My wife somehow liked this, but I can't understand why. It's a bunch of small stories that either have a strong moralistic idea or don't have a story at all. Some of them have scenes that shake (unintentionally) and some actors (like the child actor) are really really bad. Honestly, I couldn't wait for it to be over. I had watched Seven Samurai just before and I liked it a lot. This is what the same guy does 46 years later? I don't get it.
Also, the concept is that Kurosawa dreamed these and then put them on film. However none of the stories have the structure of a dream. Instead they feel processed, like "I had this dream where I met a demon", then he makes an entire piece about other demons and a long discussion and some reference to nuclear weapons in a devastated land. Not only was it boring, but it felt really pretentious.
What I think happened is the old "let the master work". Sometimes this produces amazing masterpieces. This was not it.
I think the Van Gogh one was probably the best fragment and it actually felt like a dream sequence. The fact that Martin Scorsese played in that one was a hint on how and why this film was made. If you know the right people and have the right reputation, you're allowed to do anything.
Also, the concept is that Kurosawa dreamed these and then put them on film. However none of the stories have the structure of a dream. Instead they feel processed, like "I had this dream where I met a demon", then he makes an entire piece about other demons and a long discussion and some reference to nuclear weapons in a devastated land. Not only was it boring, but it felt really pretentious.
What I think happened is the old "let the master work". Sometimes this produces amazing masterpieces. This was not it.
I think the Van Gogh one was probably the best fragment and it actually felt like a dream sequence. The fact that Martin Scorsese played in that one was a hint on how and why this film was made. If you know the right people and have the right reputation, you're allowed to do anything.