47 Ronin

Otacon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47_-pqoPDVQ

Keanu Reeves starring in a fantastical martial arts movie from an inexperienced director...

Please let history repeat.

krudler

Hasn't this been in production forever? Looks like The Last Samurai meets 300

Banjaxed82

It just looks like a bunch of sh!t happening.

In fairness, it looks good, but inevitably that's where the praise will end. When you have a film throwing the kitchen sink in a trailer like that, you pretty much know it has nothing else to offer.

Hadn't a clue what was going on.

Mickeroo

Don't know what to make of it tbh. It has samurai in it though, so my money is effectively theirs already.

pixelburp

I have been reading that the film has caused some confusion and annoyance over in Japan, given that the tale of the 47 Ronin is a true story and apparently a big point in their history (someone used The Alamo for an equivalent event in the US).

Clearly this is taking massive liberties, what with the fantasy angle n' all, and I kinda like the visual flair, but what's the most obnoxious here is the presence of Reeves: only the white man can save us Japanese from evil!

johnny_ultimate

krudler wrote: »

Hasn't this been in production forever? Looks like The Last Samurai meets 300

That description is basically my cinematic nightmare

BlitzKrieg

krudler wrote: »

Hasn't this been in production forever? Looks like The Last Samurai meets 300

Yeah I was on the set in sheperton studios almost 2 years ago and at that time they'd finished principal photography. I will admit walking around the castle set was f*cking awesome though.

Consider that I was on the set for wrath of the titans at the same time (and it was still shooting) and you have an idea of how long its been in production.

I'd be worried because from what the crew were telling me at the time of shooting they'd had none of those fantastical elements in the film.

So it looks like they went back to the drawing board very late in the production to turn it into a ninja scroll movie.

Zombienosh

krudler wrote: »

Hasn't this been in production forever? Looks like The Last Samurai meets 300

I loved all things 300 but never seen The last samurai, I hate tom cruise, should I watch it?

johnny_ultimate

Zombienosh wrote: »

I loved all things 300 but never seen The last samurai, I hate tom cruise, should I watch it?

Absolutely not it's the epitome of bland historical Oscar-bait. Stick with the Japanese samurai films (I believe there are even several well-regarded 47 Ronin adaptations).

PirateShampoo

If you want a modern Samurai film watch 13 Assassins.

Zombienosh

PirateShampoo wrote: »

If you want a modern Samurai film watch 13 Assassins.

One my favourite films.

RodVelvet

Anyone have any opinions on 47 Ronin? I seen it the other day and I have to say it wasn't as bad as I expected it to be.

Seeing it in 3D was a waste of time but it was better than the reviews suggested. It probably didn't need the fantasy elements as they didn't really add anything to the story. Keanu is his normal self but tends to be watchable in action films where he just does his thing.

BlitzKrieg

It was f*cking dreadful

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Absolutely not it's the epitome of bland historical Oscar-bait. Stick with the Japanese samurai films (I believe there are even several well-regarded 47 Ronin adaptations).

I quite enjoyed the Last Samurai, I thought it was only ok when I first saw it but watching a few times in the years since and enjoyed it a lot more. Ken Watanabe is excellent in it and it has some absolutely gorgeous production design. It does fall into the oft told story of outsider becomes one of the village blah dee blah and it's in the quieter scenes it excels instead of the action parts for me.

Links234

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I'd be worried because from what the crew were telling me at the time of shooting they'd had none of those fantastical elements in the film.

So it looks like they went back to the drawing board very late in the production to turn it into a ninja scroll movie.

That's kinda awful, I was half looking forward to this, because it seemed like a good cast, Hiroyuki Sanada and Tadanobo Asana are fantastic, but the more I'm reading about it the more I get the impression that it's a movie the producers had no idea what to do with. I was reading on reddit the other day that Rick Genest (the tattoo'd man) is in the film less than a minute, but he's featured heavily in all the promotion material: http://i.imgur.com/6y8umjC.jpg

BlitzKrieg

Yep tattoo man does have 2 lines and less then a minute of screen time with no action sequences

Zombienosh

I liked 47 Ronin, probably because I kind of expected to be disappointed so I enjoyed it. Keanu is wooden keanu, and there is some ropey CGI but I pretty much always like anything to do with ancient Japan.

Kirby

krudler wrote: »

I quite enjoyed the Last Samurai, I thought it was only ok when I first saw it but watching a few times in the years since and enjoyed it a lot more. Ken Watanabe is excellent in it and it has some absolutely gorgeous production design. It does fall into the oft told story of outsider becomes one of the village blah dee blah and it's in the quieter scenes it excels instead of the action parts for me.

I agree. I will always watch it again when I see it on the box throughout the year. Not only does it look fantastic, it has a fantastic score too.

KTRIC

I actually fell asleep in the cinema I was that bored !! Have never done it before. There was probably two scenes in the whole movie that were good and the rest was complete rubbish.

Akabusi

I can second the falling asleep during it. Although maybe all the festive celebrations had caught up on me to some extent

Just in the door from a late showing of this and I'm baffled at how poorly it's been received. While it's never going to be mistaken for a great film or one that will live on as a classic it's superior, big budget nonsense that is entertaining from the start and is one of those rare films that you really wish was an hour longer.

Much like The Lone Ranger, this seems to be a film that critics wanted to fail. The knives were out from day one and much like with The Lone Ranger it appears that many people formed their opinion based on the behind the scenes troubles. After all, who doesn't love the opportunity to tear a film apart based on the fact that the director got hired largely due to the fact that he was dating Ridley Scott's daughter.

The story has been told several times before and while this is one of the lesser versions it stands amongst the past years most enjoyable blockbusters. The film is gorgeous and full of scrumptious imagery though at times the reliance on CGI does get distracting.

The decision to rewrite the script to rely upon myth and magic does distract from the power of the core story and I really hope that the Blu-Ray release will see the original cut included. The script here is a little troublesome but as already mentioned the huge rewrites and the re-shoot months after make it hard to criticise the writers as you can clearly see framework of what the writers originally intended.

Taken from what it is, The 47 Ronin is a far better blockbuster than the recent entries such as Iron Man 3, Thor 2, World War Z and in fact most of last years big films. It's a thoroughly entertaining and fun film with a wonderful cast of Japanese actors who bring a dignity and respect to their roles.

Daqster

Deleted User wrote: »

47 Ronin is a far better blockbuster than the recent entries such as Iron Man 3, Thor 2, World War Z and in fact most of last years big films.

Better than Thor 2, sure, but not a chance is it better than World War Z or Iron Man 3.

Not that they were great shakes themselves, but they don't have to be to be better films than 47 Ronin.

It's a thoroughly entertaining and fun film..

Couldn't disagree more. It was a yawn fest from start to finish.

The scenes in which the Witch character appeared, were in fact the only scenes which I felt were worth watching. Everything else was shockingly dull. The characters were not very likable at all and I really couldn't have cared less if they were all massacred half way through the film. In fact, I would have welcomed it.

.. with a wonderful cast of Japanese actors who bring a dignity and respect to their roles.

I agree with this and it's a good job, as if not for such good performances, the film would have been wholly laughable.

Corholio

Daqster wrote: »

Better than Thor 2, sure, but not a chance is it better than World War Z or Iron Man 3.

Not that they were great shakes themselves, but they don't have to be to be better films than 47 Ronin.

I'm of the opinion the other way, better than Iron Man 3 and World War Z but not Thor 2. Iron Man 3 was one of the most disappointing films of the year for me.

Daqster

Daqster wrote: »

Better than Thor 2, sure, but not a chance is it better than World War Z or Iron Man 3.

Not that they were great shakes themselves, but they don't have to be to be better films than 47 Ronin.

I'd rate Thor 2 over Iron Man 3 and WWZ. Iron Man 3 was fun but it was also the safest possible film that they could make. Disney and Marvel are terrified of doing anything too out there for fear of scaring the audiences off. IM3 felt like something put together by committee. Thor 2 at the least tried to do something beyond the obvious and while it didn't succeed it was somewhat unexpected.

Daqster

Daqster wrote: »

Better than Thor 2, sure, but not a chance is it better than World War Z or Iron Man 3.

Not that they were great shakes themselves, but they don't have to be to be better films than 47 Ronin.

I'd rate Thor 2 over Iron Man 3 and WWZ. Iron Man 3 was fun but it was also the safest possible film that they could make. Disney and Marvel are terrified of doing anything too out there for fear of scaring the audiences off. IM3 felt like something put together by committee. Thor 2 at the least tried to do something beyond the obvious and while it didn't succeed it was somewhat unexpected.

Mickeroo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd rate Thor 2 over Iron Man 3 and WWZ. Iron Man 3 was fun but it was also the safest possible film that they could make. Disney and Marvel are terrified of doing anything too out there for fear of scaring the audiences off. IM3 felt like something put together by committee. Thor 2 at the least tried to do something beyond the obvious and while it didn't succeed it was somewhat unexpected.

Funny. I'd have the exact same opinion except I would say Thor was the one that felt safe and made by a commitee. I dont know how anyone can say IM3 was the safest possible film considering what they did with the mandarin and also had tony nowhere near a suit for most of the film. Personally I thought it was refreshing because they actually took some risks with it.

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Funny. I'd have the exact same opinion except I would say Thor was the one that felt safe and made by a commitee. I dont know how anyone can say IM3 was the safest possible film considering what they did with the mandarin and also had tony nowhere near a suit for most of the film. Personally I thought it was refreshing because they actually took some risks with it.

Thor 2 suffers from being a film hastily reshot in order to have more Loki, which I thought was a bad idea and it resulted in a film with a villain who may as well have never shown up. IM3 took some risks but more often than not it failed to do anything truly original or out there. I think that the ending really soured me toward it, it was amongst the stupidest and least interesting moments in cinema in 2013.

Greyjoy

47 Ronin doesn't deserve the kicking its getting in reviews, I've seen far worse films but that doesn't necessarily make it a good film either. I found it very very mediocre. My main problem with the film was that every time an action scene appeared to get some momentum the scene would finish. The film does take its time with the final battle and that was really enjoyable but you have to sit through 90+ boring minutes to get there.

A shorter runtime with more developed action scenes and ditching the completely redundant romance subplot would have greatly improved the film.

Zwillinge

Really enjoyed it and the time just flew over for me

Poor aul Keanu though, he's never really grasped that whole acting thing.

Can see why some people would have found it slow/drab/boring.

D'Agger

I hadn't even seen the trailer to this, went to see it to get out of the house during the holidays and it was that or Walter Mitty

I thought it was grand - I expected it to be shít, so it was either going to match that or better it and for my mind, it bettered it.

Some aspects of it were hilariously bad but overall I was entertained for the majority of the movie, thought some of the scenes were very well shot and while I could easily understand somebody stating it was a poor movie, I for one was pleasantly suprised by it

constitutionus

me too.

went to see it today and i thought it was great.

its a cinematic conversion of a myth/legend in my mind . similar to the 13th warrior only with much better production values. personally i'd love to see something similar done with celtic legends. it can seem a bit arty what with the amount of times manerisms are meant to convey mood but thats inline with the rigidity of japanese culture of the time

its patently a blokes film so love story aside i cant see the girls liking it that much and its not something i can see the general public taking to but it was right up my street and i enjoyed it waaay more than i thought it would.

it reminded me of the sort of fantasy novels david gemmel used to write.

at near two hours long it zipped along and the battles were very well coreographed.

a personal 8/10. general public probably 5/10

Thought it was alright, doesn't deserve the mauling it's gotten.

Banjaxed82

Plodded along. Had it's moments, but mediocre for the most part. People yapping non stop. It's a visual medium. Stop yapping so much.

Banjaxed82

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

Plodded along. Had it's moments, but mediocre for the most part. People yapping non stop. It's a visual medium. Stop yapping so much.

You do know that some of the most engaging cinema involves nothing more than two people in a room talking.

Bullseye1

Deleted User wrote: »

You do know that some of the most engaging cinema involves nothing more than two people in a room talking.

Not when it involves KR.:D Not sure if I will bother with this one at the cinema. Might rent.

constitutionus

i thought it was funny that keanu's naturally wooden acting actually works quite well with the rigid medieval japanese style of discourse



he's not really the star of the film anyway IMO. more like the guy you need to get the audience into the world theyre creating. he's certainly not playing a tom cruise type role in this