Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Charles Herold (cherold) Rhapsody in August is a very small movie. It has little of Kurosawa's bravura cinematic flare and could well, from its look, have been made for television. Yet there is something rather lovely about this little thing.The movie is about children staying with their grandmother who learn that she has a brother living in America. She doesn't remember this brother, one of many siblings, some dead, and the children, eager for a trip to California, try and encourage her to remember.The grandma is lovely. The children seemed a bit unconvincing, speaking in stiff conversations and sometimes over-emoting, but maybe that's what children are like in Japan.The grandma lives near Nagasaki, where she lost her husband, and the children do some downbeat sightseeing.When I read user reviews of this movie, several were mainly just a description of the story, and I seem to be doing the same thing. I'm not sure what it is about this movie that makes one want to tell what happens, since really, not much does. It's an episodic film that is notable not for story but for lovely, quiet moments like the survivors of a school carefully tending the twisted jungle gym left as a memorial.Perhaps one wants to tell the story because the movie is made up of little moments, like a search for a mysterious tree or ants crawling to a rose, that don't on their own seem to mean much and yet in the context of the film are striking.There is something wandering about the movie, although since life does wander this may be a feature rather than a bug. Like the reviewers here, I don't know what to make of the final, overlong scene, and I would have preferred something else. But I am glad I saw this.

lreynaert Akira Kurosawa is a director with a big heart, who tackles significant human problems at all levels (socio-political, economic, social or psychological). His films are always focused on individual human beings with their love of life, their courage, magnanimity or sexuality, but also with their violence, vices, credulity or thirst for power. His movies illustrate in a sublime manner the harsh battle for survival of ordinary people against the forces of evil (politicians, generals, robbers or other wicked people). They shine through their sincerity, their overwhelming emotions and Kurosawa's brilliant directing (cast as well as camera) with scenes and images that take the viewer by the throat.This movie is a perfect example of Kurosawa's true craftsmanship. Its theme is nothing less than the effect of the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Its effect is that 'angels weep'. They weep because those who are responsible for the launch of the bomb argued that the 'Lightning' was necessary to end the war. But the 'Lightning' continues to kill. It still causes mighty suffering for innocent people and that for the rest of their lives. Moreover, those who launched the atomic bomb do not like to remember it. They prefer to forget all the victims, also those who survived the 'Lightning'.At the heart of this movie stands a grandmother who lost most of her family in the disaster, except, among other people, a brother who emigrated to the US. She wants to see him before she dies. In the meantime, her four grandchildren as well as an American nephew (played by Richard Gere) pay a visit to her. But, the memory of the disaster continues to haunt her. When a violent thunderstorm erupts over her village, she believes that a new bomb has fallen on the city of Nagasaki. She runs desperately to the rescue of the 'new victims'. With a courageous Richard Gere in an amazing role, this movie is a must for all movie lovers and for all fans of Akira Kurosawa.

rooprect This is the toughest negative review I've ever written. I love Kurosawa's work; his films are deeply philosophical and unquestionably artistic. Also I have very deep sympathy and respect for the 200,000 Japanese civilians who were broiled alive when that idiot Truman decided to play boom boom with his new toy. As far as "preaching to the choir" goes, I AM THE CHOIR.But someone has to say it. This movie was awful. It was so clumsy and melodramatic that it made a mockery of both Kurosawa and the atomic tragedy he portrays. Like my title implies, it's the "ABC afterschool special" version of life after the atomic bomb, complete with a cast of sappy kids, an overly-sentimental script, amateur editing and a philosophical message so vapid that it wouldn't fill the back of a postcard.Have you ever sat around at Thanksgiving dinner listening to your great-grandmother ramble incoherently about something of great importance? She repeats herself. She takes 10 minutes to communicate the simplest thought. And when it's all over, no one knows or cares what she was talking about because the presentation was so damn irritating. That's what you get here.I'll give you an example of one scene. The scene shows the widowed grandmother praying before some lighted candles. It should be obvious that she's paying respects to her dead husband killed by the bomb. But just in case you didn't catch that--just in case you thought she was playing bingo or something--here's how the script goes:Kid #1: What's that about?Kid #2: Chanting Buddhist sutras.Kid #3: It's a service for the souls of the departed.Kid #2: It's August. Soon it'll be Atomic Bomb Day.Kid #3: August 9th.Kid #4: The day grandpa died.(camera lingers for 5 or 10 seconds)Oh puh-leez. I think we got the message ten minutes ago. What could have been a gripping moment is now just an irritating waste of film and dialogue (with bad acting to boot). I could see the audience collectively rolling its eyes, and I'm ashamed to admit I was rolling along with them.Don't even get me started on the people in the audience who reacted defensively, believing this to be an anti-American slam. Obviously it's NOT. But I can understand how people might come away with that impression. Kurosawa lays it on so thick that you can't help but feel like he's pointing the finger of blame. If he HAD made it an anti-American film (or at least anti-idiot-Truman), then I would have found it much more interesting. But instead, it's just an overinflated pity party that never ends. There's no conflict; all the characters agree that the bomb sucked. All the characters bow their heads. All the characters feel sorry. For 2 hours it's a one-way ticket to "waaah".Save yourself the violin strings. Skip this movie and watch the documentary "Nagasaki: The Horror and Legacy of Fat Man" (1995) which is a gripping testament to the suffering and madness experienced by the Japanese civilians. Or if you want to enjoy a GOOD sentimental film of Kurosawa, watch "Ikuru" (1952). But I can't think of a single reason why anyone would want to watch this movie.

counterrevolutionary RHAPSODY IN AUGUST is not an anti-American film. Although some of the characters express anti-American sentiments, the film rejects them. And Richard Gere's character does not apologize for the atomic bombing (which would have been unforgivably presumptuous of Kurosawa). He apologizes for his family's ignorance of the fate of his uncle.But that's not to say that this is a good film. Kurosawa hectors the audience, which is a thing he hardly ever does. And surely Kurosawa could have found a more interesting American actor than Richard Gere to play Clark. And it is true that Kurosawa, while eschewing an anti-American stance, does try to pin the blame on "war," meaning that he tries to parcel the blame out equally. But of course, the blame for WWII isn't shared equally. Perhaps having Clark mention that his mother's brother died at Pearl Harbor, or making his wife a Chinese-American whose parents were murdered at Nanking, might have served as a prophylactic against this moral failing. Of course, this might have meant that Kurosawa would have had to come to terms with his own past as a wartime propagandist for the government which committed those crimes.Perhaps the silliest aspect of the film is its indignant insistence that Americans don't want to discuss the bombings.Please. We discuss it all the time. We debate, and we agonize, and we yammer endlessly about what might have happened, and what did Truman think might have happened, and what if this and what if that. We also talk about the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden, the sellout to Stalin at Yalta, and all the other things we did which are at least morally questionable if not criminal.And to have this point of view put forth in a film which studiously avoids mention of Pearl Harbor, Nanking, the Philippines, Bataan, the atrocities in the POW camps, or any other undoubted crimes committed by the Japanese government is particularly galling.All in all, the poorest of the 22 Kurosawa films which I have seen. The only thing here to which I can give unqualified praise is the remarkable performance of Sachiko Murase as Kane.