--- title: "Ran: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/ran/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/ran" critics_score: 92 critics_reviews: 14 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Ran (1985): what the critics said Critics' score 92 from 14 reviews: 14 positive, 0 mixed, 0 negative. Fourteen reviews, all of them positive, and the agreement is unusually complete. Most critics read it as Kurosawa’s late summing-up: a King Lear moved to feudal Japan, with sons in place of daughters, that ends in chaos rather than consolation. The praise clusters on the battle scenes, staged with real horses and colour-coded armies, and on the control with which Kurosawa cuts between those set pieces and the quieter court intrigue. Several single out Nakadai’s slow descent into madness and Takemitsu’s score. The spread is narrow; nobody has a serious reservation. What dissent there is comes down to emphasis. The Times finds it gripping but not quite Shakespeare. The Guardian notes that swapping daughters for sons pushes the film towards violence and machismo and away from sympathy. The New Yorker admires the vast, heaven-high vantage point while conceding it keeps the tragedy at a distance. Reviews written around the 4K restoration are, if anything, warmer than those from 1985. ## The Times — Kevin Maher Rating ★★★★★. 1 May 2016. The 4K restoration of Kurosawa's King Lear adaptation makes the violent, hellish story of betrayal and retribution pop with vivid colors and massive battle scenes using real horses and soldiers. It is gripping and not quite Shakespeare but never boring. [Read the review](https://www.thetimes.com/culture/books/article/classic-film-of-the-week-ran-1985-n7zfm0g2c) ## Time Out — Tom Huddleston Rating 5/5. 29 March 2016. The critic praises Kurosawa’s adaptation of King Lear as a director’s film packed with brutal violence, tragedy, intrigue, comedy and betrayal. Visual mastery stands out through sweeping shots of banners, armies and shifting colour palettes that heighten the emotional intensity. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/ran-1) ## Empire — Ian Nathan Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 1 April 2016. The critic calls it an absolute triumph and Kurosawa's last great masterpiece, a Shakespearean epic of betrayal and chaos that remains a film of rare greatness. They single out the monumental scale of the production, the masterful control of vast dramatic and visual elements, and the ferocious performances for particular praise. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/ran-review/) ## Little White Lies — Oscar Rickett Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 23 March 2016. The critic praises Ran as Kurosawa’s final masterpiece and a stunning meditation on humanity’s capacity for destruction. They single out its grand visual and emotional scale, drawn from Shakespeare and Japanese history, with no easy salvation for the viewer. [Read the review](https://lwlies.com/in-praise-of/ran-4k-restoration-akira-kurosawa) ## Los Angeles Times — Kevin Thomas Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 28 December 1985. The critic hails it as a superb re-working of King Lear and a glorious culmination of the director's career, at once brisk and elegiac, intimate and epic. He singles out the images as beautiful and terrifying as any captured on film and the impeccable performances. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-12-28-ca-29779-story.html) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 25 December 1985. The critic calls it a great, glorious achievement that Kurosawa could perhaps only have made at 75. He singles out the director's command of epic battle scenes contrasted with intimate chamber drama, and the freshness brought by samurai costumes and Noh-inspired makeup. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/ran-1985) ## The AV Club — Scott Tobias Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 29 March 2002. Kurosawa's 1985 King Lear adaptation in feudal Japan is a self-canonizing masterpiece whose epic battle sequences and visual poetry exceed mere spectacle. The critic singles out the painterly cinematography, Nakadai's delicate descent into madness, and Takemitsu's haunting score for particular praise. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/ran-1798195491) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 31 March 2016. Kurosawa's re-release offers a stunning, darker adaptation of King Lear with staggering battle sequences and a pessimistic tone drawn from Macbeth. The gender shift to sons foregrounds violence and machismo over feminine sympathy. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/mar/31/ran-review-re-release-of-kurasawas-dark-epic-version-of-king-lear) ## The New Yorker — Pauline Kael Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 6 January 1986. The critic admires the monumental, conceptualized scale of the film viewed from a detached, heaven-like perspective, praising the fastidious preparation, color-coded armies, and extravagantly beautiful battle imagery that pays off despite the tragic story. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1986/01/13/macro-micro-stinko) ## The New York Times — Vincent Canby Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 27 September 1985. Festival review. The critic describes it as a film of grandeur evoking the greatest epics in cinema history, with the terrible logic and clarity of a morality tale and the visual mastery of a myth that remains ageless. He notes the astonishing physical spectacle and integrated battle scenes. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/1985/09/27/movies/the-screen-ran-directed-by-akira-kurosawa.html) ## Variety — Variety Staff Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 31 December 1984. The review calls the film a dazzlingly successful addition to Kurosawa’s career at age 75. It singles out the superbly staged battle sequences and gripping court drama and intrigue. [Read the review](https://variety.com/1984/film/reviews/ran-1200426490/) ## The Skinny — Ross McIndoe Rating ★★★★★. 2 May 2016. The critic praises Kurosawa's visually stunning and perfectly composed adaptation of King Lear, highlighting its timeless quality and masterful craft. They single out the breathtaking visuals and composition for praise. [Read the review](https://www.theskinny.co.uk/film/dvd-reviews/ran) ## Eye for Film — Jennie Kermode Fi1m's normalised score 95/100 (inferred from the text). 31 March 2016. Kurosawa's epic reworking of King Lear is one of the greatest works of art in cinematic history, a mythic yet clear-eyed tragedy of a warlord's self-inflicted downfall and the chaos it unleashes. The film stands out for its grand scale, fusion of ideas, and unusual clarity of perspective amid the madness. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/ran-1985-film-review-by-jennie-kermode) ## Collider — Jeremy Urquhart Fi1m's normalised score 92/100 (inferred from the text). 2 May 2023. The critic calls Ran a staggering achievement and Kurosawa's grandest and most impressive film, praising its epic scale, visual storytelling, and how it culminates the director's career. They single out the masterful battle sequences and the film's magnificent use of color. [Read the review](https://collider.com/akira-kurosawa-movie-ran/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/ran.md