Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

ThrillMessage There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

ebiros2 This is the first big budget samurai movie from Kadokawa Movies. Lots of Kurosawa influence is obvious in its visuals. Throughout the opening scene I almost thought I was watching a Kurosawa movie.Production quality is supremely high, and the cast of actors assembled to create this movie is epic.That being said, i question the mind of Haruki Kadokawa for choosing Kenshin Uesugi (Kagetora) and Shingen Takeda's conflict to dump the money he did in creating this movie.I've never seen any movie company do a good job in portraying either lives of Shingen Takeda, or Kagetora Nagao. I don't know why this is the case. They were the epitome of samurai lords, and any betting man would have placed their bet in those days for them to be the ultimate ruler of Japan.Either man could have been the the ultimate victor in the race to unite Japan. Instead, they never did a big bet battle that would decisively turn the tide in their favor to become the Shogun of Japan. So although, regarded highly as samurais, these guys were small frys, and attempt to make a story around them only seems to bring out this fact which ends in story that lacks a sufficient climax. This is a nice movie, but the story is somewhat flat for the above reasons. It's a Kurosawa copy Kadokawa style which didn't succeed either as a Kurosawa movie or a Kadokawa movie.

Doug Galecawitz Having just watched this movie on a whim I was quite impressed with the scope and choreography it must have taken to organize the battle scenes, which are of course tremendously filmed. I am however a prototypical american, and it's nice to see a little blood in battle scenes. I was often thinking while watching about the battle scenes in Braveheart. I wouldn't say that need necessarily be that bloody, but a war without blood seems to miss the point of war. Nothing in this movie looked painful. War just looked like a game of people riding horses in different directions. I found the non battle scenes in the movie to be a nice balance though the charecters could have been worked on.....why are Kagetora and Nami in love???? What reason? Because she's there?If this review is coming off negative then I'm not making myself clear. I did enjoy the film and have very little knowlege of 17th century Japan so as not to know of any historical flaws. I find it a bit amusing that it was filmed in Canada....donuts anyone, eh? But all in all pretty much any movie is cool if it has one samurai. When you have five or six hundred you're in for a good movie. I'd recommend this to people who hate black and white too much to sit through the three and a half hours of the Seven Samurai. 8/10

DScottHewittEMTB This is a great samurai movie. Set in the period of the 1600s, has great costuming, especially the armor. Shows the contrast of the samurai using both the traditional Japanese assymetrical long bow, and the arquebus (firearm) introduced to them by the Europeans. The battle sequences are very well done. Only way it could have been done any better is if Kurosawa did it.....Scott

dpierce5 You're in for an action packed treat if you rent this tonight..that is if you can find it. Hey it's a Japanese movie about 2 warlords. One noble and defensive, forgoing all worldly pleasures to protect what he rules. The other, ambitious, ruthless, and even more powerful. The clashes of over 10,000 samuri on the battlefield is breathtaking. Forget historical accuracy...after all wasn't Tombstone just a bit better than Wyatt Earp?