User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Warlord Hidetora Ichimonji is haunted. He divides his kingdom among his three sons; Taro, Jiro, and Saburo. The oldest Taro is given the First Castle to lead the younger brothers. The youngest Saburo objects and he is banished. Another lord Fujimaki takes him in and offers his daughter for marriage. Taro's wife Lady Kaede lost her blood family to Hidetora's ruthless conquest and plots to destroy the family from within. Taro and Jiro force Hidetora from power driving him to madness.

Legendary director Akira Kurosawa delivers a big production of mass battles and epic drama. It's one of the grandest samurai epics. It is wonderfully beautiful. The acting is big. It is visually stunning.

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

This is film that everyone needs to see. It brings home the horrors of war, betrayal, and greed. When the kingdom is divided among the sons in this version of King Lear, we just know that the person who bares himself honestly is going to become an outsider. The acting is sensational, with masterful personal encounters. Kurosawa even managed to keep the fool as an integral part of the story. Others have eloquently dissected this movie. What I have to offer is that there is such a poetry to the visual aspects of this film. While the battle scenes are among the goriest and grizzliest that have ever been put on celluloid, there is a dance here, a wave of the most intense coming and going as we watch the soldiers fall. It tells how potentially good men can be influenced by the forces of evil. The wife of the first son is purely vengeful, and horrifying. She is nearly a carbon copy of the woman who played the wife of Mifune's Macbeth character in "Throne of Blood." I have been reviewing the Kurosawa canon and am convinced that this may be his finest work.

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.

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.