Just so you know, there's a difference between a war hero and a great soldier. The two are not always, and quite often aren't, the same.
I concur that Tom Cruise's character was a good soldier by the description from early in the film, but - c'mon! - by the end of the film he was practically the Terminator. That whole scene is bullshit and it doesn't make any sense, no matter how you slice it.
And I don't think his
character living
is necessary for the film, at all. I would also be less critical if
he wasn't the ONLY samurai that lived
. The fact that that's the case is a slap in the face to all the damn samurai!
You mean Ken Watanabe, THE KING BADASS SAMURAI of ALL SAMURAI, dies and Whitey McWhite White lives?
The best warrior in the movie wasn't Cruise it was that guy who kicks his ass for trying to be a Samurai when he first gets there. Granted the scene in Toyko was pushing it, but I didn't mind because it was done so well.
How you can hate this movie and love Spiderman1 is beyond me.
I can't disagree with this more. WHile I'm a huge fan of the extremely excellent Glory movie as it is one of the most underrated movies of all time, you'd have to point out 'stolen scenes' for me.
I've forgotten most of The Last Samurai given my distaste for it and the 18 months since I saw it, but most notable is the scene with Algren yelling at the soldier to make him fire. Same exact scene is in Glory, and seeing it again ripped me right out of Last Samurai. The scene had the same setup, same situation, and same resolution. It was just far, far too similar. I was already thinking of Glory when I heard about the project, given the timeframe and the situation and that it was directed by Edward Zwick, but then there were a bunch of scenes, scenarios and even dialogue bits that were extremely similar. I can't name a bunch, but I'm not going to waste my time rewatching a movie I disliked to provide a bulleted list.
I agree about the similarities to Glory. It bothered me the first time. It was much better the second time.
Wilco
To me the movie was more about two warriors coming to terms, one with his past and the other with the fact that he has no future. Ken had to die in the film because he could not change who he was. I can not see how the movie could end true to his character with him living. I also dont get why everyone is so upset that Cruise lived. Its not like he was deflecting bullets with his sword. It was luck. In the final sceens with Tom Ken's death made it powerful for me. Cruise wasn't the last samurai, Ken was. Thats how I saw it anyway
I do agree about him throwing the sword. I just took it as pandering to the majority of the viewers. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who need that sort of ending. I didn't let it ruin the movie for me.
The movie is a good Dances with Wolves clone. Not a "great movie" by any means, but well done. Ken was great, Tom was ok. Story was cool, cinematography was good. Nothin' groundbreaking or anything, and it's all been done before.
I've forgotten most of The Last Samurai given my distaste for it and the 18 months since I saw it, but most notable is the scene with Algren yelling at the soldier to make him fire. Same exact scene is in Glory, and seeing it again ripped me right out of Last Samurai. The scene had the same setup, same situation, and same resolution. It was just far, far too similar. I was already thinking of Glory when I heard about the project, given the timeframe and the situation and that it was directed by Edward Zwick, but then there were a bunch of scenes, scenarios and even dialogue bits that were extremely similar. I can't name a bunch, but I'm not going to waste my time rewatching a movie I disliked to provide a bulleted list.
Well since you can't remember any of the scenes I guess it will be impossible to debate it Pannicky soldier #12 being unable to fire under duress is in plenty of movies so I can't draw that as a parallel to any one particular film
