I've seen The Last Samurai

Enforcer

Explorer
And I loved it! And, for those of you complaining about Dances with Katanas, I liked this movie better than Dances With Wolves. So nyah.

The scenery is absolutely stunning in this movie. If Braveheart made me want to visit Scotland, this one makes me want to visit Japan. The costumes are also quite beautiful, the armor alone is fascinating.

The fight scenes are amazing, the best I've seen since Braveheart. You can tell that Tom Cruise spent a lot of time training for the fight scenes.

The best reason to see this movie, however, is Ken Watanabe, who plays the samurai rebel leader. He is a fine, fine actor and I hope he'll do more movies for American audiences--I'm also interested in seeing movies he's done in Japan. He really gives an amazing performance.

Anyways, I give it 4 stars. So that means more than bupkus: some of my other 4 star favorites are Braveheart, Shawshank Redemption, A Few Good Men, and Unforgiven.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I liked it too. Not sure I'd give it 4 stars, there were some historical anachronisms that bugged me and a few plot holes but still a pretty damn good movie. It was Tom's bid for an Oscar, I expect he might just pull it off.
 

Enforcer said:
The scenery is absolutely stunning in this movie. If Braveheart made me want to visit Scotland, this one makes me want to visit Japan.

Except that The Last Samurai was filmed in New Zealand. :D
 

Yeah, but that's kind of like filming Sleepy Hollow in England rather than New England. There is just not much of Japan left that looks like Japan. :) At least not affordably.
 


The sword fights: B+.

The full-scale battle scenes: A.

The panoramic scenery: B+. (In my opinion, only the LotR films deserve an A in this category. And, yes, I realize Last Samurai was shot in New Zealand.)

The costumes: B+.

The acting, overall: B. (Cruz does not deserve an Oscar for this one, but his co-star, Ken Watanabe, might.)

The plot: C-. (Would've rated a B+, if not for the last 15 minutes of the film.)

Historical accuracy: D. (This one was worse than Braveheart, IMHO.)

Philosophical anachronisms and modern-day political correctness: F. (I found this especially irksome about the film. Don't know who it's pandering to more: modern-day Americans, or modern-day Japanese. "Dances with Samurai", indeed!)
 
Last edited:


Hand of Evil said:
What stood out as wrong?

Well, for one, the last of the samurai in real life did not go out in a blaze of glory like they did in the movie. For another, samurai in real life were not such "purists" that they were above employing muskets and cannons in battle. (Watch Kurosawa's movie masterpiece, Ran, to see what I mean.)

It also irked me that, in the movie, samurai were depicted as being so noble and selfless, when in real life, the majority of them were elitists, bullies, and warmongers. (Just as the majority of European knights were.) Furthermore, samurai were not defenders of the people, as was said in the movie -- samurai in real life were protectors of their lord's lands and properties, as well as enforcers of the Emperor's laws and whims.

BTW: When Tom Cruise's character was learning how to wield the katana, and during that practice match where it was first occurring to him to use a Zen-like awareness in order to better fight his trainer, I leaned over to my wife and whispered, chuckling, "Use the force, Luke!" And that's pretty much what Tom Cruise's character did. What a hoot!
 
Last edited:


New Zealand? Crap. Was the scene where Alrgen first sees the island of Honshu and Mt. Fuji from the boat real at least?

Anyways, they sure fooled me. As for historical accuracy, I don't care. It's not a documentary, it's a fictional account. Same with Braveheart, despite the real-life characters it's not a documentary.
 

Enchanted Trinkets Complete

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top