the audience applauded

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

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.

The man who stole the sun starts well. Almost like a Japanese 'Taxi Driver' with a high school teacher making an atom bomb in his house. Why does he do it? No idea. Its never explained. The film suffers from personality crisis and shifts constantly. Is the hero a nice guy? Seems to be, everything we know about him says yes. oh wait...hes just killed a pool full of kids. He also seems to hero-worship a police detective (who is the best character in the film) but ends up killing him in a grotesque way, again for no discernible reason. But most seriously, this film is long. Way too long. It stand at 2 hours and 30 minutes...Id take 45 minutes out of it. lose some of the many shots of the hero wandering around doing nothing, or better still cut out the entire pointless love story with the irritating radio DJ. I guess the reason for being overly critical here is that it starts so well. I expected a lot more...

Look out for this hilariously overblown, big-budget Japanese film from the 70s, in which a trendy young high-school science teacher somehow makes a nuclear bomb in his Tokyo studio apartment, in order to hold the world to ransom. The bubble-gum blowing anti-hero is played by then pop-star Julie (a guy despite the girl's name) who looks more like John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever than any school-teachers I remember. The film, (co-written by "Taxi-Driver" writer Paul Schrader's brother) plays on the public's fear of nuclear weapons, but whether or not you're scared depends on how far you're willing to suspend your disbelief. After some early attempts at political commentary, it turns into a full-blown action film, with endless jaw-dropping stunts. Julie single-handedly hijacks a power station to steal plutonium for the bomb, and the cop in hot pursuit throughout the movie (a brilliant Bunta Sugawara)is as tenacious and indestructible as a Terminator as he dodges explosions and jumps from helicopters. Although overlong at 2 and a half hours, this film is constantly mad, unpredictable and unintentionally amusing. Animal lovers beware- Julie does some rather nasty things to his cat in the name of science.