Plot Details: This opinion reveals minor details about the movie''s plot.  
 
The main problem with The Last Samurai is not that the plot is almost exactly the same as both Dances with Wolves and Shogun, but that it assumes youve seen both those movies, and cant seem to decide whether or not it thinks you want to see them again. If youve seen both the full ten hours of Shogun, and the version where the mini-series is reduced to approximately the length of a feature film, youve got some idea of whats going in The Last Samurai, and you know that somehow the whole point is lost in the trimming. You might similarly imagine the version of Dances with Wolves that has an hour or so cut out of it.  
 
Now, if you havent seen either of those films things get a little harder to explain. Imagine a book whose main purpose is to explore a culture (to some degree or other) by way of having an outsider suddenly thrust into it. Now imagine that instead of actually having a book like Shogun, with all its details about the culture relayed through the story and the character, you only have the Cliffs Notes of the book which just says, and he explores and comes to know the Japanese culture, and the ways, ideas, and ideals of the Samurai. Its left to you then to either be able to get something out of that line or not.  
 
Even all this doesnt get you to the point that you can really connect with where The Last Samurai is going, because though Dances and Shogun werent true stories, there was a decent truth in them. They were fictional stories that attempted to take place in real times, and portray cultures (to some extent) as they really were. The Last Samurai is one step removed here, because it isnt a fictional story in that sense. The historically incorrect things Samurai does are enough to change the entire situation of Japan itself, and change the entire culture to a degree. Were not across the line into something like alternate-reality sci-fi, but were approaching it.  
 
The result is still a trip into the world of Samurai, but its a trip that says, youve already seen Shogun, so we dont need to go into all that again, and were going down this other road anyway.  
 
All that said, there are only two things keeping this movie from being not only five stars, but also an instant classic; its ending (and I mean the entire last thirty minutes), and its absolute lack of daring. Instead of daring, I might actually say its lack of honor (to itself), but that is a jaunt toward irony I choose to avoid.  
 
You probably have a good guess at the story based on the comparisons Ive made, and you cant be far off. Captain Nathan Algren (Tom Cruise), veteran of the Civil War, and many skirmishes with Indians, is hired to go to Japan and train an army. He learns that he is there to put down a certain Samurai, Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe), and his followers. Pressured to lead his new troops before theyre ready, he is captured by Katsumoto in the eventual miserable rout his army suffers. He spends a long winter with Katsumoto and his family in a small village, because Katsumoto wants to know his enemy. Once we get beyond how Algren finds his way into the Samurai world, Shogun takes over, complete with a Japanese woman he can grow to love, and surprise night attack by Ninja. From here we mix equal parts Dances and Shogun, choosing those elements that best serve the scenario weve created, and we have our plot.  
 
These three movies may have another connection, because if Kevin Costner, Richard Chamberlain, and Tom Cruise ever did anything right, it was their respective roles in these movies. Ive never been a Cruise fan, and even now he feels like an odd choice for the role to me, but he manages it far better than Id have predicted he could. Thats not to say hes perfect. Theres still quite a bit of the Hollywood star coming through in his performance, but hes not horrible, and certainly delivers something at least more watchable than his norm. Ken Watanabe, on the other hand, is wonderful. He delivers a quiet power, and undeniable presence that make you wish all the more that the film came through on its potential. There are a few brilliantly crafted scenes in which Katsumoto is in the background, off-center, and not exactly doing anything. He is still the absolute center of the scene, and your attention. Its hard to avoid the natural comparison to Shogun here, because though they are very different characters, Watanabe is basically playing Mifunes Shogun role. Thats the sort of situation where a comparison can spring to mind unbidden and wreak unfair havoc with your impression of an actors performance. Not so here. While Watanabe isnt quite going to stand up to a real comparison to Mifune, hes strong enough to at least make such a comparison a respectable question.  
 
Mentioning Costner, oddly enough, leads me to the cinematography by Oscar-winner John Toll. Thats because Samurai reminded me so much of James Muros first effort earlier this year, Open Range. From a cinematography stand-point, theyre practically the same movie. Theyre beautiful, but its a very easy sort of beauty. Panoramic views of rolling plains and hills, sunrises with a hint of cloud cover, and sweeping shots of virgin forest, are not exactly on the cover of Whats New and Exciting in Beautiful Pictures Monthly. Its gorgeous, sure, but its not exactly doing anything. The difference is that when youre making a fairly simple cowboy film whose greatest asset is the fact that it doesnt take itself too seriously, thats just the sort of thing that works. But, when youre making a semi-massive epic that puts itself out as having some definite goals, and definitely takes itself very seriously, well..., then its just a giant-name cinematographer cashing his check and going home early.  
 
All of this likely gives an impression which makes my rating confusing. I blame that on expectations, and perhaps a slightly unusual version of them. The mediocre hopes I had for this film built to high hopes as the movie actually progressed before my eyes. At about the halfway mark I was very hopeful indeed. I mentioned that there were two things keeping this from being a five-star movie, and this is where those come into play. It has no real daring to it, even though the first half will lead you to expect some. Once were a certain amount of the way in (and even before that really, but you tend to overlook it in the earliest stages of a film) we realize that everything is given to you in the simplest possible terms, with the least amount of effort, as easily as can be managed. The other thing keeping the movie from being five-star status is its deplorable ending. An ending that is so typically Hollywood that it does its best to negate all that comes before it. Its stagy, and manages to avoid being described as formulaic only based on the uninteresting technicality that no ones used the formula before.  
 
Still, Im probably giving a very negative impression of everything to do with this movie that I give four stars (out of five). I focus on the negatives, because far too many people are going to sing this movies praises far too much. It doesnt really deserve many nominations, much less the wins its somewhat likely to receive. Nevertheless, its still above-average in my opinion, and though it has a lot going against it, it has a lot going for it as well. Cruise isnt great, but I have to admit that he isnt bad, and Watanabe alone made it worth it to me. Its certainly entertaining, and has some decent action moments that are actually relevantly connected to the plot. I may have said that its an easy sort of beautiful, but that doesnt negate the fact that it is actually beautiful. It even has a pretty good story.  
 
The end result is that I think its worth your money at the theater. Its greatly disappointing in ways, but its the kind of disappointment that can only come from having such great potential. Ive always been easy on movies that try to do something excellent and fail, and Im not of a mind to change that now. I should qualify that, because the question of whether or not the creators were actually trying to do something excellent (as opposed to something that would win awards) is open to debate, and frankly, Im not sure which side Im on. Whatever the case may be there, lets just say that something excellent almost happened.  
 
 
At the end of the movie, Captain Algren has a final conversation with the Emperor of Japan that curiously relays my ultimate feelings on the movie. The Emperor asks Algren to do something, and Algren responds by telling him to do something else. Its actually a great line, though it is a line that only fits a far better version of the movie. The conversation fits my feelings about the movie, because I thought this was going to be a movie about Algrens response, but it turns out it was only about the Emperors initial quesiton.  
 
