13 ASSASins. Wow. My kind of movie. Thanks for the tip.
I just saw this film and really enjoyed it (80/100). Keep in mind that I really like action films—good ones anyway, and this is a good one, imo. It has many elements I like in action films: a likable protagonist(s), a good villain—in this case the villain is not so interesting, but at least he is effectively despicable; chess game back-and-forth between the protagonist and his nemesis; and clever tactics.
I only disagree with some points in the OP—primarily the battle sequences. Yes, they were epic, but I didn’t care for the way they were shot. In hand-to-hand fighting, generally a two shot is the best—accompanied by other edited shots that don’t cause confusion for the viewer. It was hard to make sense of a lot of the action, and the editing wasn’t a bit annoying at times. It was difficult to distinguish the various good guys and the film would cut from one person to another in a confusing way. Having said that, the positives in the film far outweighed this, or other weaknesses.
Here are some other thoughts and questions:
>In watching this film I thought of many other films and filmmakers—Seven Samurai being the most obvious one. Here are some other
The Wild Bunch—especially the code of honor among men theme and the last battle (a small group of heroes in a orgiastic shoot-out)
Heat—first there’s Shinzaemon (the leader) and Hanbei (the head guard) who are the Pacino and De Niro characters; the meeting prior at Shinzaemon’s house between the two reminded me of the coffee scene; the final battle—with the discussion about their professionalism—but from different angles. I must say that I preferred 13 Assassins version more;
Apocalypse Now—perhaps this is a superficial element—but Naraitsugu seemed like a Col. Kurtz figure.
Samurai Rebellion and Harakiri—the tension between serving one’s master and serving the people (although this wasn’t really well-developed).
>Was it just me or did the “second in command”—Kuronaga(?)—just appear out of nowhere? What was his relationship to Shinzaemon and why and how did he get involved? I believe we see him for the first time after Shinzaemon interviews the first group of people he takes on. Kuronaga, however, is introducing Shinzaemon to some men—as if he already was on board.
>How’d you guys like the cinematography? The filmmakers seemed to go for a natural lighting in the interior scenes, but a part of me feels like they didn’t actually use natural light or just the light from candles/fire. In any event, technically it didn’t seem to work so well, imo.
>I agree with people who say the characters weren’t really well-developed. For sure, Seven Samurai is superior in at least this area. However, I feel like SS wants to be more of a drama than an action film, while 13 wants to be an action film, more than a drama.
This is not a better film than Seven Samurai, imo, but it’s a good update—at least in terms of the action genre. I’m actually now a lot more open and curious to see Miike’s remake of Harakiri.
Some other comments and questions I forgot to add:
>What do people make of the last shot of the film? Shinzaemon’s nephew seems to heed his uncle’s advice of “living his own life” (i.e., don’t give your whole life to the samurai way), but he can’t seem to throw the sword away. And I believe he gives a little grin.
>What do people make of the Naraitsugu’s thanking Shinzaemon for the lesson he learned? Was the lesson an appreciation for pain? Was he genuine?
>I also liked a lot of the dialogue in the film.
What was the deal with Koyata ? Was he a supernatural being or was it just Miike playing around?
Which guy was Koyata? Oh, was he the mountain man guy? My impression was that he “resurrection” wasn’t supernatural. He just seemed to suffer a death blow(s!)—as happens in these sort of films. But I’m open to another interpretation.
Yeah, he was the mountain guy, the comic relief. It would seem to be a last laugh to have him stumble out to reveal that he’s alive, but they did call him a demon when they first heard him in his trap.
the battle at the end was supposedly against 200 soldiers though it seemed like there were about 500 deaths
Yeah … Sword of Doom pretty much massacres every film mentioned in this thread, so yeah.
I liked some parts of 13 Assassins. I’m not a huge fan of Miike, but I liked how he approached this film. It was more methodical (sporadically methodical, but I digress…) than his usual style and he provided some interesting motivations for the characters, but as others have already mentioned here, he doesn’t take enough time to develop these characters. It’s like he’s saying, “OK I need 13 characters … so I’ll just develop the 4 or 5 main ones and let the others suffer horrible, quasi-meaningful deaths.” Sure, “5 Assassins” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it as a title, but who gives a fuck about titles? Bah, there were a lot of missteps in this film, but the ending battle almost redeemed it. There was a sufficient amount of chaos to make it somewhat believable, but again, there’s that MAJOR problem of character underdevelopment. The otherwise serviceable ending suffers because of it I must say, kinda sad.
The Koyata character was a copout. Just Miike being Miike … some people love that aspect of his films, others (such as myself) regard it as just dumb. Ha.
@Pierre
Huh. I missed that “demon” remark.
@Like
I think this had to do with the filmmaking. The battle scenes were pretty confusing. It was a mass of bodies and flailing limbs.
@Deckard
I liked 13 Assassins more than Sword of Doom. Ditto Seven Samurai, The Wild Bunch and Harakiri. Did you see 13 Assassins?
But you do realize that 13 Assassins is just a rehash of all those films you mentioned, right (except Heat and Apocalypse Now … those seem like stretching a bit)? But with CGI and a few modern actors. I mean, it’s not even very memorable as a Miike film. Miike has made some great films (I say this with misgivings, but it’s true), but this isn’t even on that level. It’s an OK film, but it’s like The Last Samurai without Tom Cruise (a good thing, yet also a poorly written/executed idea).
the film relies heavily on extreme violence as its strength because the way it ended with the written information about the end of the samurai era looked irrelevant after watching a bloody massacre all from the plot of just one samurai
i heard just before watching how the director makes a new feature film every few months so maybe this is why he found it difficult doing a character study kind of film
@Deck
I would say 13 is a remake of Apocalypse or Heat. That would be a stretch. But Shinzaemon and Hanbei seem very close to the Pacino and De Niro’s characters in Heat (including the conversation scene and the final confrontation).
I do think the film borrows from other films, but is it a rehash? I guess. Whatever the case may be, the film is probably not great, but I really enjoyed it.
What was your problem with the writing and execution?
@Likes
Well, if Miike really intended to make a character study, then this film failed—no matter why it did. Personally, I don’t think this is what he was going for.
sorry jazz 2 confuse u i was referring 2 what deckard said about characters not being developed
in no way is 13 assassins a character study film!
in fact i never realized this film was from the director of audition which is definitely more character driven until i read what rudy said (where’s rudy??) so it would be interesting knowing how miike prepares these films and if audition took more time directing the actors psychologically
My sense is that Miike is into violence and horror, so this latest film is a bit of a departure. Then again, I’m not really familiar with his work, so…
Miike’s done a HUGE range of films. While he’s mostly known for the gruesomeness and extremity of his horror films (Audition, Ichi the Killer), he’s done some very ethereal dramas (Bird People in China) and a kitsch Samurai Western (Sukiyaki Western Django), and he’s working on a kids film. He’s one of those cinematic Renaissance men.
I liked 13 Assassins a lot, largely for the tone and the strong single images. I LooooooVE the scene in the courtyard, with dozens of swords planted in the ground, like a garden of blades. And I love the repeated motif of “Total Massacre” that comes up from time to time. It’s a truly pared-down, vicious, angry Samurai film, and the nobler themes of loyalty and honor become submerged in the pure violence and desperation of the central storyline.
True, the characters weren’t well-developed — about 8 of the 13 assassins were practically anonymous, and the other four, along with the arch-villain, were just stamped directly from action-ensemble archetypes. Nonetheless, I felt like it nailed the tone and the pacing and the drama. I heartily approved.
@Jesse
I didn’t mind that the filmmakers didn’t develop a lot of the other assassins. Not only would this have made the film longer, but it might have caused the film to lose focus. Imo, the focus (or at least the part Iiked the most) was the relationship between Shinzaemon and Hanbei. Indeed, I would have liked them to have develop this relationship a little more—maybe a little more details in their previous relationship to heighten the drama. Again, their relationship reminded me of Pacino and De Niro in Heat or even Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan in the X-Men (the two best things about the series, imo).
I also wondered if they could have gotten another actor to play Hanbei. The actor was fine, but I had a feeling like another actor could have added a bit more. I liked Yakusho as Shinzaemon, although he wasn’t perfect. I guess I’m thinking of scenes that required physical action and ferocity (although this is nit-picking). I like when he’s standing on the wall and takes out the written note: “Total massacre”. And then later the line, “OK, enough of these petty tricks.”
I think I could forgive the underdevelopment of the other assassins (that would make a helluva long film anyway … once again, why do their have to be 13 assassins?), but a film like this, an action film essentially, requires a well-defined villain and while Miike does go to some interesting lengths to make the villain unlikable (which he succeeds – who wouldn’t despise this character?), he never gets around to actually telling us anything about the character. And it doesn’t even work on the level of a kind of mysterious, “mythological” villain because we’re already exposed to him so much throughout the film. He’s established as cruel but human, cowardly but somehow retains the loyalty of his men. He’s a cookie cutter caricature villain who shows no sympathy, no humanity, no emotional depth; he’d be more at home in the latest Stallone movie than this.
And the inconsistencies of the script kind of irked me. I mean, it’s like Miike wasn’t sure what he wanted to focus on. He has elements of horror, action, intrigue, drama (even comedy), but he doesn’t commit to any of them. It’s like he’s sprinkling ingredients of what might make an “epic” film, attempting to encompass all of these things and then just moves on to the next one like a frog hopping from one genre-lilypad to another.
Again though, I do think this is one of Miike’s better films (can’t really top Visitor Q or Ichii though), I just have a problem with his gnat-like attention span, heh.
OK, here’s my question to all of you who have seen 13 Assassins:
Did you order it from iTunes? You did? Wrong. Go see it in a theatre.
Did you order from VOD? You did? Negatory. Go see it in a theatre.
Did you order it from Netflix? Really? Nooooo. Go see it in a theatre.
Did you download it from some free movie website and watch it on your computer? Zappp! Wrong! Go see it in a theatre.
Is the film a bit of a rehash of Kurosawa? Sure. Still, go see it in a theatre.
Was the first thing you thought of when going to see a samurai movie was that it had better have good character development? Hmmm. I don’t think so.
Tired of those previous emoting samurai and ready for some thundering, kick-ass samurai? Of course you are!
Now…repeat after me: I Will Go See 13 Assassins In A Theatre.
if 13 assassins never showed at my local cinema i might never have watched it
If a film requires being seen in a theatre in order to appreciate it’s worth then it has no lasting value in cinematic history and is merely reliant on the “louder/flashier” aesthetic prevalent in our modern world. A film should be just as suited to a computer screen as the big screen.
I highly doubt that the qualms everyone has here is based on whether or not the version they saw had surround sound, a ginormous screen, and the camaraderie of fellow film-goers. Would 13 Assassins be “better” on the big screen? Sure, it’d be bigger and louder, but I personally already appreciate the action aspect of the film. Would it solve the writing/directorial problems? Zzzzt, no.
Was the first thing you thought of when going to see a samurai movie was that it had better have good character development?
Yes. Kurosawa could do it (several times) no problem, Okamoto did it, Kobayashi did it. Why didn’t Miike do it? Who knows, perhaps he was too busy thinking about how to bring Zebraman 4 to the screen … or whatever handful of projects he’s working on now.
i guess the title 13 assassins raises some expectations that we might be introduced 2 each assassin more thoroughly
like there was one samurai introduced as agreeing on joining the force simply 4 the money wanting 200 yen (i can’t remember the exact currency) some of it 4 burying loved ones and some 4 himself and family
this sort of in depth character introduction did not happen with all 13 assassins which makes the connection and dynamics between them less emotional
@Deck
He’s a cookie cutter caricature villain who shows no sympathy, no humanity, no emotional depth;
What do you think about Heath Ledger’s Joker or Javier Bardem’s Anton Chigurr? Both those characters don’t have much humanity, they’re not well-developed as character, either; but, imo, they’re two of the all-time great villains, especially if in the thriller/action genre.
I think the main thing Naraitsugu is that he is despicable and in that way the film succeeds. Imo, the “villain” in this film is not a villain so much as a nemesis and that role is filled by Hanbei. The tension between them is what is at the heart of the film for me. The were rivals and maybe equals in their younger years, which adds to the drama. There’s also a tension between doing something that is right and good versus doing one’s duty and remaining loyal. It’s these two characters and their relationship that needed some fleshing out, imo, and if there’s a flaw I would cite that.
I disagree that the film is unfocused—as in Miike doesn’t know what kind of film he’s making. Is there any question that this is primarily an action film? There’s bits of humor, drama, horror, but those clearly are secondary, imo. This is an action film—centered on the battle between Shinzaemon and Hanbei—the two chess players while everyone else are the pieces.
That’s the thing though, Jazz. Anton Chigurr is merely a representation of evil. He isn’t meant to be a 3-dimensional character in any real sense, but a symbol. A Country for Old Men is a very figurative tale and all of the characters are caricatures, but this works because it is consistent with what the film/novel is trying to promote.
That’s perhaps where Miike fails in this film because he provides certain characters with a level of depth which departs from mere symbolism into realistic portrayal, then in the same gasp, throws in the villain and Koyata (for instance) who are so out-of-place in the film that it’s laughable (and not in a good way). It’s jarring and distracting because there’s a consistent serious tone for most of the film and then there’s these two bumbling characters who seem to be either directorial musings or excuses for excessive indulgence – neither of which sufficiently warrant being there at all.
But you’re right, the film really is more about (philosophically, I suppose) Naraitsugu and Hanbei, but I thought that could’ve been brought out more as well. I really liked the idea of the younger one bent on destruction, who was capable of using powerful allies as his weapon as opposed to being a powerful weapon himself … and Hanbei, the antithesis of that – the wizened warrior, world-weary and capable, yet bound to this absurd nationalistic poise. There’s a lot of potential for some in-depth probing into these characters … but that never happens. “Why?!?” I cry from the highest mountain, “Why?”
And I don’t think it’s a matter of Miike not knowing what film he’s making, more that he’s unsure of what direction to take the film. Miike, despite what I say about him, is an experienced filmmaker who’s made films in practically every genre known to man (some of them excellent) – this is a curse and a blessing. If an artist is accustomed to presenting a work of art only a handful of ways then, if he’s proficient, can usually use one of those in a way which emphasizes his strengths as an artist. But if, like Miike, he literally has no restrictions on his sensibilities, then the opportunity for inconsistency is twofold (or thirty-fold, what-have-you). So, I think it was just a matter of Miike trying to bring out too many things and not having enough time (or money perhaps) to fully realize all of them ideally.
I mean, I’m actually cutting this film a lot of slack because it’s a fairly serviceable remake and Miike is restricted towards making it at least somewhat representational of the original, so I’m sure this cut into the creative sway he might have originally tackled such a subject.
I found it impossible not to constantly compare the film to Seven Samurai.
Sorry, I’m bad with character names, but the guy who got caught in the net in 13 Assassins was the exact same character as the non-samurai samurai from Seven Samurai. At times it felt like he was doing an impression. Some of the mannerisms were identical.
The last battle scene was cool, but in a film that seemed to be trying to sell the combat as realistic, it felt like the assassins were wading through the bodyguards with the ease of Aaragorn wading through a crowd of orcs.
Having so many things in common with a film with so much more emotional depth and character development worked really heavily against it.
Go see it in a theatre.
Deckard: “If a film requires being seen in a theatre in order to appreciate it’s worth then it has no lasting value in cinematic history and is merely reliant on the “louder/flashier” aesthetic prevalent in our modern world. A film should be just as suited to a computer screen as the big screen.”
In all seriousness, this is one of the saddest and most inane comments from anyone I’ve ever heard of from here on Mubi lately about film and cinema in general.
You have such enthusiasm for your computer that you’d prefer to watch all films on there? Lawrence of Arabia? A Matter of Life and Death? Three Colours Trilogy, maybe? “just as suited”…??? Wow.
You should well know that film in a sense started small, but wasn’t afraid to take it bigger to make it more enjoyable for audiences (nothing wrong with that idea, I think), to take advantage of the film format and it’s potential to do something more than watching a movie while surfing porn at the same time. I was more enthused to see Citizen Kane on a big screen (never mind any kind of “surround sound”) than I ever was watching it on a tv. I saw Vertigo for the very first time on a big screen back in the 1980s when it was re-released. Renoir’s The River? Saw it on a big screen too, the first time. The original King Kong? I went to see it playing in a local theatre, even tho I’d seen it numberous times on tv as a kid, and was damn glad I did. Raiders of the Lost Ark on the big screen with that huge ball rolling or those Nazis melting? Bring it on…and on a big fuckin’ screen!
I acknowledge that gaining a proper, enjoyable cinematic experience in a theatre is a tough task, what with loud popcorn and candy crunchers and kids with smart phones twittering about their new sneakers, and given the prevalence for those bland mega-theatres out there that sell cola in buckets, but to deem a computer screen as “just as suited”…goddamn ridiculous. But it’s not like there aren’t repertory cinemas in most cities giving (usually) great deals to see all kinds of movies on a big screen, but they’re NOT getting supported, and are getting fucked financially, because people like you will seemingly only watch movies on your computer at home.
Granted, I even do understand the preference of some with sitting in front of your tv at home and watching a movie on your own or with friends or a loved one, and the value in that kind of secure space, but even so…confining yourself to any one thing is just cinematically…unreasonable.
Deckard: “I highly doubt that the qualms everyone has here is based on whether or not the version they saw had surround sound, a ginormous screen, and the camaraderie of fellow film-goers. Would 13 Assassins be “better” on the big screen? Sure, it’d be bigger and louder, but I personally already appreciate the action aspect of the film. Would it solve the writing/directorial problems? Zzzzt, no.”
When I saw the film at TIFF 2010, the audience was cheering regularly, laughing together, gasping collectively and at the end, clapping simultaneously and loudly. Nobody was thinking about a “ginormous screen” (it was a somewhat basic, but properly built movie theatre at a university campus) or the aforementioned “surround sound”, but damn, ALL of us were having a hell of a good time watching that movie on a big screen….together. Between the action, the sound design, the editing, the cinematography, the direction…we were all mightily pleased, judging by the enthused reaction of pretty much everyone leaving the theatre. Of course, 13 Assassins isn’t perfect, and owes its cinematic debts to Kurosawa and other filmmakers, but really…given the chance, wouldn’t you go see Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai on the big screen given the chance? Have you? Damn, I hope so.
Because, sir, it sounds like you should go out with your fellow film-goers more and…go see it in a theatre.
@Deck
I get what you’re saying about Chigurr, but I don’t necessarily agree. What about the Ledger’s Joker? Basically, the really good or even great villains in action/adventure/thriller disprove your theory. Think about John Malkovich’s character in In the Line of Fire or Dennis Hopper’s in Speed. They’re not really humanized very much, nor are they very complex or sympathetic. In general, I think those qualities would weaken the effectiveness of a villain, at least in an action. (Think of Ed Harris’ “villain” in The Rock. He was ineffective, partly, because he was sympathetic, imo.) Or how about Darth Vader, especially in episode IV. There was little back-story; he’s not a rich character. The lack of details makes him more mysterious and, thus, scarier. (I gotta post this in Kate’s thread about knowing too much about characters.
Speaking of Darth Vader, what about the comic relief of C3PO and R2? That didn’t hurt the film at all, right? Same with The Hidden Fortress. I think the Koyata character was in the same spirit. I don’t think this is really a mash-up of genres—in the vein of The Host, for example. The horror elements are really minimal, imo; ditto the comedy. Those things are just sprinkled throughout, what for me, is an action film.
There’s a lot of potential for some in-depth probing into these characters … but that never happens. “Why?!?” I cry from the highest mountain, “Why?”
LOL! Wait, by Naraitsugu did you mean Shinzaemon, the rival to Hanbei or the guy Hanbei swears to protect?
@Jirin
When I first saw Seven Samurai I was expecting a lot of action, and I was disappointed. Now, we have the action version, and you’re disappointed. :P
I still think SS is a better film; it’s one of my all-time favorite films, and Miike’s “version” doesn’t come close. Still, I’m a fan of good action films, and this one is a good, if not very good, action film. (It could have been even better, but I’m not screaming from the mountain tops like our friend, Deck. :)
@Armands and Deck
I think you both are crazy. ;) Seriously, I think you guys are both going over-the-top in your statements. I like your enthusiasm, Armands, and I agree that the big screen is the ideal venue for this film (how abou in IMAX!), but I agree with Deck’s point, too. I don’t think the venue can make or break a film, generally speaking, even though it’s almost always the preferable way to see a film.
Rudy
I just brought this movie on VOD for 9.99 I get to “have it” for 48 hours wow. This movie is so fucking awesome. It starts off slow for some but it builds perfectly! What a sadistic fuck that Shogun’s son was! Kyudo’ing an entire family at close range. I love all of the 13 Assassins chosen for the mission and the battle WAS WORTH EVERY CENT OF THE 9.99! GO WATCH THIS MOTHERFUCKA IN THE MOVIES! I know I will! This is Miike at his best, I just saw Audition which some consider his best but this is hands DOWN THE BEST most refined Miike movie! The character development is great and it still serves the sadistic violence one would expect from Miike but more realestic to the story and period. This isnt Fudoh or Ichi, which I love but those are like live action anime movies and this is like period samurai epic that would make Kurosawa blush