dr-h-noguchi
Joined Mar 2013
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews3
dr-h-noguchi's rating
Kokuho is an adaptation of a two-part novel by Shuichi Yoshida, an accomplished writer with a remarkable constellation of literary awards. It was an epic tome to adapt to the screen and the source material may have been better represented in a trilogy or even a limited television series. As others have noted, there are sudden time jumps in the script which seem inevitable given the limitations.
It is no small miracle that this film was made. The book was nearly impossible to condense into a single film. The three lead actors - Ryo Yoshizawa, Ryusei Yokohama, and Ken Watanabe - had no previous kabuki training, an art form which actors typically train since childhood. Yokohama and Watanabe were simultaneously working on a television series while the movie was in production. The time and budgetary constraints were astounding. And the scheduling conflicts between the film, TV, and stage actors would have forced most Hollywood producers to give up.
Western audiences, who are not automatically in awe of the absolute hat trick this movie is, will no doubt respond differently. But the finished film is memorable on its own merits. The main theme is similar to that of "The Red Shoes" by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. It is about extreme passion for theater and its inevitable costs, expressed in kabuki rather than ballet. The main characters are "onnagata" - actors who specialize in playing female parts - which is ironic since the story is also about toxic masculinity where the men put on a brave face against crushing defeat and a stiff smile against life-altering setback with punishing stoicism.
Most of all, the movie is a tribute to kabuki and the people who devote their lives to it. Yoshizawa and Yokohama not only convincingly portray kabuki performers on stage, but manage to project the weight of tradition, the madness behind the passion, and the allure of stardom. Watanabe, once again, blends masculine sternness with fatherly compassion into a grand performance. Min Tanaka - who is also not a kabuki actor - infuses palpable presence as the aging national treasure. The visuals are gorgeous. The sound is amazing. And the camerawork presents kabuki in ways we would never see in the theater. The acting is phenomenal. The story is gripping. Damien Chazelle's "Whiplash" looks stale by comparison. Darren Aronofsky's "Black Swan" suddenly looks domesticated.
The film is not without its faults. Aside from cramming too much story into a three-hour runtime, many of the characters come and go without much characterization. Masatoshi Nagase as the yakuza boss is so good you would wish to see more of him. How can you employ kabuki master Ganjiro Nakamura in a rare cinematic outing and use him for just a memorable cameo? Women are particularly short changed, even though there are plenty of interesting characters played by talented actresses who deserve more screen time. Granted none of the women are cardboard caricatures, their motivations for their very human actions and sometimes irrational choices are omitted or left unexplained. The most notable performance comes from Shinobu Terashima as the duty-bound but loving matriarch of a kabuki dynasty. The world building also suffers under the slim budget and compressed runtime. Set in Japan's post-war economic boom years, this is a period in which both the worlds of kabuki and yakuza are rapidly losing significance and influence, but that backdrop is not fully expressed.
This is a big movie to digest. Just the audacity of putting such a saga on screen is overwhelming. It resulting in such a spellbinding narrative is a near impossibility. If it were only a story of passionate artists selling their souls it would have made good drama. But when a tidal wave of cultural change and a swarm of characters worthy of an historic epic is thrown into the vortex, the sparks become lightning and the whirlwind becomes a storm. Kabuki is a universe unto itself. The scope and ambition of this film, though not fully realized, expand like the night sky. In spite of its over-use of extreme close-ups, this movie demands to be viewed on the big screen.
It is no small miracle that this film was made. The book was nearly impossible to condense into a single film. The three lead actors - Ryo Yoshizawa, Ryusei Yokohama, and Ken Watanabe - had no previous kabuki training, an art form which actors typically train since childhood. Yokohama and Watanabe were simultaneously working on a television series while the movie was in production. The time and budgetary constraints were astounding. And the scheduling conflicts between the film, TV, and stage actors would have forced most Hollywood producers to give up.
Western audiences, who are not automatically in awe of the absolute hat trick this movie is, will no doubt respond differently. But the finished film is memorable on its own merits. The main theme is similar to that of "The Red Shoes" by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. It is about extreme passion for theater and its inevitable costs, expressed in kabuki rather than ballet. The main characters are "onnagata" - actors who specialize in playing female parts - which is ironic since the story is also about toxic masculinity where the men put on a brave face against crushing defeat and a stiff smile against life-altering setback with punishing stoicism.
Most of all, the movie is a tribute to kabuki and the people who devote their lives to it. Yoshizawa and Yokohama not only convincingly portray kabuki performers on stage, but manage to project the weight of tradition, the madness behind the passion, and the allure of stardom. Watanabe, once again, blends masculine sternness with fatherly compassion into a grand performance. Min Tanaka - who is also not a kabuki actor - infuses palpable presence as the aging national treasure. The visuals are gorgeous. The sound is amazing. And the camerawork presents kabuki in ways we would never see in the theater. The acting is phenomenal. The story is gripping. Damien Chazelle's "Whiplash" looks stale by comparison. Darren Aronofsky's "Black Swan" suddenly looks domesticated.
The film is not without its faults. Aside from cramming too much story into a three-hour runtime, many of the characters come and go without much characterization. Masatoshi Nagase as the yakuza boss is so good you would wish to see more of him. How can you employ kabuki master Ganjiro Nakamura in a rare cinematic outing and use him for just a memorable cameo? Women are particularly short changed, even though there are plenty of interesting characters played by talented actresses who deserve more screen time. Granted none of the women are cardboard caricatures, their motivations for their very human actions and sometimes irrational choices are omitted or left unexplained. The most notable performance comes from Shinobu Terashima as the duty-bound but loving matriarch of a kabuki dynasty. The world building also suffers under the slim budget and compressed runtime. Set in Japan's post-war economic boom years, this is a period in which both the worlds of kabuki and yakuza are rapidly losing significance and influence, but that backdrop is not fully expressed.
This is a big movie to digest. Just the audacity of putting such a saga on screen is overwhelming. It resulting in such a spellbinding narrative is a near impossibility. If it were only a story of passionate artists selling their souls it would have made good drama. But when a tidal wave of cultural change and a swarm of characters worthy of an historic epic is thrown into the vortex, the sparks become lightning and the whirlwind becomes a storm. Kabuki is a universe unto itself. The scope and ambition of this film, though not fully realized, expand like the night sky. In spite of its over-use of extreme close-ups, this movie demands to be viewed on the big screen.
An airplane loaded with roughneck oilmen crashes in Alaska and the survivors trek through a snow storm to survive while a pack of wolves kill them off one by one.
Some reviewers loved it. Some hated it. Those who loved it saw a competently directed action horror film in a realistic setting filled with real people facing real threats. Those who hated it saw an unrealistic depiction of wildlife behavior and unworkable outdoor skills. People who loved it thought the movie was realistic. People who hated it thought it was ridiculous.
Without giving away the story, let me tell you that this is not a story about actual wolf behavior. This is more like the numerous movies of the produced through the '70s, '80s and '90s about a group of people picked off one by one by unseen creatures lurking in the dark. In the '70s, they were natural animals like sharks, killer whales, reptiles, furry animals and insects. In the '80s they were space aliens and robots. In the '90s they were super assassins. Lately they are vampires and zombies. Now we are back to furry animals. But the overall theme is the same.
It is refreshing to see this theme played out in the Alaskan wilderness rather than on a space ship or an underground city overrun by zombies. In that sense, this movie is realistic. But the furry animals in the movie behave more like space aliens than actual wolves. The "expert hunter" in the movie is not actually giving you wisdom that will be useful in the Alaskan wilderness. He is more of a generic zombie hunter. In that sense, this movie is unrealistic.
So whether you like this movie or not depends entirely on what you are in the mood to see. If you want Discovery Channel, look elsewhere. If you want to see good acting in a scenic backdrop with lots of scary moments, you will like this movie. You don't have to really check in your brain at the door. Like so many Ridley Scott movies, this one is also a meditation on the nature of fate. This movie is a good piece of fiction. Just a bad documentary.
Some reviewers loved it. Some hated it. Those who loved it saw a competently directed action horror film in a realistic setting filled with real people facing real threats. Those who hated it saw an unrealistic depiction of wildlife behavior and unworkable outdoor skills. People who loved it thought the movie was realistic. People who hated it thought it was ridiculous.
Without giving away the story, let me tell you that this is not a story about actual wolf behavior. This is more like the numerous movies of the produced through the '70s, '80s and '90s about a group of people picked off one by one by unseen creatures lurking in the dark. In the '70s, they were natural animals like sharks, killer whales, reptiles, furry animals and insects. In the '80s they were space aliens and robots. In the '90s they were super assassins. Lately they are vampires and zombies. Now we are back to furry animals. But the overall theme is the same.
It is refreshing to see this theme played out in the Alaskan wilderness rather than on a space ship or an underground city overrun by zombies. In that sense, this movie is realistic. But the furry animals in the movie behave more like space aliens than actual wolves. The "expert hunter" in the movie is not actually giving you wisdom that will be useful in the Alaskan wilderness. He is more of a generic zombie hunter. In that sense, this movie is unrealistic.
So whether you like this movie or not depends entirely on what you are in the mood to see. If you want Discovery Channel, look elsewhere. If you want to see good acting in a scenic backdrop with lots of scary moments, you will like this movie. You don't have to really check in your brain at the door. Like so many Ridley Scott movies, this one is also a meditation on the nature of fate. This movie is a good piece of fiction. Just a bad documentary.