I agree utterly with your opinion about this film.
I thought that this movie should have received awards. The story was based upon a true account. I also agree that the film deserves an A+. It is, in fact, my favorite movie of all time.
A lot of people dislike Tom Cruise- some have reasons that are logical, others may not. But I like him as an actor. In my opinion, this movie was his best one ever. In addition, Ken Watanabe, who played the role of the Samurai leader Katsumoto, was superb in this movie. He had some resonance about him that was convincing.
The first few times I saw this movie in the theatre, I cried. It is one of the saddest movies I have ever known. Also, it is so very emotionally moving and profound. The sadness arises out of the mist, because, primarily, of what is to become of Katsumoto, his son Nobutada, and the other faithful warriors in the Samurai group led by Katsumoto.
Katsumoto was a good, ethical, honorable man. Even though his prisoner (Captain Algren) was dishonored in defeat, Katsumoto elected to allow him to remain alive, and discovered a remarkable warrior and friend in the man. I was crestfallen as I watched Algren ride into battle (and into the arms of certain death) alongside the Samurai. There was no chance that the brave Samurai could have been victorious, and they knew that. They knew it too well, in fact. They realized that they would die, but they chose to be brave in the face of pain and their graves.
The story told by this film is deep. It's astonishingly poignant. There will never be another film like it.
This movie is deserving of being placed into the Pantheon of the greatest films of all time.
It was saddening in that it marked the end of an age in our history.
Scarcely have I encountered such passion, such nobility, such magnificence in a motion picture.
2007-02-09 06:43:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I suppose that the movie could have gotten a lower rating simply because some people don't like Tom Cruise, as has been suggested. It could also be because some people, like me, rate a historical movie both on its value purely as entertainment and also on its historical accuracy.
Strictly as a movie "Last Samurai" was very good, with beautiful cinematography, good performances, and a compelling story line.
However, in the historical department it falls somewhat short, despite claims to the contrary by some answerers. The plot of the movie is very loosely base on the Satsuma Rebellion, but the film samurai are highly romanticized. There were certainly brave, loyal, and honorable samurai, but there were also cowardly, treacherous, and wholly dishonorable ones, as well. They were, after all, professional soldiers, whose loyalty basically belonged to the lord who paid them, and it was not unknown for samurai to switch sides.
Speaking of belonging to a lord, it must be pointed out that the samurai of the movie seem to be "ronin," that is, masterless, a condition that was considered dishonorable for a samurai. In fact, a ronin was effectively no longer a samurai, since the word "samurai" derives from the Japanese word for "to serve." I am aware that, theoretically, Katsumoto's serves the Emperor, but the Emperor has rejected him and, at least until the dramatic ending of the movie, Katsumoto is considered an outlaw.
Perhaps one of the greatest criticisms of the movie, and this also speaks to some people's dislike of Cruise, is the miraculous ability of Cruise's character, Algren, to master in what seems to be a matter of weeks, or at most two or three months, skills that the other samurai have spent decades perfecting. Yes, yes, I am aware that Algren apparently taps into the mystical Way of the Warrior, both in his earlier, Western, exploits and in his new Eastern ones, but still . . .
All in all, it's a beautiful, sumptuous movie with a stirring plot, but it is history only in the broadest sense. If you want to learn about the samurai, find a good book on the subject.
2007-02-09 10:05:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by Jeffrey S 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I actually liked 2012 even though it was kind of unrealistic but I still thought it was a good movie. Also I didn't watch The Blind Side because I'm not into that type of movie but Sandra Bullock is a great actress. Anyway the two movies I would say that sucked are Paranormal Activity and The Last Airbender. Both movies were horrible and Paranormal Activity was just stupid and not scary at all and The Last Airbender had the worst acting and storyline and the movie just sucked.
2016-03-28 23:48:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, I don't rate movies online or I would've given it an A+ also. I agree with you. I loved the characters. I think Tom Cruise gave a steller performance. I think it would suck to be Nathan Algren. He has been through so much hell before he even went to Japan and then goes through so much hell in Japan. It's so sad. The cinematography is gorgeous. And the culture, represented in costume, and sets, etc. all so researched and exact. I love when movies are like that. I really felt like I was sitting at a window into Nathan's life. You know? Amazing!
2007-02-09 07:22:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'm a BIG fan of director Edward Zwick, who is responsible for two of my very favorite movies: "Glory" and "Courage Under Fire." He is a director who obviously isn't afraid to tell a story against a big emotional backdrop. But, having said that...I didn't feel that "The Last Samurai" lived up to the standards of those other two films.
Perhaps it was the presence of Tom Cruise in the central role. For one reason or another, Cruise didn't seem capable of carrying the emotional weight of the picture...the way that Denzel Washington did in "Courage Under Fire," for example.
Bottom line: I enjoyed the movie, but wasn't blown away by it.
2007-02-09 06:43:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by shkspr 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I thought it was great. it really portrayed the Japanese Samurai culture very well. It showed the morals of the Samurai and how they would become the protectors of the Emperor again. I have to say it's the only movie i like Tom Cruise in though.
2007-02-09 06:45:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by sk8rnsuperman 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ya the movie was good and i liked too...
u may like very much may be b'coz of these reasons:
u may b tom cruise fan
may be have nt seen any king war movies
may be u like ninjas
or somthin like that?
But there are many more movies that are very good than this like gladiator,brave heart,....etc?
Dont worry the credit given is somewat low only i guess not only me many would have expected that film to get more credite..
itz one of the good film not the best film i guess...
2007-02-09 06:37:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by siberdice 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it was more a Tom Cruise backlash than anything else.
It was a much better movie than people give it credit for
2007-02-09 06:27:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I watched it a while ago...but I do remember really liking it! I too may have to go and rent it again.
2007-02-09 06:34:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by Joker1234 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have to disagree, i just couldn't get into the seemingly uninspired acting
2007-02-09 06:26:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by franzferdinand20052002 1
·
0⤊
0⤋