Watch The Idiot For Free

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

So much average

Crappy film

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Not a bad film at all by all means, but considering that it was directed by Akira Kurosawa, one of the greatest directors of all time, and based on a novel by one of the great novelists of the 19th century Fyodor Dostoevsky it was a bit of a let-down.The Idiot's biggest problem was the extensive cutting, originally intended to be a 266-minute long film and very faithful adaptation it was cut by one hour to Kurosawa's outrage, and the problem is that this interference quite badly shows. The first half felt rather fragmented and erratically paced, jumping around so much with things starting and ending very abrupt;y that it was not always easy to follow (and it would have been even more so if I was not familiar with the source material already) and character motivations rather confused and irrational. Luckily the second half does calm down significantly and the drama more linear. The dramatic scenes do get a bit overwrought and pedestrian in pace and the cutting robs them of the depth and detail that would have made them better.Some have said they found the performances weird and off-kilter, for me they were mostly decent if nowhere near among top-tier Kurosawa standard. Those adjectives that said do apply to the performance of Kurosawa regular Toshiro Mifune (and to a lesser extent Setsuko Hara), a fine actor but he overacts quite wildly here and it does hurt the tone of the film as well as being very unlike his usual standard of performing. As an adaptation, it does come up short, not just how the film was treated but also with how little of Dostoevsky's style comes through, the philosophical, social and literary meanings almost completely stripped and overshadowed by the soap-opera-ish melodrama that the sometimes thought-provoking but also a little heavy-handed and disjointed script.However, Masayuki Mori carries the film solidly in a sensitive and wisely underplayed performance, and Setsuko Hara brings a moving dramatic intensity to hers, although like Mifune some of her delivery is a little over-egged. Takashi Shimura can also be relied on to give a great performance. Kurosawa directs with his usual technical brilliance and command of the story, the cutting disallows his style to shine even more but he does a solid job (seeing his calibre as a director however one does expect something more than that). Despite the treatment the film got, which stopped it from being the faithful adaptation it was intended to be, it doesn't completely disgrace the novel at all even with the updating, setting change and that it feels more lesser Kurosawa than a novel by Dostoevsky. The basic story, apart from a large gap where it really does feel like an hour was cut out and of course not enough of Dostoevsky's style, is here, even if not used to its full potential (a lot of it is introduced and then treated in an on-the-surface way) and the story does transfer to the culture of post-war Northern Japan reasonably well.The music score is hauntingly beautiful and hair-raising, and the settings and costumes are authentic and strikingly detailed. But the best asset (and the only really exceptional one) is the cinematography, the best parts absolutely exquisite and astonishingly vivid and almost on par with the production values of Kurosawa's best work. All in all, largely uneven and disappointing film with some impressive elements, if left uncut it would definitely have been a much better film. 5/10 Bethany Cox

In 1951 Akira Kurosawa followed up his critical and commercial breakthrough Rashomon (especially outside Japan, where it become the first widely released Japanese film) with this strange adaptation of Dostoyevsky's famous novel (Kurosawa would return to form the next year with the widely acclaimed Ikiru). Masayuki Mori is the Idiot, who wants to do so much good to the world that he looks like an imbecile to most people. Toshiro Mifune is Akama (Rogozhin in the novel), showing a weird scowl during most of the movie. The entirely black clad femme fatale Taeko (Nastasya Filippovna in the original Dostoyevsky novel) is the object of their rivalry, and is played here by the legendary Japanese actress Setsuko Hara, still alive as of 2015, in a completely different register from the characters she played in the films of Yasujiro Ozu.Kurosawa originally made a 265 minutes (more than six hours!) film, and that version was shown to a preview audience, which reacted negatively to it. The studio then cut the running time to three hours, and Kurosawa more or less disowned the movie. It is believed that the original version no longer exists. Despite the cuts and studio interference, it is a fascinating, if completely anti naturalistic film. The movie looks like a mess, surely due to the studio cuts, but, with its melodramatic moments and ultra weird performances, is mostly a fascinating, enjoyable, if sometimes confusing mess.However, at three hours the movie is a bit too much (apparently it was shown in two parts of roughly an hour and a half). Watching a six hour movie of this is unimaginable to me.Set in Northern Japan after World War II (though the setting is really atemporal, as we see little of cars or other technologies of the time). The wintry Hokkaido locations are a plus.

A Japanese veteran, driven partially mad from the war, travels to a snowy island where he soon enters a love triangle with his best friend and a disgraced woman. Due to severe cuts and editing by the studio, this film includes some intertitles that explain important portions of storyline and character development. Studio cuts aside, I was not impressed with the footage that remained. For example, the drawn out dinner party sequence represents everything I hate about Akira Kurosawa's films. It's like an overdramatic soap opera with utterly confusing character decision-making and completely ridiculous contrivances ("I'd like to announce that Mr. Kameda is the owner of a 125-acre farm.") Give me a break. Other scenes are dry, drawn out, and/or hammy (the "Which of us will it be?" scene near the end is flat-out embarrassing, as is the ending). When Setsuko Hara overacts, you know you're in the presence of an incompetent director. The more I see from Kurosawa, the more he solidifies himself as the most overrated, overpraised director I've ever encountered. It's frankly unbelievable to me how someone with such a dopey, sappy, schmaltzy style of direction is consistently worshipped as a master of masterpieces.

Idiot, The (1951) ** (out of 4)Adaptation of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's novel about a man (Masayuki Mori) labeled an idiot due to hardships he suffered and the impact he has on those around him including a woman (Setsuko Hara) who falls for him and the other man (Toshiro Mifune) who loves her. I knew going into this 166-minute film that it originally ran 265-minutes and as expected there are certain times that the film seems jumpy. While watching this movie I couldn't help but admire the acting, directing and cinematography but I must admit that the story never really brought me into the drama and in the end I'd have to call this a major disappointment from the legendary director. This certainly is no where near what I'd call a bad film and even though I didn't like it it's easy to see why some might love it. I'm sure I would have been one of them but the story, to me, just wasn't strong enough to pull me into everything that was going on and when this is happening during a nearly three-hour movie you're going to eventually grow bored with what you're watching. I'm not sure if I had read the novel if it would have made much difference but there were times when I felt rather lost as to what was going on and I'm not sure if this was due to me not being knowledgeable of the source material or if my boredom in what was going on just kept me from connecting to certain plot points. With that said, there's still quite a bit to admire here including the wonderful cinematography by Toshio Ubukata who really creates a nice atmosphere with his camera. I especially loved the scenes outside in the snowy streets and another segment with the ice skating. Another major plus were the performances from the cast with Mori leading the way as the Christ-like figure. I think a lot of actors would have loved to play a part like this but I'd be willing to bet that most would really overplay it but thankfully Mori never does this. I think he finds the perfect blend of kindness as well as that Christ-like figure and makes a rather memorable character. Hara also gets to shine in many scenes including the dramatic one of her letting Mori pretty much pick her future. Mifune, as always, is terrific and really adds a nice punch in the second half of the film. Kurosawa certainly handles the material well but the story is a very important thing and all the positives this film offered me just couldn't get over the fact that I didn't care too much for what I was seeing.