The Last Samurai

[billy_pilgrim]

I saw this film last night, and I wonder what those of you with a knowledge of Japanese history, particularly Japanese military history, thought of the film. Below are my thoughts (pardon if I go on too much at length).

I liked the film. It is a simple film, but good. It's interesting how Hollywood, for all its vaunted liberalism, likes it conflicts plainly black and white. This is seen most clearly in the way in which the Samurai are put forward as these brave, honorable indigenous people, equivalent to the brave, honorable, indigenous American Indian, and
opposed to the chubby, westernized politicos which surround the
emperor. The "victory" at the end, in which the emperor "hears"
Katsumoto and decides to maintain and honor the warrior ethos should ring kind of hollow to anyone with a knowledge of history. It is the samurai warrior code, in part, which leads directly to the militarism of the Japanese empire, as well as the thousands of atrocities inflicted upon the peoples subjugated to Japanese rule in the twentieth century. There is a direct link from the samurai ethos to such mid-twentieth century horrors as the rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March. The Japanese soldier was inculcated with the idea
that he should fight to the death, never be taken alive, and so many of them committed hare kiri rather than be captured in battle. It was considered shameful not to die fighting or at least kill one's self honorably. In turn, the Japanese loooked upon enemy soldiers who surrendered as vermin not fit to be treated with any kind of respect or consideration. If you want to talk about violations of the Geneva convention, consider the Japanese for a moment. POWs captured at the fall of the Phillipines in 1942 were forced into slave labor for the
more than three years they were capitive to the Japanese. They were maltreated and malnutritioned, forced into hard, physical labor for twelve hours a day; when they were freed in the fall of '45, few weighed more than a hundred pounds. As the allied Armies advanced in the Pacific, the POW slave laborers were hoarded on what could only be considered overcrowded slave ships and transported further inwards towards the Japanese home islands. Since the ships were not marked as transporting prisoners, more than a few were sunk from the air. This,
then, is the practical result of a warrior code which considers
surrender dishonorable.

All in all, I don't think the movie questioned at all the values or
the version of history it was propounding. It was a fun film, but I could not help but wonder at the blatant glorification of a
bloodthirsty warrior code. The movie presents it as something worth preserving--perhaps in the name of "diversity"--yet should we really regret that kind of rigid, strict, militaristic culture no longer exists? Cruise's character remarks on the way in which the citizens of the samurai village pursue perfection in whatever they are doing, from the time they awake 'til the time they go to sleep, and yet these activities mostly seem to revolve around war games. The camera frequently rests lovingly on children practicing their martial skills.

My end summation is that I enjoyed the film, but it must be looked at slightly askance. I think it is in the recent American geek tradition of placing Japanese culture on some kind of high pedestal. The film does not question its central assumptions. Everything bad comes from the west (gatling guns, howitzers, repeater rifles) and everything good can be found in simple, homely, Japanese villages and traditional culture.

[guacamole]

I enjoyed the movie in the same way that I enjoyed the movie "Gladiator" -- as a sort of historical fantasy that serves as a vehicle for an over arching fable or moral message about society.

In this case I didn't see it so much as a case of the "west" vs. "east" or even the troubling nature of American Imperialistic policies, but a simple story on the struggle between tradition and progress. In this reading, the villagers represent the "romantic" view of the goodness of the traditional way of life, versus the view of cities and industry as dangerous, treacherous and corrupting.

In some ways the themes expressed are similar to "The Wizard of Oz", though the action the plot is reversed. In "the Last Samurai", the character journeys from corruption to redemption and chooses the redemptive and anachronistic power of tradition in the end. In "The Wizard of Oz", Dorothy travels from a position of innocence and uncorruption to the emerald city and the illusions that it provides. In the end she too chooses to return to innocence and uncorruption rather than stay in the city. The difference between the two is that while Baum (writer of OZ) seems to think that the tradition can be maintained indefinitely, the writer of "Last Samurai" thinks that even as much as we might desire it, the forward flow of progress is inevitable.

Over all the themes are similar to those that Peter Jackson tries to draw (perhaps too overtly) in his interpretations of the Lord of the Rings. To be sure, Tolkien's stories often embody the themes of tradition and change, and I think Tolkien's views on change/tradition come closer to "Samurai" than they do to "Oz". Even though middle earth is able to stave off corruption, the change that comes from the struggle persists and the world is inevitably changed- not unlike the village in Samurai, where the old leaders have passed away and the new order approaches wether anyone likes it or not.

fwiw
guac.

[billy_pilgrim]

I enjoyed the movie in the same way that I enjoyed the movie "Gladiator" -- as a sort of historical fantasy that serves as a vehicle for an over arching fable or moral message about society.

In this case I didn't see it so much as a case of the "west" vs. "east" or even the troubling nature of American Imperialistic policies, but a simple story on the struggle between tradition and progress. In this reading, the villagers represent the "romantic" view of the goodness of the traditional way of life, versus the view of cities and industry as dangerous, treacherous and corrupting.
That's what I meant about the story being too simplistic. East versus west is part of it, as is the urban versus rural dichotomy. History cannot be simply defined in terms of binaries. I like your use of the word "fantasy" for it, but even fantasy can be more complex than this. i.e., Tolkien, as you point out, seems to have a more complicated view of change, the conflict of rural societies coming up against technological societies (I know, comparing LOTR to "Last Samurai" is like comparing Shakespeare to Stephen King). Still I would have liked "Last Samurai" to have been better. It could have been better.


In some ways the themes expressed are similar to "The Wizard of Oz", though the action the plot is reversed. In "the Last Samurai", the character journeys from corruption to redemption and chooses the redemptive and anachronistic power of tradition in the end. In "The Wizard of Oz", Dorothy travels from a position of innocence and uncorruption to the emerald city and the illusions that it provides. In the end she too chooses to return to innocence and uncorruption rather than stay in the city. The difference between the two is that while Baum (writer of OZ) seems to think that the tradition can be maintained indefinitely, the writer of "Last Samurai" thinks that even as much as we might desire it, the forward flow of progress is inevitable.

Over all the themes are similar to those that Peter Jackson tries to draw (perhaps too overtly) in his interpretations of the Lord of the Rings. To be sure, Tolkien's stories often embody the themes of tradition and change, and I think Tolkien's views on change/tradition come closer to "Samurai" than they do to "Oz". Even though middle earth is able to stave off corruption, the change that comes from the struggle persists and the world is inevitably changed- not unlike the village in Samurai, where the old leaders have passed away and the new order approaches wether anyone likes it or not.

fwiw
guac.
I hadn't thought of the "Wizard of Oz" comparison. It's an interesting one. The first comparison I thought of was "Dances With Wolves." The movies follow a similar plot arc, and the characters played by Cruise and Costner are quite similar. The themes are similar, too. An American soldier falls in with an indigenous people who teach him their ways. He becomes entangled in their struggle for survival against the forces of the state, change, technology. He marries a native woman ... the comparisons could go on and on.

Thanks for you comments. They were quite incisive.

[guacamole]

That's what I meant about the story being too simplistic. East versus west is part of it, as is the urban versus rural dichotomy. History cannot be simply defined in terms of binaries. I like your use of the word "fantasy" for it, but even fantasy can be more complex than this. i.e., Tolkien, as you point out, seems to have a more complicated view of change, the conflict of rural societies coming up against technological societies (I know, comparing LOTR to "Last Samurai" is like comparing Shakespeare to Stephen King). Still I would have liked "Last Samurai" to have been better. It could have been better.

It definitely could have been better. I would have appreciated more dialogue between Cruises character and the Samurai Lord. I think Cruises "conversion" could have been done a bit more gradually without the "karate kid" type scenes.

What you say about history being defined in terms of binaries is especially true. I am extremely curious to see how "Troy" handles the complexities of Homer's themes and how much they condescend to the audience by trying to find some other binary scheme on which to base tension between characters.

[QUOTE=billy_pilgrim)
I hadn't thought of the "Wizard of Oz" comparison. It's an interesting one. The first comparison I thought of was "Dances With Wolves." The movies follow a similar plot arc, and the characters played by Cruise and Costner are quite similar. The themes are similar, too. An American soldier falls in with an indigenous people who teach him their ways. He becomes entangled in their struggle for survival against the forces of the state, change, technology. He marries a native woman ... the comparisons could go on and on. [/QUOTE]

Exactly, similar almost to the point of plot theft. The thing I appreciate about "Samurai" as opposed to "Wolves" is that the director manages to say similar things without the time commitment on my part.

The word I would use to desribe alot of these movies characters is "quixotic"-- they look back at a past that cannot be any longer, and which in some cases perhaps is nothing more than a fiction itself, and strive to protect it or return to it.

Somewhat related to this discussion are the vast number of movies in which war or conflict represents a catalyst for the main characters, who try to maintain something (perhaps tradition, but even other things) but their mission irrevocably changes them from something which they sought to preserve into something which they never set out to be. Braveheart immediately springs to mind.

thanks... pilgrim (in a John Wayne-esq drawl) for the interesting discussion
fwiw
guac.

[nomad7674]

The thing I appreciate about "Samurai" as opposed to "Wolves" is that the director manages to say similar things without the time commitment on my part.

And of course the fact that SAMURAI somehow manages to come across as somewhat balanced. Cruise finds redemption in the ancient, but the Emperor has brought some good to his people thru the modern. In DANCES WITH WOLVES, Kostner basically found nothing good in the modern.

Then again, I am the only person on Earth who enjoyed Kostner in WATERWORLD, so maybe my mind is just a little skewed. :smile:

[billy_pilgrim]

It definitely could have been better. I would have appreciated more dialogue between Cruises character and the Samurai Lord. I think Cruises "conversion" could have been done a bit more gradually without the "karate kid" type scenes.
Oh yeah. Those were real groaners.


What you say about history being defined in terms of binaries is especially true. I am extremely curious to see how "Troy" handles the complexities of Homer's themes and how much they condescend to the audience by trying to find some other binary scheme on which to base tension between characters.

I haven't seen Troy yet. I've talked about it with a friend who has seen it. Cassandra is completely elided from the fillm, which is of course ironic considering how she is steadily ignored and shoved to the side as a madwoman throughout the poem. The gods are nowher to be found taking an active part in the plot (the director said he wanted to avoid any "Clash of the Titans" silliness), altough apparently Priam does lean heavily on advice from his religious advisers, which (according to my friend) leads to his downfall. The homoerotic relationship between Achilles and Patroclus is minimized and the two of them are turned into first cousins. I am looking forward to seeing Troy, but I wonder how good it will be. I actually felt that the TNT mini-series Helen of Troy was pretty good. It may turn out to be at least as good an adaptation of Homer as Troy



Exactly, similar almost to the point of plot theft. The thing I appreciate about "Samurai" as opposed to "Wolves" is that the director manages to say similar things without the time commitment on my part.

The word I would use to desribe alot of these movies characters is "quixotic"-- they look back at a past that cannot be any longer, and which in some cases perhaps is nothing more than a fiction itself, and strive to protect it or return to it.

Yeah, Wolves is very long.


Somewhat related to this discussion are the vast number of movies in which war or conflict represents a catalyst for the main characters, who try to maintain something (perhaps tradition, but even other things) but their mission irrevocably changes them from something which they sought to preserve into something which they never set out to be. Braveheart immediately springs to mind.

War movies at their heart have a tendency to devolve into cliche. Not having seen Braveheart since I saw it in the theatre back in ... what, 1995? ... I watched it again on DVD not long ago. I loved the movie ten years ago. Now, being more mature, there are scenes that make me cringe. The drawing and quartering scene, especially the bathos in that last scream of "Freedom!' , it's all too overcooked. Maybe I'm just cynical in my old age. Another bad war movie I saw recently was "A Bridge Too Far." It was in the typical Hollywood line of epic war movies with enormous, all-star casts that are meant to disguise what a bad movie it is. Anthony Hopkins was in this film, Laurence Olivier, Michael Caine. Gene Hackman was horribly miscast as a Polish general. Have you ever heard Hackman do a Polish accent? Well, just imagine. Not pretty. This was one case where a director can get his history correct, but misfire on almost every other point.


thanks... pilgrim (in a John Wayne-esq drawl) for the interesting discussion
fwiw
guac.
You're welcome, and thank you for keeping the discussion going. I don't think anyone else is interested! I would have posted this in the Ampitheatre forum, but I didn't know about it at the time.

[billy_pilgrim]

And of course the fact that SAMURAI somehow manages to come across as somewhat balanced. Cruise finds redemption in the ancient, but the Emperor has brought some good to his people thru the modern. In DANCES WITH WOLVES, Kostner basically found nothing good in the modern.

Then again, I am the only person on Earth who enjoyed Kostner in WATERWORLD, so maybe my mind is just a little skewed. :smile:
I liked "Waterworld" and "The Postman," so I'm one up on you for liking bad post-apocalypse Costner movies. :lol: What good do you see the emperor having brought his people through interaction with the modern? There is a definite fusing of modern and ancient in the end, when he accepts Katsumoto's sword. But I don't view this as a good thing. In the end, the directors strive for a typical Hollywood happy ending. First of all, Cruise surviving that onslaught of Gatling guns, while all his fellow samurai die, is just a bit far-fetched. But that aside, the very last scenes of the film in which Cruise gives the emperor the sword is a bit disturbing, not happy. One has only to consider the uses to which the Japanese put the sword and the samurai code behind it (beheading contests in Nanjing, anyone?) in the twentieth century, and the ending sounds a bit off-key.

[guacamole]

And of course the fact that SAMURAI somehow manages to come across as somewhat balanced. Cruise finds redemption in the ancient, but the Emperor has brought some good to his people thru the modern. In DANCES WITH WOLVES, Kostner basically found nothing good in the modern.

Then again, I am the only person on Earth who enjoyed Kostner in WATERWORLD, so maybe my mind is just a little skewed. :smile:

Nah... I love post apocalypse movies no matter what form they take, even the impossible eco-silliness of Water World. It was a bit long though...

[kafka]

I loved The Postman as well:thumb:

[Christianotaku]

you know that the series Rurouni Kenshin follows this time in Japan with great accuracy and really cool to watch :teeth:

[bhukkadakota]

kenshin is good but i doubt there really was a wandering samurai practicing the hiten misurugi stlye of sword fighting who could move faster than the eye could see and jump so high and kill countless number of people without breaking a sweat.

The japanese samurai on the outside look all brave and honourable but in reality most were not much different to the yakuza or mafia in those days. They had the leader and followers would pillage small villages if they felt like it or if the village disrespected the leader.

[Christianotaku]

kenshin is good but i doubt there really was a wandering samurai practicing the hiten misurugi stlye of sword fighting who could move faster than the eye could see and jump so high and kill countless number of people without breaking a sweat.


ha thats what you think...

[zorathruster]

To change, or not to change? Through out every persons life they are confronted with the fact of change. The old ways have style, they appeal to the soul. They are more honorable and touch our inner need for consistency. The new are often crude solving only an immediate issue. The new warrior sits in a missile silo in Montana with his finger on the button that will vaporize a million people. He has no understanding of what he is about to do other than turning a key at exactly the right moment. Yet his efficiency will rate far beyond the warrior who stands eye to eye with the enemy and intimidates or subjegates his enemy on the battlefield.

There are hundreds of examples of people unwilling to change. Theists come to mind. "By golly if it was good enough 200 years ago, its good enough today." The Samuri represent the old and what is best about the old. The modern Japanese army represent the new, soldiers who couldn't even hit their target. But in the end the modern methods will win out. Devotion and discipline are no match for the machine guns of the future, so the soldiers of WWI and the Samuri of the movie found out.

Is there a middle ground where the discipline of old and methods of modernity can blend to form a better profession of arms? As Japan moved into the modern era, first supporting the allies during WWI, successes in the Sino Soviet campaign, then aggressiveness prior to and during WWII was possible only through the combination of new technologies and old school devotion to the cause. Was it better? American Marines found this combination difficult to confront.

[Dienekes]

The story and the movie I enjoyed however as a historical weapons know it all there are some points I have to say about the movie. the showing of samurai is very messed up for a true to form samurai movie watch "Ran."

The Bokken dueling (wooden swords) shown in the movie is overly flashy but essentially true. This is not actual Katana dueling. Katana dueling among masters is extremely boring because of the way the Katanas were built they could never hit each other as shown in movies or they would break (why the samurai carry two swords at all times). A real Katana duel would be two men circling each other until one missteps or leaves an opening then with one quick slice it would be over, Bokken is more interresting. This unfortunately ruined my view on the cool Japanese samurai when I was younger watching high fights like "Crotching Tiger" and so forth.

For those of you who wondered like me if Katanas are so pathetic why do so many shows and games make them so great. The answer is in three parts one Katanas were the longest lasting used swords because of the Japanese failure to technologically expand, two because Japanese legend always shows katanas that were magic and unbreakable with poewrs and such like that, however the biggest reason is (and i'm sorry to admit I know this) that the creator of the first real fantasy fighting game D&D loved Japanese legend and made Katanas one of the best swords in the game.

Many people will hate me for what I just said but o well truth most be told. And by the way if your looking for an agility style sword that would be worth something in pitched fight go with the rapier which was the pinikal of speed in swordsmanship.

[Mr. Christopher]

I saw this film last night, and I wonder what those of you with a knowledge of Japanese history, particularly Japanese military history, thought of the film. Below are my thoughts (pardon if I go on too much at length).

I liked the film. It is a simple film, but good. It's interesting how Hollywood, for all its vaunted liberalism, likes it conflicts plainly black and white. This is seen most clearly in the way in which the Samurai are put forward as these brave, honorable indigenous people, equivalent to the brave, honorable, indigenous American Indian, and
opposed to the chubby, westernized politicos which surround the
emperor. The "victory" at the end, in which the emperor "hears"
Katsumoto and decides to maintain and honor the warrior ethos should ring kind of hollow to anyone with a knowledge of history. It is the samurai warrior code, in part, which leads directly to the militarism of the Japanese empire, as well as the thousands of atrocities inflicted upon the peoples subjugated to Japanese rule in the twentieth century. There is a direct link from the samurai ethos to such mid-twentieth century horrors as the rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March. The Japanese soldier was inculcated with the idea
that he should fight to the death, never be taken alive, and so many of them committed hare kiri rather than be captured in battle. It was considered shameful not to die fighting or at least kill one's self honorably. In turn, the Japanese loooked upon enemy soldiers who surrendered as vermin not fit to be treated with any kind of respect or consideration. If you want to talk about violations of the Geneva convention, consider the Japanese for a moment. POWs captured at the fall of the Phillipines in 1942 were forced into slave labor for the
more than three years they were capitive to the Japanese. They were maltreated and malnutritioned, forced into hard, physical labor for twelve hours a day; when they were freed in the fall of '45, few weighed more than a hundred pounds. As the allied Armies advanced in the Pacific, the POW slave laborers were hoarded on what could only be considered overcrowded slave ships and transported further inwards towards the Japanese home islands. Since the ships were not marked as transporting prisoners, more than a few were sunk from the air. This,
then, is the practical result of a warrior code which considers
surrender dishonorable.

All in all, I don't think the movie questioned at all the values or
the version of history it was propounding. It was a fun film, but I could not help but wonder at the blatant glorification of a
bloodthirsty warrior code. The movie presents it as something worth preserving--perhaps in the name of "diversity"--yet should we really regret that kind of rigid, strict, militaristic culture no longer exists? Cruise's character remarks on the way in which the citizens of the samurai village pursue perfection in whatever they are doing, from the time they awake 'til the time they go to sleep, and yet these activities mostly seem to revolve around war games. The camera frequently rests lovingly on children practicing their martial skills.

My end summation is that I enjoyed the film, but it must be looked at slightly askance. I think it is in the recent American geek tradition of placing Japanese culture on some kind of high pedestal. The film does not question its central assumptions. Everything bad comes from the west (gatling guns, howitzers, repeater rifles) and everything good can be found in simple, homely, Japanese villages and traditional culture.



The thing is, I was really hoping that Tom Cruise was really the last Samurai. Man, and then some random Indian guy could be in a movie titled "The Last US Marine." Man, I rock.

[Tladatsi]

I am sorry to strike a sour note but it was a totally stupid movie.

1) Of course the last samurai would a white guy.:stupid:

2) The samurai were brutal and cruel oppressors of the peasants. The idea that they were these spiritual warriors merely interested in prefecting themselves free from western materialism is a joke. They were a bunch of spoiled tyrants who (rightly) feared industrialization would undercut their previlaged position in society. This idealized view of the samurai is about 60 years out of date. You can watch Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" or "Roshamon" or even "Ran" or dozens of other Japanese movies to get a more up to date cimenagraphic view of the samurai.

3) Tom C.'s character makes no sense. When he was fighting the samurai with a cavalry sabre he was a samurai killing machine. When awakes from his druken stupor in the village and picks up a bokken had can't beat anybody. He can kill samurai by the bushel with a sabre but with wooden sword he is helpless.

4) Why did the rebellious samurai even capture Tom's character? Why did they not just kill him? They might have grilled him on western military tatics but instead they ask him about Lt. Col. Custer (they got a lot to learn that nitwit)? Watanabe's character thought George A.C. was a hero, what a looser.

5) The whole parallel between the Souix and Cheyenne and the samurai was just sad.

6) Hollywood is about making money. If they can make it be selling liberal movies, they will. If conservative movies are hot, they'll sell those too. Their only poltics is money.




I saw this film last night, and I wonder what those of you with a knowledge of Japanese history, particularly Japanese military history, thought of the film. Below are my thoughts (pardon if I go on too much at length).

I liked the film. It is a simple film, but good. It's interesting how Hollywood, for all its vaunted liberalism, likes it conflicts plainly black and white. This is seen most clearly in the way in which the Samurai are put forward as these brave, honorable indigenous people, equivalent to the brave, honorable, indigenous American Indian, and
opposed to the chubby, westernized politicos which surround the
emperor. The "victory" at the end, in which the emperor "hears"
Katsumoto and decides to maintain and honor the warrior ethos should ring kind of hollow to anyone with a knowledge of history. It is the samurai warrior code, in part, which leads directly to the militarism of the Japanese empire, as well as the thousands of atrocities inflicted upon the peoples subjugated to Japanese rule in the twentieth century. There is a direct link from the samurai ethos to such mid-twentieth century horrors as the rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March. The Japanese soldier was inculcated with the idea
that he should fight to the death, never be taken alive, and so many of them committed hare kiri rather than be captured in battle. It was considered shameful not to die fighting or at least kill one's self honorably. In turn, the Japanese loooked upon enemy soldiers who surrendered as vermin not fit to be treated with any kind of respect or consideration. If you want to talk about violations of the Geneva convention, consider the Japanese for a moment. POWs captured at the fall of the Phillipines in 1942 were forced into slave labor for the
more than three years they were capitive to the Japanese. They were maltreated and malnutritioned, forced into hard, physical labor for twelve hours a day; when they were freed in the fall of '45, few weighed more than a hundred pounds. As the allied Armies advanced in the Pacific, the POW slave laborers were hoarded on what could only be considered overcrowded slave ships and transported further inwards towards the Japanese home islands. Since the ships were not marked as transporting prisoners, more than a few were sunk from the air. This,
then, is the practical result of a warrior code which considers
surrender dishonorable.

All in all, I don't think the movie questioned at all the values or
the version of history it was propounding. It was a fun film, but I could not help but wonder at the blatant glorification of a
bloodthirsty warrior code. The movie presents it as something worth preserving--perhaps in the name of "diversity"--yet should we really regret that kind of rigid, strict, militaristic culture no longer exists? Cruise's character remarks on the way in which the citizens of the samurai village pursue perfection in whatever they are doing, from the time they awake 'til the time they go to sleep, and yet these activities mostly seem to revolve around war games. The camera frequently rests lovingly on children practicing their martial skills.

My end summation is that I enjoyed the film, but it must be looked at slightly askance. I think it is in the recent American geek tradition of placing Japanese culture on some kind of high pedestal. The film does not question its central assumptions. Everything bad comes from the west (gatling guns, howitzers, repeater rifles) and everything good can be found in simple, homely, Japanese villages and traditional culture.

[Mr. Christopher]

I am sorry to strike a sour note but it was a totally stupid movie.

1) Of course the last samurai would a white guy.:stupid:

2) The samurai were brutal and cruel oppressors of the peasants. The idea that they were these spiritual warriors merely interested in prefecting themselves free from western materialism is a joke. They were a bunch of spoiled tyrants who (rightly) feared industrialization would undercut their previlaged position in society. This idealized view of the samurai is about 60 years out of date. You can watch Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" or "Roshamon" or even "Ran" or dozens of other Japanese movies to get a more up to date cimenagraphic view of the samurai.

3) Tom C.'s character makes no sense. When he was fighting the samurai with a cavalry sabre he was a samurai killing machine. When awakes from his druken stupor in the village and picks up a bokken had can't beat anybody. He can kill samurai by the bushel with a sabre but with wooden sword he is helpless.

4) Why did the rebellious samurai even capture Tom's character? Why did they not just kill him? They might have grilled him on western military tatics but instead they ask him about Lt. Col. Custer (they got a lot to learn that nitwit)? Watanabe's character thought George A.C. was a hero, what a looser.

5) The whole parallel between the Souix and Cheyenne and the samurai was just sad.

6) Hollywood is about making money. If they can make it be selling liberal movies, they will. If conservative movies are hot, they'll sell those too. Their only poltics is money.

Yeah, I thought the movie was quite dumb, myself. But, I'd still like to see an Indian man playing in a movie called "The Last Marine" or something.

[NJon]

Yeah, I thought the movie was quite dumb, myself.

It was a terrible movie. Slow, low plot consistency, Tom Cruise...