Ubi, it's $70 and people are vary of your mile wide puddles that drop 75% in price after half a year
-
he die didn't save shit though
-
I might be terribly incorrect.
But i remember that Tom Cruise's character switches sides in the movie after spending time with the Samurai (He was captured by them). He trains under them and becomes a Samurai. In the end, they fight against the (British?) and lose due to a gattling gun. All the Samurai die except for Tom's character.
So symbolically, Tom is the Last Samurai.It is implied that Tom Cruise dies at the end. I think the confusion comes from a voice over, but you never see the character on screen again.
He also does not "become a samurai". He fights alongside them, but at no point do they call him a samurai.
-
What did he save? Literally everyone but Meiji-backed forces dies at the end.
-
Are you telling me The Last Samurai wasn't skillfully made or imaginative? Nah, it was no masterpiece, but I liked it just fine. Having some westerners in Japan training their military on modern weaponry as the samurai are fading from relevance passes my threshold for "remotely historical", and it's definitely not a requirement for me that Tom Cruise's character needs to have an American historical analog to meet that criteria. Any historical fiction will inherently have to change things about what actually happened in that era, after all.
It was not skillfully made or imaginative. It was a very basic toybox of exotic nonsense about Samurai wrapped around a premise similar to Dances With Wolves.
-
It is implied that Tom Cruise dies at the end. I think the confusion comes from a voice over, but you never see the character on screen again.
He also does not "become a samurai". He fights alongside them, but at no point do they call him a samurai.
He also does not "become a samurai"
Correct. That's why I said symbolically.
but you never see the character on screen again
I maybe incorrect but towards the end of the movie, the Emperor asks how Katsumoto died, to which Tom Cruise replies "I'll tell you how he lived". So he was alive?
-
It was not skillfully made or imaginative. It was a very basic toybox of exotic nonsense about Samurai wrapped around a premise similar to Dances With Wolves.
I think you missed the sarcasm in the rhetorical question, but yes. It's one of at least three or four movies I've seen utilizing the Dances With Wolves trope, though I've never seen Dances With Wolves itself, and that's okay. It was entertaining.
-
He also does not "become a samurai"
Correct. That's why I said symbolically.
but you never see the character on screen again
I maybe incorrect but towards the end of the movie, the Emperor asks how Katsumoto died, to which Tom Cruise replies "I'll tell you how he lived". So he was alive?
Hm, I may need to rewatch it myself. That also doesn't match what the link above suggests about interpreting the ending: "Algren finds redemption through his newfound purpose and ultimately sacrifices his life for the cause he once opposed."
Edit: I just checked the last scene. You're right, he doesn't actually die. Which means the link is also wrong.
Still, I think it's a stretch to say he's the last samurai, since he never really becomes a samurai. One important note is that samurai is "samurai" in the plural, too.
-
The only thing I can think of is The Last Samurai is a 20 year old movie and that somehow means not bringing up this historic fictional movie = you’re okay about a white dude becoming a samurai but not okay about a black dude becoming a samurai.
You should watch the movie. Cruise's character does not become a samurai. He spends time with the last samurai.
You should read the rest of my post. You would have learned that I have watched it.
-
You should read the rest of my post. You would have learned that I have watched it.
If that was true then why did you completely misstate what the movie was about? Cruise does not become a samurai at any point.
-
It can be a bit of both. You can tell a good story that also stays true to the historical events. Not being being able to do that shows a lack of skill and imagination.
To tell a story history is not binding. It neither a lack of skill or imagination - it's an intended. What you have shown is a lack of understanding of the art of telling a story.
-
System shared this topic on
