there are only two times we really witness one person attacking and killing another, other than mutual suicide. The first is entirely shown at a massive distance, the figures barely distinguishable, and the second, despite being amazingly gory, does not actually show the death itself on camera.

    Yet with all of this emphasis on framing, shot, symbolism and colour, Kurosawa manages to bring to the screen some of the greatest performances I think I have ever witnessed. I have to cut short my praise of what is a faultless cast and talk about Mieko Harada giving perhaps the finest performance in the movie. Driven by anger and vengeance she becomes something other than human, she is some kind of succubus, a temptress, a fox-spirit. Harada is at all times compelling, her every movement one of cold perfection and as we hear her silk robes rustling as she glides along the wooden floors we see before us an unforgettable creation of pure evil.
  • This film has to be seen. It is profound. It is stunning. It is a work of genius. I love the look of Kurosawa's black and white film. They have so much texture and tone. They have so much depth and character. I just recently watched "Rashomon." That is a very beautiful film. He is able to use color equally as effective. Every color is perfectly arranged. Like a painter, he composes each scene, each frame with tender affection. I doubt you can find a better looking film. The ending of the film is the most cynical, the most depressing, the most emotive of any film I have ever seen. It has stayed with me ever since I first saw it. Kurosawa, near the end of his career, has ostensibly lost all faith in human kind. There is no goodness. There is no decency. There is no hope. All that is left is meaningless suffering. That last few images are the perfect images of desolation. This is an excellent film.
  • I loved Kurasawa's Throne of Blood, and heard this was even better. And indeed it was, for me second only to Seven Samurai as his best film and one of the finest movies ever made. As with any Kurasawa film, it is superbly made with the camera work in look and technique masterly and the colour and period detail really sumptuous. The battle sequences are even more epic in scope and emotional impact than Seven Samurai, aided by the spectacle and camera work. The music is rousing and haunting, almost sometimes paying homage to Mahler, the script is literate and thoughtful and the story intensely moving. Add to that Kurasawa's ever immaculate direction and the truly remarkable lead performance Tatsuya Nakadai and you have an even more brilliant film. Rounding off is the truly Machiavellian performance of Mieko Harada as the daughter-in-law figure. The over-two-and-a-half-hour length and slow pacing didn't hinder Ran in the slightest, at least to me anyway, though some not used to Kurasawa's style may be deterred. In conclusion, there wasn't much I really could add to the wonderful reviews already, but I do think Ran is a superb film with much to admire. 10/10 Bethany Cox
  • Warning: Spoilers
    It's must be hard to find a movie that talks about more themes than this one, maybe LOTR: The Return of the King, and that is a MOVIE with capital letters, of course, from a Shakespeare adaptation one could expect great themes, but the thing is that adaptations don't always live up to the original, I haven't read The King Lear, but for what I know, it's a great inspection of human nature, and this movie really does this well enough.

    The thing is that this movie is very well done, the tecnical aspects couldn't be better, the cinematography is glorious, the acting is excellent and realistic, the music is there where and when it needs to be, the action scenes are well filmed, and of course, the themes of the movie are very rich and well exposed.

    Of course the movie teaches us how power corrupts a person and can turn him or her against everyone, even his or her family, and that would be a good theme, but the movie goes far beyond that, because Lady Kaede, the arquitect of the Ichimonji's house disaster, does everything to avenge his family who was murdered by Hidetora himself, this is interesting because the protagonist is by no means a "hero" or a "good guy", he is a war lord, and his actions are the ones chasing him, this is more clear when Buda is directly mentioned, for what I understand, karma works, sort of, this way: when you do something, it has an impact in the world, and this impact would either be good or bad acording to your action, and this effect will eventually return at you, and this movie show us how that happens to him, also because of the trauma of the betreyal of his sons and the age, Hidetora became insane and the only son who loves him and can cure his madness is now exilled because he was being "rude", that's explained by Kyoami with the bird and snake metaphor.

    In the end the family destroyed itself, the power and greed of two of the sons became enough to cause a great chaos, but the horrible actions Hidetora did in the past increased this tragedy, and the tragedy of humanity itself, we can't stop fighting with each other, that's why this movie is very human, it's a movie about our species, and one of the things that make us so special: using cruelty to achive power.

    Also a great detail the branch scene in the begining, that clearly shows that Saburo was the only son that cared for his father, we learned that through cinematographic language, Lord Hidetora Ichimonji learned it the hard way...
  • Ran stands for chaos and disorder. We are truly a chaotic species, one that is also barbaric and cruel. Kurosawa Akira and his team put these primal instincts on full display in this beautiful film. The high budget did help bring it all to the next level. Ran is based on a story so dramatic and Shakespearean yet so prevalent in real history-three brothers and the king father who doggedly clings to his throne still. The many strikingly memorable shots will surely leave you stunned; and the last shot is simply haunting. Words can only do so much, so do pick up a 4K copy of this film if you can; it is a positively breathtaking to experience Ran.
  • bbriatte14 August 2006
    Eager to see Ran in 1985 when it came out on the screens, I only managed to see it more than 20 years later on DVD. Is it for the high expectations built up in this period, or the ageing of this film, but I found Ran a rather disappointing viewing experience.

    The story of course is known, but the elaboration on the screen lacks some consistency in my mind. It's too long (the wandering scenes with the "fool" Hidetora accompanied by his jester could have been much shorter without missing anything essential) and in general it remained too superficial. The leading parts don't get any development of character (only exception: lady Kaede), although you could have been expecting this with such a tragic story as King Lear on the background.

    Although the mass fighting scenes, seen in the light of today's CGI, are not spectacular any more, they're very good done. The acting performances are fine too, topping Mieko Harada as lady Kaede, an intrigante who wants to take revenge on the Hidetora family. She gets some marvelous scenes and manages them very well. I also enjoyed Hisashi Igawa as the down to earth general of the second son, Jiro.

    Announced as a masterwork of the late Kurosawa, I'm glad to have seen Ran at last, but the 99th best movie all times … no, it isn't.
  • This is the greatest director of all time making a film of the greatest play of the greatest playwright of all time. And after setting such vast expectations it doesn't disappoint.
  • Consistently excellent throughout I was beginning to wonder if it ever ended. Needless to say, Ran is wonderfully simple tale of distrust and coercion among brothers. Philosophically filmed with the most attention upon the landscape and sky, it makes you think that we are all just insignificant pawns in a much larger and vicious world. Can anyone ever be trusted when we all have so many mysteries left to uncover?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    There are many longer reviews written about Kurosawa's "Ran", so I will keep it short and only outline why I think the film is hugely overrated and very disappointing.

    The film has great potential. Visually it is very impressive (in spite of a few disruptive cuts in the cavalry scenes), and the music and sound support the images extremely well. Very deservedly it was awarded the Oscar for best Costumes. But in the domain of storytelling I found "Ran" lacking. It positively reminds of Classical and Shakespearian tragedies and aspires to tell a great tale of the demise of an empire and family dynasty built on bloodshed, but the characters and their motivations are sadly unconvincing. Kurosawa spends much of the three hours on lavish images, yet he does not really develop what lies beyond the surface. The Great Lord and his three sons remain character sketches, and so the old Lord's emotional ups and downs and his sons' violent struggle over his succession seem jumpy and unconvincing without a deeper development of their motivations and family story. The only exception to this is the scheming wife of the Great Lord's oldest son.

    Granted, I don't understand Japanese and so have to rely on the subtitles. Furthermore, a Japanese viewer may probably read far more in the faces, gestures and intonation than someone only quaintly accustomed with Japanese culture. Nevertheless, this is no excuse. The movie simply does not achieve what it aims for. Apart from the visual pleasures the result is fairly shallow, too slow and overlong (although I generally prefer longer films). To me "Ran" is completely over-hyped.

    If you want tragedy, there are plenty of decent Shakespeare adaptations on film. If you want great storytelling and characters watch movies like those of the Cohen brothers (e.g. "Millers Crossing" or "Barton Fink"). And if you are after the great images and the Asian flair watch one of the three recent Chinese Martial Arts epics. (Out of which "Hero" is probably the most interesting with the moral and political questions it provokes.) It pains me to say this, but in my view Kurosawa's "Ran" is simply not worth watching - at least not for entertainment.
  • Ran takes viewers to a place they would rather not explore on their own. In a world of cruelty, Kurasowa has shown how the moments within the horror can have beauty. Shakespeare wrote King Lear as a mirror on the human condition. We do not have to be kings and princesses to identify with the father's desire for the well being of his children, even if his own life was one of cruelty and pain. We see this theme throughout great literature and film. What Ran has done is to provide the viewer with many small moments within the pain to realize the beauty. Even the moment of epiphany for Hidetora, when his actions achieve his madness, is one of surpassing beauty. As the storm rages outside the small house of the prince he blinded, whose parents he killed, whose sister he forcibly married off, the simple sounds of the flute provide an intense focus on the here and now. It is at this moment when Hidetora recognizes that he himself sowed the seeds of his own destruction. There is no dialogue, no swashbuckling, just the terrible beauty of the music. As with many of Kurasowa's films, despite their epic scope, it is the small paint strokes that make up the master's canvas.
An error has occured. Please try again.