Pretty much what you'd expect

Rating: Null/10 (13 July 2004)

You've read all this before, so I won't belabor the common themes in the reviews.
Beautiful cinematography, predictable plot, rehash of Dances with Wolves (which is, itself, in many ways a rehash of Little Big Man) with a dash of Last of the Mohicans (in terms of themes -- IE: "our way of life is ending"), etc. Just scroll down a bit and you'll see what I'm talking about.
For me, the film was an entertaining diversion, and basically met my expectations.
Tom Cruise is, well, Tom Cruise. I'm beginning to understand why many directors like to go with unknowns rather than mega-stars in terms of casting. The problem with someone of Cruise's stature in Hollywood is that when watching him, you can't completely forget that he's Tom Cruise. I think his acting abilities are fine, but it may simply be a case of overexposure. Honestly, I'd much rather watch a film with Ken Watanabe as the big-name star at this point.
My main issue with this film is that it's just so...well...typically Hollywood. It feels like you're watching charicatures, NOT characters. The difference being that you never feel completely connected to the characters as people. They're a little too shallow and not all that well developed. I suspect that this is more the fault of the script and the editing. Perhaps a four hour version of the film might develop the characters a bit more fully. But even in this 2 1/2 hour film, I just didn't feel all that connected to the characters.
**** WARNING!!! SPOILERS AHEAD!!! *****
Some of the characters even feel like walking plot devices. Case in point: the leader of the Japanese peasant force at the start of the film and the "gruff Irish sergeant" (incidentally, has an Irishman -- Wellington excepted, of course -- EVER been shown as more than a sergeant in film history?? Sheesh.).
These characters are your typical Hollywood cannon fodder. They get the main character from point A to point B, or provide a convenient "moment" of some sort for the character. In both cases, they get about ten to fifteen minutes of screen time before they're snuffed. I can accept this in horror films and action films, and even SOME war drama films, but if you're going to bother to include a character or draw major attention to them (as opposed to, say, Platoon, which kills off fairly anonymous soldiers without really developing them, BUT also without giving them much screen time to begin with), give them a BIT more of a purpose than "having witnessed the death of [character X], our hero feels compelled to [insert emotion/action Y here]." I mean, come on guys. Why even bother giving these guys names? Why not just have the characters refer to these guys as Gruff Irish Sergeant and Noble Japanese General? These, of course, being the short versions of the names, the long ones ending with "Who Will Surely Be Dead in Ten Minutes."

***** END SPOILERS ******
If you do decide to see this movie, go into it with the same approach that I did: expect a big, dumb Hollywood flick that's basically rehashing many plots and themes you've seen before. Expect lovely cinematography, lots of lush shots of landscapes, expect to walk away saying "My, but Japan seems an interesting place..." Expect Tom Cruise to be Tom Cruise, expect narrow character development, etc.
If you go in with these expectations, the film is reasonably interesting. If you're looking for an historical epic with rich characters and a novel plot, look elsewhere.