CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Sean Wilson This is one of the strangest, complex films I've ever seen. When you read the synopsis, you'll probably realise that the writer and director, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, is working on many different levels, and you'll equally stay involved with the story due to the outstanding visuals. Kurosawa's camera work is typically brilliant, allowing the viewer to escape into the mysterious rural Japanese landscape.Part philosophical drama, part social study, part ecological investigation, part surrealistic, Kafkaesque black comedy, Kurosawa has clearly crafted a film that demands repeated viewings. My first viewing was focused on the ecological themes present throughout the film; the whole idea of man's control over nature, without realising that nature doesn't reason. It just is. Applying Spinozan logic, nature is the infinite essence of the universe and doesn't need controlling. Nature doesn't act out of emotion and reason; it is perfect and simply is. There's just so much more thematic material open to interpretation so it's hard to place one specific genre to the film, but Kurosawa skillfully builds up disturbing dramatic moments with his trademark perfect camera work, boasting stellar cinematography of the Japanese landscape.The film might not be my favourite, but 'Charisma' is certainly up there as one of Kurosawa's best films. If you're interested in strange but nonetheless interesting examinations of reality, then be sure to check this one out.

f231843 The consensus on this film seems to be an exploration of the dichotomy between individualism and society, but given the director's own statements about the origins of the film and his own uncertainty about the ultimate meaning, I think this film is still up for interpretation and some healthy debate, 14 years later. ^.^ The ending of this film does not match the interpretation that ebossert below describes. If the collapse of society were due to Yabuike's rejection of the dichotomy, this would be a wrong ending. It creates another dichotomy, and actively goes against the film's own stated philosophy: that the destruction, rather than preservation, of both would lead to chaos/extinction. The chaos seen at the end of the film is something different. What is being contrasted in this film is not society with individualism, but society with an individual. Just as it's insane to allow a destructive individual to continue to exist and taint a society for his uniqueness, it's also excessive to kill that person to protect society. There has to be a way to save both--that's Yabuike's plan. The non-linearity and philosophy seen in this film (and countless other Japanese films) draws, through perhaps unconscious cultural channels, from Buddhism. Particularly in Zen Buddhism, the form most popular in Japan, all is changing and inseparable. There is no individual, for we are all intricately and inextricably bound by forces tying us together--cause and effect. The solution to the problem, then, is not to kill the individual to protect society, as the botanist wishes, nor to let the forest be killed to protect the tree, as Kiriyama wishes. Yabuike's solution is chance. Pure, random, chaotic chance. Since all are equal, kill this one, let this one survive. This explains the men in black (who may represent the forces of nature), who simultaneously break away from the false paradigm with Yabuike. They throw away their caps, lifting the mental ceiling off, and he no longer has any qualms about risking one person's life to save another in a hostage situation. The ending is a bit dramatic for an otherwise deliberately-paced film; more accurate would have been a subtle, understated change in society, but that's difficult to depict when your film is already 100 minutes long. In short, Kurosawa Kiyoshi created with this another excellent film that watches like a good book reads. I had to take several pauses to reflect on the ideas and parallels depicted on screen. If you're reading this now, chances are you're just discovering Kurosawa as I did years ago. He is now my favourite director, and Yakusho Kouji my favourite actor. I highly recommend watching, and rewatching, both of their films!

Brandt Sponseller Some sources have called Charisma a "thriller". Fangoria, the horror magazine, had Charisma on its "Video Chopping List", which should imply that it's at least a thriller, if not horror. They also ran a review of it online. The Netflix summary--although they are notoriously way off base, so one should know to take them with a pound of salt--described Charisma as "an existentialist eco-thriller". Although there are a couple nifty deaths in the film, it is not at all a thriller or a horror film. It is basically an art-house drama centered on a tree. There are hallucinatory aspects, there is humor, and we could generously say that there's a lot of "poetry" to the film. But the only relationship that Charisma has to the more macabre and suspenseful genres is that as a Japanese film, it shares a disregard for linear logic similar to many Japanese genre films.The story concerns a detective named Goro Yabuike (Kôji Yakusho). After an odd screw-up at work that resulted in the death of a member of the Japanese Parliament, Yabuike is put on a leave of absence. He decides to head to a forest. For some strange reason, he doesn't come prepared, he has no place to stay and he walks around in his everyday street clothes. He starts off by sleeping in an old car until it's set afire. He happens upon a scrawny tree that's supposedly incongruous for the area. A metal, tubular framework surrounds it. There are IV bottles and tubes hooked up to it. Apparently some guy is guarding it and chases off anyone who gets near it. Yabuike meets the tree's keeper. He meets a woman botanist. The keeper and botanist are arguing about the merits of the tree and whether it is killing the forest. Yabuike keeps bouncing back and forth between the two, getting filthier all the time. Each wants him on their side. He gets somewhat involved with a woman who seems like the botanist's sister. A bunch of commando-looking guys keep showing up, trying to take the tree for commercial purposes. Yabuike keeps getting into strange situations, people always show up in the nick of time from out of nowhere, and people keep eating plants in the forest that are maybe poisonous and maybe hallucinogenic. The bulk of the film, when there's some kind of action, consists of people "arguing" back and forth about the tree, alternated with strange non-sequiturs in the dialogue and plot.As you've probably discerned already, it's not exactly easy to describe the content of the film. That's because it doesn't exactly make much sense. Westerners might assume that there's some deeper cultural context to the film, that maybe it speaks of some current events in Japan and/or invokes some well-known mythological or artistic references, but in director Kiyoshi Kurosawa's interview included on the DVD, it sounds like the film was simply precipitated by the emerging environmental movement in the late 1980s (he admits that the script is 10 years old), and that he later tried to graft some "human drama" onto it. Kurosawa adds that he's not quite sure what the film is about, and he's not sure if it works. I don't think it works, either. The story is not at all compelling, it tends to drag too much in spots, and the lack of exposition and logic end up hurting more than helping. My wife ditched out after a half hour.But, I wouldn't say it's a complete failure. There are interesting elements here that might make Charisma worth watching for viewers with particular kinds of interests, as well as die-hard fans of Japanese cinema.The most conspicuous asset is that Kurosawa is amazing at visual composition. If I were to recontextualize Charisma as something more like a series of still photographs--still with moving elements, if that makes sense--it would easily get an 8. Almost every shot is very rich compositionally. Kurosawa must take incredible care in getting his actors placed and moving to the exact right spots--otherwise known as blocking--with complex, varied sets and background elements that usually create multifaceted visual paths for your eye to wander around. He has interesting combinations of objects, colors and textures, and often takes great care in ensuring that there are multiple elements in motion--things like water, smoke, blowing curtains and so on. There will often be several layers of this. He tends to place the camera unexpected distances from his actors. A lot of shots are wide and stay wide and motionless for a whole scene. There is a relative absence of close-ups. He also uses lighting in very unusual ways. All of these unique approaches tend to work, with the sole exception of some of the darker scenes, or scenes with a bit too much backlighting. If you have any interest in visual composition, Charisma is worth checking out for that alone.Also interesting are the subtextual and metaphorical aspects of the story. Whether intended or not, Charisma is rich with this material, partially aided by the film's ambiguity. Starting from a more literal level, the story can be seen as gradual working toward redemption for Yabuike. He ends up redoing the event that brought him to the forest, only this time he gets it "right". More abstractly, the Charisma tree and the events surrounding it can represent everything from mass human interaction with a unique, individualistic human, to a parable about "natural law", to a polemic against imperialistic nations in the world, perhaps even the U.S. There are also numerous suggestions throughout the film that the forest is some kind of alternate reality, perhaps even Hell. We never see anyone leave, by the way, even though they talk about leaving. These ideas are intriguing, but they all require the viewer to do a lot of work; the film can be a catalyst for them, but that doesn't help make the film entertaining or compelling.Proceed with caution on this one.

Pedro-37 Kiyoshi Kurosawa is one of the most amazing stylists around. I loved his "Cure" for its distanced, analytical camera work - but I'm no fan of that movie's ending. Then I've seen "Kaïro" and was amazed because it had a completely different style. Scary and finally apocalyptic in a way I've never thought it would go. "Charisma" is the third Kurosawa-movie I've seen and again, its style is amazing. Sometimes the camera watches a scene from far away and gives the action a distanced, neutral look. The shots in the forest are amazing. Sometimes green and lush, sometimes misty and foreboding.But what about that story? I've read many interpretations - that this is an analysis of Japan's society, that this is a neutral (which would fit the style) look at a confrontation of "wrong" and "right". Well, that's all rather intriguing - but no, it doesn't satisfy me at all. Now that I think about it, I'm actually very disappointed by the story. No one in this movie acts rationally which lifts the movie away from reality and lessens its social commentary. It had flashes of brilliance where I clearly saw what Kurosawa was aiming at - but he could not sustain his ideas for the full running time. Sometimes I thought this was a parody and all Kurosawa wants to do in the end is laugh at the viewer who was expecting something that makes sense.That said, I have to admit that it gives you a lot of thought fodder - just not in any rewarding way. Even if it is a clever commentary on Japan's society, that would not be enough for almost 2 hours. So the only really great thing about this film is its visual glory. I'm still not sure whether I like Kurosawa's movies or not. I certainly won't forget them. Rating: 6/10