sfdavide I loved this film. I liked the Renior version also but felt the darkness of this film made it more realistic. I think that if people are in this situation they will act more this way then like they did in the Renior film. The acting was fabulous including Toshiro Mifune, Koji Mitsui as the Gambler, Gonjiro Nakamura, the landlord and especially Kamatari Fujiwara as the actor and Bokuzen Hidari, "Gramps". I loved the way Kurosawa used stage actors mostly to film this play but they did not show they were stage actors. The scenery was wonderful and not many directors can film a movie and make it interesting with only two locations. I think this should be near the top of Kurosawa's other films

Furuya Shiro I enjoyed it. Everyone in the movie has very distinct character. I really enjoyed the superb performances of skilled actors who acted without going out from the dirty room and surrounding area.After watching the movie, I read its original stage drama, "The Lower Depth" by Gorky. Most of the characters and the scripts are the same as the original drama. On Gorky's book, I could not help reading it with exact accent and gesture in the movie. Particularly, I can't imagine better way of speaking the pilgrimage Luke's scripts than Kahei acted by Hidari Bokuzen. I am sure the scripts of the movie are based on Nakamura Hakuyo's Japanese translation published from Iwanami. Even the Russian stage drama is adapted to completely different locale, you don't feel any awkwardness. This means perhaps, both the original drama and its adaptation are really great.What only a movie could do is that you can enjoy subtle expression of countenance at close up. There are unforgettable performances by face, such as the moment of instant tension when the land owner, acted by Nakamura Ganjiro, and Sutekichi the thief, acted by Mifune Toshiro, stand together; or the moment the actor, acted by Fujiwara Kamatari, goes out of the house after gulping sake.The scene of dancing with mouth instrumentation ('kuchi-syamisen in Japanese) is a great fun. Particularly I enjoyed the fat man Tsugaru dancing with sling; I found the actor is a professional sumo wrestler.The most unforgettable personality is the old man Kahei. Can I become such a nice old man who can solace and encourage everyone around me? This movie can work out without Sutekichi the thief, but the old man. Therefore, the old man Kahei could be the lead character.By the way, as a movie that describes the lower depth life with humor and music, I remember "Woman of Breakwater", by Philippine director Mario O'Hara. People in "Woman of Breakwater" came to live outside of the breakwater of Manila Bay. Everyone wants to flee from there, but can not. Just behind the breakwater is a park, and modern buildings. Describing the life of the poor out of the sight of the rich, it portrays mutual love among the people. "Donzoko" does not have such social viewpoint. Instead, it tries to show ugliness and kindness of everyone as a comedy.

MisterWhiplash The one problem with The Lower Depths, at least on a first impression basis (and I can't say for sure if its with Maxim Gorky's original text, as I haven't read that or see Jean Renoir's 1936 film of it) is that not a whole lot goes on with the story. Matter of fact, Akira Kurosawa's films, which always have a strong story that sometimes becomes very complex, isn't as such with this. It's sort of a play about the day-to-day inner-working (often nothingness) of the lives of beggars, thieves, downtrodden, and ill in a slum. This doesn't mean that Kurosawa doesn't have room for his usual extraordinary camera angles, or the intensity of a couple of fights in the film, or that he can't bring out the entertainment value in his actors (it's not an entirely dour film, bits of human comedy are laced in). It's just that it seems to not hold the attention and total awe of a viewer in the way that his greater works do. Mifune is as reliable a leading man as can be, and I liked how Kurosawa set-up the supporting character before he got to his character, Shizuki. But once the characters are set-up, it's a roll-on for little anecdotes of their relationships, thoughts, compassion, laughs, craziness, sadness, contemplation, and so forth. All this makes for some interesting parts, and it's never a film to turn off mid-way - there are a few memorable scenes and dialog bits, like a little card game where the players have a little chant)there are always moments in a Kurosawa film that mark as superb cinema). Indeed, if one didn't know it was a film by Kurosawa it might be even more impressive on some level. Maybe, and this isn't to put down the significance of the play, it's a little too 'talky' for Kurosawa's own good. Worth the watch if you're already steeped in Kurosawa land, and if you like the play already it's surely worth it for the comparison factor.

Mark D. Brown First, I must provide the obligatory warning that this film is absolutely not a good film for introducing a viewer to the power of Kurosawa. Nevertheless, this film is one of his most well-crafted ensemble films. The performance of Bokuzen Hidari as the wandering pilgrim or priest Kahei is his pinnacle in Kurosawa's films. After his comic-relief roles in the more well known films "Ikiru" and "Seven Samurai", this role is Hidari's chance to show his own version of wisdom and authority. Similarly, Kamatari Fujiwara's powerfully sympathetic performance as the alcoholic actor is another surprising demonstration by an actor who had, hitherto, been cast in unsympathetic- even adversarial roles in previous Kurosawa films. As one comes to expect from Isuzu Yamada, her character is a feisty and commanding presence that drives the plot along.Toshiro Mifune, however, was not the best choice for his role as the petty thief- try as he might to look like a immature and puerile common criminal , the false swagger fails to hide the actor's inherent dignity. Nevertheless, his energy and effort still make his performance believable- if incongruous. In general, however, his unsuitability for his role is the only significant snag in an otherwise fluid and natural performance on the part of all the actors. Also, the sets, as one would expect for Kurosawa, are meticulously detailed, well-lit, and authentic-seeming.The story- based on the Maxim Gorky play, however, is not that compelling. In part, I think, it is my reaction to a socialistic morality play brought to the silver screen. Also, however, Kurosawa has tried too hard and has polished the performance and settings for too long. As well and smoothly as the actors interact, as convincing they are in their roles, their performance just does not lead anywhere dramatically. However, I saw the Jean Renoir version- a much less refined effort, in my opinion- and had much the same reaction, concluding that the story, itself, and not Kuroasawa's over-controlling treatment is what hampered my engagement.In spite of that... That is to say... In spite of the fact that the movie's story is not very compelling for me at all, I still have high regard for the film because the acting performances are so solid and engaging. For that reason, I strongly urge devotees of Kurosawa's films to check this movie out at some point while keeping in mind that it remains less than a sum of its parts.