Movie Review(?) – The Last Samurai (2003)

Look at the poster. Look at Tom Cruise. Look at the title. Now, look at the poster again.

The new mainstream media will hate the fact that a movie called "The Last Samurai" has a white, white guy in the lead role. I was also skeptical watching this movie, but in this review, I have only good things to say about the movie.

Before confusing anyone, 'The Last Samurai' does not refer to one individual. The word "samurai" in the title refers to a group of warriors. The plural form for samurai is samurai. It is like saying the last sheep. But don't let this comparison sway you; these warriors are nothing like sheep.

The story is set in 1876, and we follow Captain Nathan Algren (Tom Cruise). He is called to Japan in order to train the locals to use guns and quell a rebellion of samurai. Of course, things go wrong and Algren is almost decapitated by a warrior named Hirotaro. By sheer willpower Algren manages to survive killing Hirotaro in the process. An impressed Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe) takes him prisoner.

Ken Watanabe as Katsumoto.

Anyone who watched the Marvel cinematic universe movies knows to search for Stan Lee. As a fun, hidden cameo, Stan Lee is always there in his movies.

Similarly, in this movie there are things to look out for. Racism is there. Be sure to look for the few instances of racism and discrimination of the old 19th century in this movie. Algren refers to the trainees as 'orientals' in one instance. 

Of course, I have no issue with these racist undertones. In fact, this attention to detail is what makes the movie believable.

Acting

Tom Cruise's acting is fierce. After the 'orientals' remark, he yells at a trainee Japanese to shoot him.

Captain Algren tells a Japanese trainee to shoot him, or he will shoot.

You can feel the fierceness radiating towards you off of the award winning actor. This movie came out in 2003 so, this is before Mr. Cruise starting running in all his movies. More acting and less action, just the makings of an immersive movie.

Cultural representation

Nathan Algren acts as the point of view for the audience. He does not understand the many customs of the samurai and is visibly confused. "We do not cut off the heads of kneeling defeated men.", Algren tells Katsumoto.

As a learned reader in 2020, with access to the internet [the reader] must be well aware of seppuku, the samurai method of ritual suicide. However, as the movie is presented from an American's point of view, the awe-inspiring confusion is evident.

Other cultural aspects are also present in the movie. In a blink-and-you-will-miss-it moment, Judo is displayed in practice. 

Kabuki; a form of theatre is also shown as a form of entertainment in between the bloodshed. The filmmakers' attention to detail is impressive. 

A reminder: this movie was produced in 2003, by an American film company. Them being able to portray the Japanese culture with careful consideration is noteworthy. 

As a mark of their efforts, the critical reception in the home country of Japan was very good – with people such as Tomomi Katsuta commending the makers for their portrayal of their history.

Honour and Bushido

Both are themes within the movie as bound to be with it being related to samurai. Hirotaro, the samurai slain by Algren had a wife named Taka. Katsumoto hands Algren over to Taka for the duration of his captivity in the samurai village.

In simple words, the widow of the man Algren kills is given the responsibility to look after the man who killed her husband. This is not without complications, as in one scene she begs Katsumoto to allow her to take her own life as she "finds the humiliation unbearable". It is these small scenes that contribute to the overall experience of the movie. 

Actress Koyuki as Taka.

Taka is denied that request and lives on to save her family by stabbing a ninja in the back. 

(Go watch the movie if the above sentence was confusing).

Language.

Algren is shown learning some of the language of the locals, and it was an interesting thing to behold.

Man, I wish I was held captive by a bunch of rebel samurai in the 1800s – so I could improve my spoken Japanese.

Historical errors.

There are a few errors in the movie. The most important one is that the film implies that the U. S. of A. was responsible for the modernization of Japan's army. This is not the case. A proper acknowledgement would go to the Prussian General Staff instead. It was them, and not the Americans whose efforts played a key role in augmenting the army of Japan at the time. 

For story reasons, this element had to be changed and that is understandable.

An amazing movie nevertheless.

Peaceful Sparta is a person, not a place.