September 4, 2008
seen in 1997.
I list the Dreams at the end of this, with a couple of comments. Here are what I consider the most interesting responses to the film as found on the IMDB discussion board.
"The cinematography was great, but that shouldn't drive a film. ... all of these stories ...( read more)could have been told in five minutes or less. It was like the studio told Kurosawa that this had to be 120 minutes."
"I call it propaganda because they are full of flagrant lies. Nuclear reactors cannot blow up like that, a mountain side can't be destroyed by it, radiation poisoning doesn't work like that."
"You're criticizing a movie that's explicitly about dreams for its lack of realism?"
"I think those who dislike the film are ... coming to it in an incorrect frame of reference.... I am stunned at how accurately Kurosawa captures the strange logic, the poetic precision, and the bottomless, archetypal mysteries that characterize our dreams. Watching it I feel as if I am dreaming, or perhaps remembering a dream. A beautiful, beautiful movie. Maybe not for everyone, but certainly for every lover of film, in my opinion."
"If this movie had been done by anyone but Kurosawa, it wouldn't have been seen by anyone let alone remembered after 17 years.
I'm a huge Kurosawa fan having seen 16 of his movies multiple times. ... The symbolism was so decipherable that interpretation was barely necessary. ...
The fact that these are based on dreams is no excuse."
"I found it pretty but pointless. Artistic expression is wonderful of course, but artistic expression for its own sake just rings hollow.
It reminds me of a ... children's story about a kingdom in which all there was to eat is candy. Everyone is sick of candy and wanted more nourishing fare. Determined to please the people, the king orders his chefs to prepare sweets that look like meat, vegetables, bread, etc., and then invites everyone to the feast. Of course, when the excited subjects taste what they think is "real" food and learn that it is really just candy, they feel cheated. Well, I felt a bit cheated by "Dreams", which I'd liken to cotton candy made to look like roast duck."
"Anyone speaking from a volume of movie-watching experience based on narrative drive, plot progression, and constant forward motion of a story...is a person who is likely to be bored by much of Kurosawa's Dreams. I admit that I am such a person, that the bulk of movies I see that I don't like have problems with the story, and I prefer to watch a movie that tells a good story and ... keeps it moving. But I can also be forgiving when a movie that doesn't constantly move forward has other things going for it, as well another purpose in mind. ... let go of the idea that all movies have to get on with it, to keep that momentum rolling.
I was bored by parts of this movie; it does occasionally move interminably slow. However, that's kind of the point. It doesn't want to roll right through everything. It has a lot of beauty to it, and I appreciate that. Instead of complaining about how slow it is, how nothing happens for minutes at a time, I just forget about that part of it, and focus on what is good, what I like about it, and allow myself to be affected by its beauty."
"It was so pretentious it was almost painful. I don't like movies that preach, but nothing about the segments with moral lessons was subtle. I'm not saying I don't like the lessons, I'm saying they weren't shown in a way that was enjoyable to watch."
"... All that money and planning doesn't come close to the magic of using mirrors to direct sunlight like he did in Rashomon.
The blizzard was my favorite, because it veers off from the other style, and becomes more subjective and dreamlike.
I can't agree when people say 'it wasn't very good but the cinematography was breathtaking', because ... the cinematography (and production design), that ends up trickling down into every other factor to make the movie seem cheesy...."
"I'm no artsy film critic. In fact, I consider myself the exact opposite and have gone to great lengths to avoid watching art house films with art-school types. But, I do not agree with the responses I've read here.
I first saw this movie as a child.... I didn't remember much of the actual movie shortly after - I was captivated by the colors, strong emotions, and surreal scenes. I considered it one of the most powerful movies I had seen because of that. I watched it again in my early 20's and was struck by how similar I felt over a decade later. This isn't a kungfu movie or a spin on shakespeare. For me this movie is about the strength of dreams and [how our world is shaped by our subconscious]... I think there is real strength in a 6 minute scene of people trudging through a blizzard. ... I don't think it's meant to change your life or even to entertain..."
"Just imagine the difficulty of explaining death to a dog!! [in The Tunnel]"
Back to me, Jonathon. My order of preference (as recalled 11 years later):
Crows [for me => life as living in a painting]
The Blizzard
The Weeping Demon
The Village of Watermills
----
The Tunnel
Mt Fuji in Red
The Foxes' Wedding
----
The Peach Orchard
---------
Sunshine Through the Rain (I don't remember this at all, but others love it)
Watermill Village - want to see it again - beautiful and inspiring yet untrue - impossible and ideological? okay, it's a dream - Heaven on Earth.
Ego-boosting trivia: This was not on Flixster until I suggested they add it (even though about 70 different people have posted on the IMDB discussion board).
Share This Review
