Taiyô wo nusunda otoko

The Man Who Stole the Sun treads the finest of lines in trying to balance its subject matter and tone, but Kazuhiko Hasegawa's controversial movie about nuclear terrorism is a darkly comedic and thrilling satire on a subject once considered unsatiriseable annihilating any form of genre borders in the process. Holding particular resonance for Japanese audiences, as while the country does use nuclear power, it has long held against amassing a nuclear arsenal due to the devastating effects that ended World War II. The movie doesn't stop dead for any form of long-winded nationalistic or philosophical speeches and instead insists on a conceivable reality with seemingly no motivation.

One of only two movies directed by Kazuhiko Hasegawa, which in turn feels like a crime in itself, Hasegawa rewards the viewer with some utterly sublime direction and excellent framing, with plenty of thrilling action set pieces to command his viewer's attention at all times (the car chase feels like it was ripped right out of a Ringo Lam movie). It balances the unorthodox nature and tone of the movie exceptionally well, juxtaposing the shifts with unnatural ease. Complimented by funky and often ill-fitting music by Takayuki Inoue to glorious success.

The performances are all excellent, with Kenji Sawada playing the everyman gone rogue with an endless amount of animosity slowly succumbing to the effects of radiation poisoning making him more and more unpredictable as the movie goes on. But it's the award-winning performance from the stoic and hardened Bunta Sugawara that really captivates me as he normally does in his roles, single-minded and exceptionally driven.

Overall, The Man Who Stole the Sun, even at two and a half hours long, never feels overly long or bloated. The film absolutely refuses to limit itself, and that's why it's so entertaining and impressive.

Very well make... there are car chasing, gun shooting and even more... after watching this movie you may know how to make an atomic bomb!! Try to pick up this film in Video or Vcd.

It doesn't make the strongest impression from the outset, or at least, it comes across rather curious. Flavorful as Inoue Takayuki's music is, like Hasegawa Kazuhiko's direction it says "TV movie" or even "cheeky exploitation flick" at least as much as "70s drama or thriller." The lead character of Makoto suggests a B-movie with his mannerisms, further borne out in Sawada Kenji's spirited performance and other odds and ends. Promising as the premise is, for too long the actual brainchild of Hasegawa and Leonard Schrader is generally interesting more than it is specifically compelling. And while the pacing isn't altogether bad, the plot development takes its good time, such that the first hour passes kind of unremarkably. Add an initial and lingering playful edge that suggests satire, and of everything that 'The man who stole the sun' could have been, one way or another it's not completely what I expected.

None of this is specifically a mark against the film per se, though some animal cruelty does nothing to help earn my favor, nor fleeting, unnecessary touches of homophobia. And nitpick as we may, it's well made, including the production design and art direction, cinematography and editing, props and costume design, hair and makeup, absolutely the stunts and effects, and even Hasegawa's direction. The cast do give capable performances, including not just Sawada but also Sugawara Bunta and Ikegami Kimiko; I like Inoue's score, and the other songs we hear on the soundtrack. Even as tidbits raise a skeptical eyebrow, I think the writing notably gains some strength once Ikegami's character Zero enters the narrative, adding another interesting angle with her gleeful fascination - or maybe it's that a broad sense of escalation in the course of events provides some needed vitality for the picture.

But then, even still, in a runtime of nearly two and one-half hours, it's not until we're within about the last hour that this starts to be earnestly thrilling, and emotionally investing. There's a pretty clean line of demarcation as to where the greatest strength lies in 'The man who stole the sun,' where it is tightest in both writing and execution, and where it seems to best meet its potential. It's not that the preceding length is unworthy, but as it seems evident where Hasegawa, Schrader, and all others most focused their energy, it seems fair to wonder why they didn't do so up to that point. I think this is very enjoyable and deserving on its own merits, and I also think it would be far more so if the entirety were as carefully considered as the back end tends to be. One could even argue that all the title really needed was to trim some excess so that the plot - action and dialogue, thrills and drama alike - and the feelings it invites, could be lighter on its feet, and more impactful all told.

When all is said and done I think this is very good, and anyone with an appreciation for the violent thrillers that proliferated in the 70s will surely find it to be a solid viewing experience well worth their while. I wish only that the whole might have been crafted as shrewdly as much of the latter half, for if it had then I would be more enthusiastic. Don't go out of your way for 'The man who stole the sun,' but so long as you're amenable to features that may slightly miss the mark, this is quite excellent overall and earns a fair recommendation.

By many accounts, Kazuhiko Hasegawa's second feature film is a bold film, unusually flamboyant for its time (not by Kurosawa standards), and is a milestone in mainstream Japanese cinema. "The Man who stole the sun" was based on a story treatment written by an American screenwriter, Leonard Schrader (of "The Yakuza" fame and the brother of filmmaker Paul Schrader) who lived in Japan at the time. Hasegawa was hired to adapt this idea into a film based on his success from his first feature film, "The Youth Killer" which was hailed as a bold insight into the psyche of a young serial killer. It is interesting to note that Hasegawa was a Hiroshima native who suffered radiation poisoning when he was in his mother's womb as result of the dropping of the atomic bomb (which provides one of the pivotal themes in the film). The starring role of Makoto, the science teacher was given to the Japanese pop diva, Kenji Sawada (also known by his fans as "Julie")whose acting shines on par with his singing. This conscious casting decision (considering how Sawada was at the peak of his solo singing career) characterizes the flamboyant nature of this film. The role of the police officer, Yamashita who chases Makoto toe to toe throughout the film was given to the late Bunta Sugawara (who was known for playing gangster roles) is very over the top, but is a great contrast to the character of Makoto. The plot is quite straight forward a socially awkward science steals plutonium to build his own atomic bomb and threatens the government. Makoto's motivation to use his creation is fittingly unclear and bears some resemblance to a Travis Bickle (a character created by Paul Schrader). The pacing of the film (it is somewhat long, slightly above two and a half hours), somewhat reflects the motivation of Makoto character as the film progresses, the pacing becomes slower (Unusual, given the elaborate car chase shot on location in the middle of Tokyo was the film's climax). These unusual aesthetic choices makes this cult-classic very entertaining in spite of its shortcomings. The film was financially unsuccessful because of it's rather insensitive advertising tag line, (Direct translation "Julie is tough as an atomic bomb") but has gathered a cult following and is considered by some critics as one of the best mainstream Japanese films ever made. This film overall is definitely worth it's praise.

A highschool science teacher decides to make an atomic bomb in his apartment. The opening half hour of this movie is erratic, making it difficult to predict where the story is going or what will ultimately happen. A nice blend of dark thrills and black humor is what makes this one special. It juxtaposes tonal shifts in convincing fashion. The protagonist is an unorthodox mad scientist who is very likable and charismatic. There are some very interesting sequences in this, like the lengthy plutonium experiments and bomb construction. Most of the film is realistic but even the more wildly, intentionally unrealistic moments are entertaining in their craziness. There are also some subtleties that one will miss if they are not paying close attention. Performances are great and the ending is ballsy.

Some of the criticisms that I've read for this film have annoyed me. It's like most of the negative reviews are coming from people who are demanding that every element of the film be easily categorized into tiny little boxes of familiarity and traditional filmmaking styles. Take the protagonist's philosophy as one example. We get a very good feel for his character throughout the film. He's an unhinged yet likable science teacher, but according to some critics he's apparently not "properly developed" because he doesn't come out and tell everyone exactly why he made the bomb. Well, why does he need a reason anyway? I thought one of the points of the film was that he didn't know what to do with the bomb after he made it. He even asks the radio DJ to poll her listeners so he can get some ideas! Come on, people. Did you really want him to make a long-winded nationalistic or philosophical speech at the end? I'm glad he didn't. In fact, I find it thought-provoking and refreshing that I have difficulty identifying exactly why he did it. And guess what? That was probably the WHOLE POINT OF THE MOVIE!

Another ridiculous criticism is one of those oft-parroted dumb ones that I'll never understand. Due to the black humor and unrealistic moments, there are tonal shifts throughout. Of course, viewers who need their movies carbon-copied in Hollywood fashion will have a problem with this because "the movie doesn't know what it wants to be." Yeesh! Okay, do you really want every movie to be easily categorized as a "comedy" or a "drama" or a "thriller"? Do you really want every movie to be easily categorized as "realistic" or "unrealistic"? Sure, let's just eliminate genre-benders all together and we'll be left with a bunch of boring, predictable films. But at least we can feel good about ourselves because then we can properly categorize them into tiny little boxes. Listen people, the tonal shifts are one reason this film is fun to watch. The same is true with the wild shifts between realism and unrealism. The final half-hour (that everyone complains about) gave me more surprises than the last three dozen "single genre" films I've seen recently.

This film refuses to limit itself, and that's why it's so entertaining and impressive.