|
Directed by: Edward Zwick Starring: Tom Cruise I was extremely skeptical about this movie when it first came out, in fact, I refused to see it because of the presented story. But...this movie taught me that I can't merely judge it by it's cover (not that I usually do, but come on, a white dude as the last samurai?). I was absolutely blown away by every moment of this movie, not a single part made me want to leave. It was probably because I had extremely low expectations for the movie, but still. The end fight scene, like all samurai movies, was absolutely glorious. I shed a tear from the entire thing. I love this movie, and I hope they come out with a collectors edition for me to procure  .RATING: 5.3 PROS: Pretty much everything CONS: Maybe a little bad acting here and there. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
|
#
?
May 5, 2004 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
This film suffers from the single worst choice of title imaginable when coupled with the ad campaign used to promote it. Once you see it, you'll understand why. Much along the lines of Braveheart and Gladiator, it is moderately epic production VERY LOOSELY grounded in fact. If you're looking for a truly historical presentation, you're in luck because there's a nice History vs. Hollywood piece included on the DVD, but the film itself takes great creative license in presenting the end of "samurai culture" in Japan. That aside, I love this movie. Edward Zwick, who also directed Glory, is tremendously talented and carefully crafts a three act story that, despite clocking in at over two and a half hours, feels concise. This is not a film to run in the background. While there are a handful of grand battles, the story is largely told through extremely subtle acting and camera work. More often that not a nod will tell the story - or a slight bow or an extremely precise lighting cue. Zwick manages to cram more eroticism into an exposed shoulder or the careful tying of a robe than you'll find in any number of standard Hollywood sex scenes. While Tom Cruise - whose performance is extremely good - is our star, Ken Watanabe absolutely steals this film. He has an intensity and presence on screen that makes Cruise nearly invisible. Hearing that he'll be playing Ra's Al Ghul in the upcoming Batman Begins makes me a very happy movie geek. My only serious complaint about the film is its ending. Utterly uncompromising for nearly two and a half hours, it buckles in its final moments and spoon-feeds the audience an ostensibly "happy" ending. Nevertheless, the way it challenges the audience for the vast majority of its running time greatly overshadows this moment of creative weakness. A SOLID 5.0
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2004 02:09
|
|
|
I saw this movie recently, and I must say I was impressed. The film is simply beautiful to watch. The costumes, the setting, it is visualling stunning. The battle scenes were quite fantastic. But despite all that, I just couldn't get into it. The last battle just seemed goofy. The fact that the only white guy in the entire army was the only one to survive just seemed retarded. Also, during the final battle, were the emperors soldiers using muskets? It seemed like they were just firing shot after shot without reloading. Also the gattling gun wasn't anywhere near that efficient. voted 3
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2004 03:21
|
|
|
I also thought this film was amazing. A number of people I've talked to about it were disappointed, expecting an action movie. As stated before, there are some great action sequences but it's not a story basing itself on war, but instead on culture differences and learning experiences. I'd compare it to Dances With Wolves or something of the like. Also, I do not believe the title of the film depicts Tom Cruise as being the "Last Samurai", but instead Ken Watanabe would fill this role, with Tom Cruise being a tool in the film to portray the lifestyles of these people. It is an ambiguous title however, which will be easilly misinterpreted by much of  to believe that an American steals the role.5.0
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2004 04:13
|
|
|
Meh, okay film. I just can't take Tom Cruise very seriously although Ken Watanabe is fantastic. I laughed my rear end off at the end of the final battle and I don't think I was supposed to. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2004 08:15
|
|
|
I just saw this movie tonight and I was pleasantly surprised at how good it was. The ads definitely do it no justice whatsoever. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2004 07:51
|
|
|
I didnt like this movie. For one thing I don't believe it is historically accurate at all. The second thing is that Tom Cruise a Capt in the Cavalary in the US has no problems killing multitudes of Samurai and Ninjas with his sword. Give me a break. Voted: 2.5
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2004 07:48
|
|
|
quote:Mauser came out of the closet to say: They were using whatever it was that the guy was using at the beginning of the film when he was talking to the crowd and decided to shoot stuff. Thompson did they say? I only saw the movie once, and that was maybe a week after its release so I can't remember names to well. Also Japanese does not have a separate word, or modify words to indicate singular/plural. So "The Last Samurai" could mean just one guy, or all of the samurai in Japan which became ineffective and out of place with the introduction of Western warfare and the gattling gun. Anyway, I really enjoyed the movie, this is a fictional portrayal of history and there isn’t anything very unbelievable that happened throughout the course of the film. I’ll probably be getting the dvd soon.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2004 08:55
|
|
|
I saw it tonight, and although I felt much of it was well done, I have to say that it was very idealized and unrealistic, and felt much too "hollywood" for me to really enjoy it. *edit* Now that I think about it, my beef is that I felt like it was attempting to send a serious real message using an almost completely fictionalized story and world */edit* Tempted to vote lower, but I enjoyed the fighting and overall appearance, so I'll give it a 3.00 Locus fucked around with this message at 10:41 on May 7, 2004 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2004 10:38
|
|
|
The whole seemed just seemed to take entirely to long to get from point A to B, while I really enjoyed certain parts of it I barley stayed awake for them. I expected a more action packed story, it just didn't deliver what I wanted. 2/5
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2004 12:42
|
|
|
Tom Cruise acts like a weirdo stalker in the film, how many scenes are there where the girl is doing something else and he stands behing her staring at her. Very freaky. Also the film has some terrible dialogue, all that GodSpeed gibber. Nicely shot though. 1/5
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2004 13:30
|
|
|
quote:funtax came out of the closet to say: Agreed, though I think the ending undermined everything the movie was building towards. I concur with the notion that the ads don't do it justice. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2004 18:31
|
|
|
quote:Subotai came out of the closet to say: It may not be historically accurate, but I don't think it was trying to be. It was just a fictional story that happened to be set in 1870's Japan. Also, Tom Cruise's character wasn't supposed to be just a random cavalry officer. He was a Medal of Honor recipient and at least a ten year veteran. So he's obviously kind of a badass himself. One thing I really enjoyed about the movie was it didn't try to make the Samurai or Ninjas OMG SO MYSTICAL AND INVINCIBLE. They're portrayed as certainly highly skilled warriors, but they're not super death robots who never lose a fight.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2004 19:23
|
|
|
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet that I liked about this film was that the samurai weren't really glorified. Ken Watanabe's determination and courage are highlighted, but many times his foolish pride, lack of value for his men's lives or outright barbarism are exposed. The philosophy of Saigo Takamori or its effects on the country were glossed over, which I found very negligent since it's essentially what led Japan into WW2 a half century later. It is trying to be fictional history and not a study into bushido, however. I've had all my interest in epic battlefield cinematography burnt out by the LotR films, but Zwick has a way of keeping it very simple and unique rather than the usual broad angles and sweeping motions. 4/5, ignore Tom Cruise, he's not the title character
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2004 19:49
|
|
|
Cruise is the POV which works really well. It's a role he could have easily hosed up, and shows his skill as an actor. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2004 21:24
|
|
|
I enjoyed this movie very much. Most movies that clock in at 2.5 hours tend to have points that drag, and I didn't see that at all. I did find myself looking at the clock occasionally, but that was only so I could see how much more movie I was going to get to see, how much more I was going to get to absorb. I know most people aren't a fan of Tom Cruise's, but I pretty much am, and I thought he did a great job in this film. Of course, Ken Watanabe stole the movie, as has been said before. There are a few people that command attention and respect the moment you see them on screen, and he is one of them. This movie was full of beautiful scenery, and the cinematography was very well done. The script was fairly commonplace, and the story was fairly basic when boiled down. As one who is fascinated by Japanese culture, I found it engaging, though, regardless of its lack of relationship to historical facts. If I want a history lesson, though, I watch The History Channel. If I want a good movie, with good acting, a good script and Samurai vs. Ninja and Samurai vs. American-trained Japanese soldiers, I watch a fictional movie. Highly recommended. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2004 07:52
|
|
|
While the movie was certainly nice to look at, it entirely glosses over the ugly side of the samurai ideal, and completely degenerates into touchy-feely garbage at the end, especially in the last scene with the emperor. Fun to watch, if you can ignore the last 15 minutes, though. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2004 14:15
|
|
|
Being a history major in college, and watching the trailers for the film almost an entire year ago, all I could think was that the film was going to be a bad period piece with even worse history. However I was only partly right. The history was not very good, but the construction of 1860's Japan was very nice. Even though the story itself was skewed to attract an American audience, I couldn't help but be amazed at how well the costume and culture itself was captured and displayed. They even got samurai dress, tactics, and living correct. Even the nefarious ninjas were represented somewhat accurately (even though you can debate all you want over what colors ninjas actually wore). Most impressive I thought was for the first time the ritual and pomp that was once involved with the emperor was represented very accurately as well. The only historical aspect I was not impressed with was the fact that by the time the film took place, the US Army of reality was back to being a rambling wreck and a recurring joke througout most of Europe. Because I know that if Japan wanted military instruction they would have gone to Germany. However, that would have been a really tough sell for an American audience so I just took this liberty in stride and told myself, "It is just a movie". I ended up liking Cruise's character and gave a very audible cheer in the theater when he got back at his former superior officer in battle. A burgeoning level of animosity that was built up and developed nicely I thought. Reviewing this film from a historical perspective, I say this film is about a 4.0. Since the US military was given way too much credit and the samurai were represented as being way stonger and more successful against a westernized army than they were in reality. But made up for this in the capturing and display of cultural and ritual. As a pure movie, and being entertaining, this is a definite 5.0. I loved it dearly. PS- Being a history major sucks since I tend to nitpick the crap out of movies based solely on their history aspect.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2004 15:42
|
|
|
A good film, perhaps a half hour too long. I didn't find myself attached to the film, but it was largely entertaining. As much as I love Lord of the Rings, the battle scenes in The Last Samurai are much better and incredibly well done. 4.0/5.0
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2004 17:32
|
|
|
They should have called it Dances with Koi Fish because it was basically a ripoff of Dances with Wolves. However, the Ninja scene kicked rear end and saved the film. The fact that only Tom Cruise survived after being shot at with rifles and cannon fire caused my rating of it to drop. 3/5
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2004 17:54
|
|
|
The Last Samurai assumes we're a bunch of loving idiots and that we can't grasp complex distinctions between good and evil. Forget shades of gray--there isn't a bad guy in this movie that isn't snarky, smug, or downright scheming. Concurrently, the good guys are the ones who "respect tradition". They're "down to earth". They're "vigilant" and "respectful". When good guys die, it's honourable. When bad guys die, it's okay because they were jerks anyway. What a load of crap. This movie is filled with wide shots of Cruise staring wistfully out into the distance, his long, well-groomed hair bobbing gently in the breeze. It struck me as particularly homoerotic for a war epic. And while the rest of his samurai friends are getting ripped apart and decapitated, Cruise survives with a nick on his face and a slight limp. I guess the filmmakers realized what I should have: that the only people who were going to pay to see Tom Cruise in an "action" movie were women and the pussy-whipped boyfriends they dragged along. NADZILLA fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Nov 21, 2005 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2004 19:42
|
|
|
I too was surprised with this movie, i thought that it would be a total waste of time but it proved to be a very decent movie. I find it disapointing though that Hollywood wasn't daring enough to simply have an all Japanese cast playing off the power of Ken Wantanbe alone and instead used a big name bait like Tom Cruise to bring in viewers and otherwise ruin a very very good story of how an old way of life met its end. With Cruises character in there the story is so close to Shogun that i think James Clavell deserves some royalties. But other than that, and the fact that it sometimes lack the beauty and art of true Samurai flicks from Japan, this was just another great hollywood epic period piece that can be put right up there with Braveheart and Gladiator. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2004 09:26
|
|
|
I was pretty apprehensive going in for this one especially after watching Vanilla Sky, but I walked out of the theater impressed with the movie. Ken Watanabe's acting was outstanding. The only thing I didn't like was the last couple of minutes. It had that "whah, I want an oscar" vibe to it. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2004 01:16
|
|
|
quote:Subotai came out of the closet to say: The setting is entirely accurate, but the story if fiction. No one ever pretended that this was anything but fiction. A a Captain in the Cavalry at the time would be well versed in swordplay, not with a katana but with a sabre. So it's not to far of a stretch that he could learn a new school fairly easily.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2004 18:15
|
|
|
I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this. The mysticism of the samurai was played up a bit much, and the Westerners were marginalized a little to far, but it worked pretty well overall despite that.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2004 18:43
|
|
|
It seems a lot of people missed the fact that it wasn't trying to be historically accurate, it was trying to symbolize the difficulty Eastern and Western philsophies have meshing. When Cruise survived the final battle it was supposed to represent the last link the West still has to the East. All the symbolism was pretty overt, I'm surprised more people didn't pick up on it. That said, I hate bullshit like that but I loved most of the movie. 4
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2004 19:45
|
|
|
really didn't like it, i'm sure it wasn't supposed to be accurate but jesus at least it should be believable... or is it conceivable that a bunch of guys with swords could take out an army of guys with guns? No, unless you are a huge fan of angels in the outfield or something, you'll have a hardtime grasping the concept as well. Tom Cruise I think isn't bad, but christ it's so hard to believe anything that goes on in the plot it just takes away from the whole movie. The battle scenes were so overdone and rhetorical it's like you knew what would happen before it happens, which is so annoying. I mean ok he lives at the end? That symbolizes the connection of the west and east? lol... what about the fact that EVERYONE ELSE DIED, and also he was charging vs ppl with Guns when he HAD NONE, totally retarded unless you believe in fairy tales. not the worst movie but nothing close to a good epic war movie. 2.5
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2004 08:02
|
|
|
I can't make up my mind as to whether Tom Cruise was a poor choice for his role, or if the character itself was bad. In many ways, this movie felt too much like "Dances with Wolves" with Samurai. And the ending was a bit too cheesey, and WAY too unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2004 08:19
|
|
|
4.5 I thought this movie was very well done. The action kept me glued to the screen and the story line was way better than I expected. I figured it would be a 2-3, but it definitely deserves a 4.5
imantor fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Aug 13, 2006 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2004 23:42
|
|
|
quote:funkyheadhunter came out of the closet to say: I enjoyed this movie a lot, it was fairly predictable and we'd already seen this story in Dances with Wolves, but it was still excellently made. Probably my favorite thing about it was that the moment I saw the woman I figured she and Tom Cruise would end up having sex by the end of the film, and instead the director lets it simmer just below the surface, never developing into anything but a brief and chaste kiss. And the dressing scene was sexier than most all-out fuckfests I've seen. I was also happy to see the gore was done Japanese style - bright red and spraying by the gallon.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2004 08:50
|
|
|
The movie had its share of hokey moments, but overall I found it to be well-directed and expertly acted by Tom Cruise, who I normally don't have that high an opinion of. It's nice to see him shed his onscreen smugness (which he parades around in nearly all his movies) and play a serious dramatic role. And the final moments of the climactic battle were pretty close to bringing me to tears. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2004 09:12
|
|
|
quote:Bun Bun came out of the closet to say: Heh, good idea, but sorry, not marketable :-) How else can you tell an epic based on Japanese history w/out throwing in a sellable westerner. If a movie is all-japanese people on this side simply presume it's 'one of those' gore and blood flicks. Oh yeah, the movie. It rocked!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2004 07:48
|
|
|
I just finished watching this movie from payper view, and I just say it is probably the best movie i've seen this year. Although the plot wasn't as brilliant as i would want it to be, white guy because a samurai, yeah right, but it was backed up by excellent acting and excellent fight scenes. it gave a very indepted view into what was once the samurai, and i will admit, i did shed a tear, it was a fanstatic movie, i recommend it to anyone. 5.25 GREAT MOVIE!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2004 00:32
|
|
|
quote:Subotai came out of the closet to say: He was a veteran fighting indians, who were also skilled in hand to hand combat. Also, he spends months training with the Samurai before he actually fights ninjas, and even then he has many problems. I loved this movie. I haven't seen it at home yet, but in the theatre the surround sound was majestic. 5.0
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2004 23:08
|
|
|
Didn't like this movie at all. The action was all right, but Tom Cruise... eh. His character is simply not believable at all. The relationship he somehow finds himself in isn't, either. I also find it very hard to believe that Mr. Whitey American Man is the only one to survive the final attack. Zuh? Very disappointing in the end, which kind of spoils some decent performances from other people. 1.5 / 5.0
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2004 06:08
|
|
|
I thought the movie was horrible. I had to stop watching halfway through because it was incredibly boring and I couldn't stop gagging on the pretentious scenes. Recall Tom Cruise twirling his stick around in slow motion; somebody put an arrow through his head already. And then there's the infamous child molestation scenes starring yours truly again. Fortunately, somebody decides to attempt to beat some sense into him with a wooden sword, which fails because Tom Cruise won't give up. Because of the use slow motion, it appears to be a misguided attempt to portray him as ferocious and indomitable. Hopefully most people realize he's just being a dumbass. A similar scene occurs in Twilight Samurai and to quote the main character, "If this was a real sword, you'd be dead". I even went so far as to submit this movie to Maddox for this page. Bah, I was a fan before I read that pathetic thread on GBS. SA ruins everything for me  .Rated 1.5 On a side note, Tom Cruise is a stupid scientologist human being and paying to see his movies is inavertently supporting scientology. Edit: Ligur, the main reason I say it sucked is because I considered it overly pretentious and not because of realism if that's your point. In defense of me not enjoying the finer stuff in life, I really enjoyed the Seven Samurai that this movie was made partially in homage of. I highly recommend it. Rated PG-34 fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Jul 5, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2004 17:15
|
|
|
Nice acting, a lot of action, and subtle directing. Very well shot. The plot was skewed to target a Western/American audience and glorified the amazing Samurai a bit, but hey they wanted to make a good movie people would watch too, right? Not quite a masterpiece of the century, but an excellent movie which will have you thinking more then Hollywood action in general. Why? Mostly because the director uses little hints, small nods and very few words to portray emotions and to move the plot on. Also very sexy when they don't have sex. Lustful passions are conveyed to the viewer with mere looks and eye movement. Though someone in this thread apparently found that CREEPY. Ewwww guy looking at pretty woman and cradling a scared child, PEDO. Also... I can't get over people rating movies by some kind of Realism Points, and very often those who bash the crap out of a piece because its "unrealistic" are looking at the wrong things while at it. Heh. Who the gently caress watches movies to see "realism" on the screen anyhow? Most of the crying about the realism or lack off in the movie has been rather... Short sighted at best. edit: Dear God the poster above me is a jackass. When you get over your teenage rebellion you can start enjoying the good things in life, don't worry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2004 14:41
|
|
|
A slow start doesn't help but once the movie gets going it's actually pretty entertaining. Tom Cruise is terrible and over-acts everything, as usual. I can't help but cringe whenever he delivers a line. Regardless, even he can't ruin the wonderful battle scenes, amazing visuals (especially of the mountain town), and strong personal drama that all fits together perfectly. The ending is a little too neat for my liking. It would've been 5 or even possibly 5.5 if they could've minimized Cruise's character's role, made him a minor character, and focused more on the samurai families. 4.5 Bloated Pussy fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Jul 5, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2004 20:47
|
|
|
Eh...in retrospect, I don't hate this film as much as I did when I watched it, I guess, but it's still pretty bad. The good: The scenery, soundtrack, period art and the general atmosphere are all perfect. I absolutely loved the backgrounds, costumes, settings, etc.; they were all completely accurate, and except for glossing over the problems with the samurai themselves the movie got everything right. (That's a big one, since for a good chunk of Asia this is roughly equivalent to saying 'it's a shame they killed Hitler; he made the trains run on time', but I don't expect anything better from a Tom Cruise movie anyway.) These are all Hollywood strengths because of the amount of money a director can spend on research, and it showed up clearly here. The bad: I liked the plot better when it was called "Braveheart", or possibly "The Patriot". The amount of cheese here is overwhelming; rooting for Tom Cruise is like rooting for (generic Disney good guy sports team) to beat (generic Disney bad guy sports team) in (generic Disney hockey/basketball/soccer movie). You just can't do it without shaking your head, especially in the last scene, which was incredibly funny for all the wrong reasons. Anyone that's ever seen the old parody flick "Hot Shots Part Deux" knows exactly why. Also, the romance was vaguely creepy and reminiscent of at least one Harry Turtledove novel. Uhh, he did kinda kill your first husband, lady. Hope that turns you on. Okay, it's not horrible...but I still wouldn't want to watch it unless I could MST3K the bad parts. 2.0/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2004 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
I thought it would be another try-hard hollywood epic (HHAHAHA white guy becomes a samurai!!!) But... this movie was fantastic. All the obvious reasons aside, (imagery, music, sound, action, well done acting), I thought it gave a fascinating insight of the mind-set and culture of the Samurai. Such humble, honest people. Too bad we can't kill for honour these days.... Also, the deal between the woman and Cruise may seem unbeliviable at first... because of, ya know... the killing... But perhaps she was human enough and her culture just allowed her to just forgive, and see things from a different perspective. They show that progressivly as Cruise adapts to her household and the village lifestyle. Also, the sexual tension between the two was very subtle, which makes it a bit more beliveable. Who else thinks forbidden hot Aisian subtle sex is better than the hardcore face loving porn that we westerners are so accustomed to? I didnt think the ending was a huge joke like others seem to see it as. It was a battle scene afterall, and the battle scenes did seem to take more creative bounds than realistic ones... and it got the emotion across as it intended to just fine. 5
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2004 07:52
|
|
