Why did you like it?

Kurosawa based Ran off of Shakespeare's King Lear so I believe the heightened threaticality of it, along with the over the top humor of the fool character, was intended. It certainly has a pessimistic outlook on life and the characters are not very likeable but the movie does say a lot about human nature. Some people can't stand to invest time in a film that doesn't have a happy ending and this one doesn't end well.

From a technical standpoint, there a very few films I think that can match Ran. The scale of the battle sequences, the sets, and the oscar-winning costumes were done with fine precision and attention to detail. It's just a beautiful film to look at and watching it makes me want to visit Japan. I thought the actors were exceptional in their respective roles but I also knew what to expect since it's based on a play.

I enjoy the film very much. It's a late masterpiece by one of the all-time great filmmakers.

I haven't seen Ran, so I'm not going to tell you why it is what is.

"But what I can't get is why people love art movies. I'm talking about Bergman (who is a swede like me), and especially Kurosawa. As long as and art movie combines the art with humor, action or adventure it works for me, but some movies drown in the art and get to abstract."

Art - the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

The purpose of Art is communication. Its a form of expression, that it can't just be accessible to the Artist. It is made from and for the Artist, but also for the world to see it, to listen to it, to enjoy or hate, to understand or to question. It defines and "undefines".
Cinema is the 7th Art. The complexity of a Director's mind (a good one at least) is unimaginable. The power of its vision, its organization and its result has a life of its own.
Now, if you don't "understand" some artists' Art, remember that it wasn't made especially for you. That doesn't mean that you'll never get it. Of course you can understand the artist's work and still don't enjoy or relate to it. That's a problem here in the IMDb discuss boards.

Now I do agree with you in one thing: Cinema must be entertaining. It must draw you in, story, characters, cinematography, whatever... That's the big problem for the director. To turn his ideas, his mind into a piece of art which will be enjoyed by the audience. Cinema is just a tool, not a purpose.

About "those directors" (like Bergman, Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, even Kubrick, Scorcese (this one a better entertainer*), etc), their vision, their ideas are just that.. Theirs... They just expressed them through Cinema. Just like Beethoven and Mozart did through Music; Dali and Degas through Painting; Einstein and Darwin through Science (being an objective science it has a different purpose and way through, but vision is equally related). Once you get through the characters, the story, the cinematography, the OBVIOUS, and take a look deeper into the "Art", I ensure you... you'll like it alot more.

Of course aged films are different to analyze and comprehend since it was made by and for a different year, decade or century that the one you live in. Some films are ageless, yes, others you have to time shift yourself into it. Your life experience, emotions and thoughts will decide wether you like a movie or not.

EDIT: * Entertainer doesn't mean better.

Because it's a damn good film.

It's one of my favorite films, but I had the advantage of seeing it without having heard all sorts of talk about how great it was. Sometime in the late 80s, my father rented it (on VHS!) because someone at the video store told him it was good. At the time, I may have heard of 'Seven Samurai' but I had absolutely no knowledge of Kurosawa. I just sat down to watch the movie and was blown away by the look and the mood, not to mention the story and some of the characters, Kaede and Kurogane in particular. I think the scene with Kaede, Jiro, and the knife cemented it for me, and I was hooked.

I've watched it every couple of years since then, and I always get something new from it. I suppose that's one way of defining what makes a great movie, for me at least.

I should add that I might have felt differently if I had watched it AFTER hearing from everybody and their mother about how great it is. But I could say that about any 'great' movie that I watched with knowledge that I should be 'appreciating' it. Under those circumstances, it's really hard to drown out those voices and just watch the damn movie.


____________________
'It's a mess, ain't it, sheriff?'
'If it ain't, it'll do till the mess gets here.'

The colour, light, scenery and costumes were breathtaking. I love Shakespeare and it's always great to see a Shakespeare play on film where it's not only done well but made individual in some way. The lead actor who played Hidetori was just right as Lear who suffers from being of cholreic temperament and pays for it. It was incredibly clever how Kurpsawa/make-up and hair made his traditional Japanese hairstyle end up resembling a classic Lear look. In addition the fool and Lady Kaede were superb translations from the Shakespeare play too.

my vessel is magnificent and large and huge-ish

I am not sure what you mean when you say that this is one of those movies that drown in the art and get too abstract. This is an adaptation of a Shakespeare play, it is not an experimental film. How is it abstract?