Armored horsemen with banners charging past a large castle gate
Film review

Ran

1985 · Directed by Akira Kurosawa · 2h 40m

In a sentenceA family argument with colour-coded armies and nobody fit to chair the meeting

Lord Hidetora Ichimonji (Tatsuya Nakadai) is a warlord in feudal Japan, where family loyalties and political power are bound together. Around him are Taro (Akira Terao), Jiro (Jinpachi Nezu) and Saburo (Daisuke Ryū), with Lady Kaede (Mieko Harada) and Lady Sue (Yoshiko Miyazaki) also caught in the struggle for power. Akira Kurosawa reworks King Lear through a family conflict whose reach extends to armies and battlefields. Intrigue, betrayal and bitter comedy shape a story in which the decisions of those in command affect everyone beneath them.

Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.

Fi1m review

Akira Kurosawa’s Ran is a harrowing war film that keeps the family quarrels clear amid the armies. A few overextended conversations do little to diminish its fierce performances or the frightening precision of its battles.

Ran is a terrible family quarrel made large enough to fill a battlefield, and we would recommend it even to those who usually avoid war films. Akira Kurosawa’s reworking of King Lear asks what happens when a powerful man’s failures become everybody else’s problem. The scale matters because private malice can command armies here. It is a severe film, but its anger is easy to understand. The screenplay is by Kurosawa, Hideo Oguni and Masato Ide.

The cinematographers, Shoji Ueda, Asakazu Nakai and Takao Saitō, give the armies enough space for us to follow their movement. The colour coding gives us a practical way of distinguishing the rival forces without constant explanation. That precision lets us register how many people are caught inside a quarrel among a handful of powerful figures. Kurosawa keeps returning to the armies and their banners in sweeping views.

Emi Wada’s costumes help keep the figures distinct within those wide compositions. Production designers Shinobu Muraki and Yoshirō Muraki give the chamber scenes a severity that suits their occupants. These rooms offer little suggestion of domestic comfort, and the formal confrontations feel at home in them. The shift indoors puts the actors and their confrontations at the centre of our attention, without making the struggle over power seem any smaller.

Kurosawa’s editing preserves that sense of organised movement through the battles, giving us time to understand the forces involved rather than simply count the cuts. Tōru Takemitsu’s mournful score makes the fighting harder to enjoy as a display of skill. We were horrified by the battles. The coloured formations stay readable through the brutality, so there is little refuge in pretending we cannot follow what is happening.

Tatsuya Nakadai gives Lord Hidetora Ichimonji enough frailty to make him recognisably human without asking us to excuse him. His Noh-influenced make-up can make the face appear almost fixed, which gives small changes of expression unusual force. The acting is openly theatrical, and it suits a man accustomed to being watched. Mieko Harada’s Lady Kaede belongs in the same heightened style, with a ferocity that holds our attention through the private confrontations.

The screenplay sometimes labours a point the staging has already made, and the formal exchanges can feel overextended. This is also where the film’s distance becomes a limitation: a less emphatic conversation might bring us closer to the people involved. Nakadai’s vulnerability usually supplies the human detail these passages need, but a few could have been shorter. The film runs 160 minutes.

Many war films encourage us to admire whoever gets the armies moving. Ran makes that authority look dangerous even when the movement is magnificent. Its spectacle keeps sending us back to the damage done by people who expect obedience, and the private scenes make clear how little judgement they can possess. Give it an uninterrupted evening, preferably on a screen large enough to keep the people visible within the formations.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

92
Positive
14
Mixed
0
Negative
0

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
1 May 2016 · ★★★★★ · Kevin Maher
100

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 full review →
Time Out
29 March 2016 · ★★★★★ · Tom Huddleston
100

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 full review →
Empire
1 April 2016 · Ian Nathan
90*

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 full review →
Little White Lies
23 March 2016 · Oscar Rickett
90*

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 full review →
Los Angeles Times
28 December 1985 · Kevin Thomas
90*

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 full review →
RogerEbert.com
25 December 1985 · Roger Ebert
90*

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 full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Ran worth watching?
Ran is worth watching for almost anyone who can sit through 160 minutes of severe, battle-filled drama, and we scored it 92. Akira Kurosawa's reworking of King Lear keeps the family quarrel clear while armies fight over it, and Tatsuya Nakadai's frail, unforgiven warlord holds it together. A few formal conversations run long; the film earns the patience they ask for.
How long is Ran, and what is it rated?
Ran runs 2h 40m. It is an action and drama film.
Where can I watch Ran in Romania?
Ran is not on any streaming or rental service in Romania at the moment. It is available in 24 other countries; change your country at the top of the page to see where. Availability is checked daily.
How violent or frightening is Ran, and is it suitable for children?
Ran is a 15 in the UK and rated R in the US, and it is not suitable for children. The battles are brutal, and Kurosawa keeps the colour-coded armies readable throughout, so there is no looking away from what is happening to the people inside them. We were horrified by the fighting, which Tōru Takemitsu's mournful score refuses to make enjoyable. Older teenagers with some appetite for war films can manage it.
What should I watch after Ran?
After Ran, try Throne of Blood (1957, Fi1m 88): Kurosawa tackles Shakespeare with fog, military ambition and an equally unforgiving view of power. Then The Leopard (1963, Fi1m 88): Another ruling family faces change, with political calculation visible in clothes and rooms; and The Lion in Winter (1968, Fi1m 81): A royal family negotiates succession with enough spite to make armies seem unnecessary.

Cast

Awards

Academy Awards, 1986

Nominated
Best Cinematography
Nominated
Best Director
Nominated
Best Production Design
Won
Best Costume Design

Amanda Award for Best Foreign Feature Film, 1986

Won
Amanda Award for Best Foreign Feature Film

If you liked this, try…

  1. Throne of Blood (1957, Fi1m 88)Kurosawa tackles Shakespeare with fog, military ambition and an equally unforgiving view of power.

  2. The Leopard (1963, Fi1m 88)Another ruling family faces change, with political calculation visible in clothes and rooms.

  3. The Lion in Winter (1968, Fi1m 81)A royal family negotiates succession with enough spite to make armies seem unnecessary.

  4. Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972, Fi1m 91)A leader’s delusions endanger everyone around him, with the landscape refusing to cooperate.

  5. The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021, Fi1m 80)Shakespearean ambition in stark, enclosed spaces, with performances that welcome theatrical intensity.

Free account

Know what to watch tonight

Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.

  • Want to see, sorted by what is streaming now
  • Seen, with your score out of ten
  • No adverts, ever