I finally managed to see it, finally... *shakes head*
What shall I say, it was as I expected it, a mutilation of japanese history, a glorification of the samurai (who in 1877 were nothing compared to what they used to be under Tokugawa or even before him). Not to mention that it was completely ignored that the feudal system of the shogunate nearly ruined Japan in the 1860s and nearly opened it to foreign occupation powers such as England and France. Japan back then escaped the fate of other countries, such as India or China.
I also have to add something that freaked me out completely. In the scene where Cruise gets captured, the japanese troops are actually using muzzle loaders and not bolt action rifles. In 1876 nobody was using muzzle loaders anymore, the US Civil War, the wars in Europe (and especially the Prussians beating the crap out of the austrian army at Koenigsgraetz -thanks to using bolt action rifles, while we hade muzzle loaders), had changed that fact, 10 years before that scene took place.
I have to add that the ammount of Winchester representatives in the movie is more than just disturbing. Winchester didn't make good army rifles, Sharp, Spencer and Henry were dominating in the US in that area, and in UK Enfield started the same. Of course, the Winchester is infamous, thanks to John Wayne etc, but it wasn't even a standard US Army rifle. Shall I say "american propaganda"?
Also Algren's orders were stupid. He formed his unit in two lines eventhough he, as a Civil War veteran, should have known, that muskets take time to load (max 3 aimed shots per minute). No big surprise that they got steamrolled by the samurai cavalry.
I'm nitpicking historical details, yes, but there are some that are important in order to actually understand what really happened.
Overall said, James Clavell's "Shogun" took Wells' "Timemachine" and hopped 200+ years into the future.
As for the fight scenes, sorry but The Bride vs GoGo Yubari is still my #1 fight from all 2003 movies.
And where was Saigo Takamori, the real "last samurai"? Though one could say that Katsumoto represented him, got to add that as a positive point.
The good sides?
Well... Ken Watanabe rules. He should be nominated for the Oscar as best supporting actor as well (and actually get it *shakes fist at the jury*).
Shichinosuke Nakamura protrayed an excellent Emperor.
Masato Harada... his Omura was, I dunno, he had his moments, he did well.
Shin Koyamada and Hiroyuki Sanada just rocked.
and now the big surprise:
Tom Cruise. I'd say he did well, actually I think it's his best movie ever lol (closely followed by "A few good men"). The fact, that the script was inaccurate and partly full of shit wasn't his fault. Counting those circumstances he really pulled off a good performance.
and finally
Koyuki... first of I wouldn't call her "hot" (actually I wouldn't call any japanese actress "hot"; I don't think it fits them). Her Taka had a certain aura of elegance, charm, grace and beauty. She really did a good job.
Conclusion:
The japanese cast rocked. I was expecting that, but I didn't expect them to actually own everyone. Cruise, surprisingly, managed to hook up with them very well. Sadly the script screwed up certain important parts of the real japanese history. I think the Satsuma Rebellion and the battle on the Tahara-zaka hill in Kagoshima (september 24, 1877) would deserve a better handling by movie makers, after all it was THE climax of the 19th century Japan. One era ended, another one started. I think, eventhough they tried it, "Last Samurai" is only a weak attempt to pay tribute to both sides.
And, this may sound weird, but I was missing a final line, like in Braveheart in the end. Something along the lines of "In the year of our lord 1877, patriots of the old Japan, outgunned and outnumbered, charged the fields of Kagoshima. They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Samurai. And won their immortality."