Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai (2011) User Reviews

On the deficiencies of wooden swords

[wandereramor · 8/10 · 8 January 2013]

Takashi Miike's second straight tribute to the samurai genre is a well-crafted and finely honed object. It's more consistent than Miike's previous samurai film, 13 Assassins, although that also means it lacks anything as great as that film's final battle. But what sets Hara-Kiri apart is its willingness to not just offer a pastiche of these films but genuinely question their values in a way that is still challenging to the contemporary viewer.

Through a series of events told partially in flashbacks, Hara-Kiri poses the question of how relevant our values are -- whether they be highly codified values like honour or the more nebulous instincts that guide us today -- in the face of human suffering. The ronin that we see humiliated and killed in the first act is not guilty of breaking some arcane samurai bylaw but of doing something most of us would find disgraceful. But as the film goes on it argues that we should hold compassion even for people such as this, and that honour is ultimately irrelevant in the face of social suffering. In an age of recession and austerity, where so many try to cling to their ideas of what they or other people "deserve", this is an important message.

It's an easy film to appreciate and a difficult one to love -- there's a kind of coldness to this set of Miike's movies that seems out of place with the gonzo enthusiasm of his earlier work. And doubtlessly it will be too slow and cerebral for some. But its critique of not just a canonized genre but the way in which we view ethics makes it well worth seeing.

Unnecessary, but comes with a few slices of power

[adrongardner · 7/10 · 27 December 2015]

Let's get this out of the way.

Kobayashi's hard hitting "Harakiri" is a masterpiece. It's one of the great pieces of not only Japanese cinema, but also one of the best movies of the 20th century. While I'm disappointed the film was remade at all, and surprised it came from Miike, there are still good things to be found here. To my surprise, for the most part, this is a good movie and in very small quantities, there are some true moments of greatness. Even if they are very short.

A good deal of the original film's grit is lost for most of this go around. The cinematography is over-lit and the pacing falls into lulls. But survive to the end and you will be rewarded as the final irony is quite powerful. I mean, no spoilers from me, but even with the cheesy fake snow, I have to say, Ebizô Ichikawa's powerful presence won me over and he truly wins the day when the time calls for it.

I was never too crazy about all the Kurosawa remakes of the 60s and 70s. Fistful of Dollars always felt like a cheap knock-off, because it is. The Magnificent Seven was sort of a tolerable chuckle. Kurosawa's films were so human, almost populist, because of their themes, his work was ripe for remake, reboot or even plagiarism. Only Star Wars seemed to get the joke and succeed in being something different than a pure Hidden Fortress copy. Kobayashi's Harakiri seemed to escape the trend for so long because of the subject matter - even the title! But here we are. There is still something not right about this "remake," but MIike gets it right in the end, even if never needed to be done in the first place.

In this one, Miike doesn't stand up against Kobayashi

[Chris Knipp · 6/10 · 25 June 2015]

Anyone with a more than passing interest in Japanese movies ought to watch Kobayashi's 1962 version of Takaiguchi's novel that this also is based on, and watch the intro by the Japanese film authority Donald Ritchie on the Criterion edition. Ritchie makes fully clear how Kobayashi here, as in other films, is talking through the historical tale about current issues he was passionate about, in this case lingering post-WWII authoritarianism in Japan and hollow bureaucracies, in his day as in the time of the early Tokugawa government; Miike doesn't seem to have anything particularly urgent to say. Look at what Ritchie points out that Kobayashi's version offers: the script by ace screenwriter Shinobu Hashimoto who wrote Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai; the score by bold, influential experimentalist Toru Takemitsu; the strong and unifying symbolic use of empty samurai armor throughout; the career-defining lead performance by Tatsuya Nakadai; and the elegantly austere use of black and white cinematography.

Ironically Miike's film also carries over Kobayashi's one serious flaw - - an overindulgence in sentimentality and pathos in the flashback love story.

Miike, apparently seeking 'respectability' after all his entertaining ultra-violence with this staid remake/adaptation, also overdoes everything. He makes every scene too drawn-out and talky. He further overdoes the sentimentality, to the point that in his version becomes unbearably cloying, virtually unwatchable. Once again, 3D adds nothing; black and white was just what was needed. Less was and is more.

Whenever a filmmaker goes over familiar ground, adapting a book that has been adapted (and very well) before, he exposes himself to comparisons to the book and to the previous adaptation. Don't get me wrong. Miike has plenty of skill. It is not that his 'Hara- Kiri' is a washout. It's just that Kobayashi's version is a true work of art, a film classic, in fact; and in comparison Miike's is merely a competent effort and a pointless bid for respectability that was not needed. He is a master in his own realm. Surprisingly his last film before this, the juicy, action-historical blockbuster 13 Assassins, which I thoroughly enjoyed, also was an adaptation -- of Eiichi Kudo's little known samurai film of the same name. Thanks to 'Wildgrounds' (who compare the two Hara- Kiri films) for this info. Thanks also to Ben Parker on 'CapitalNewYork' for his detailed comparison of the two films; and to the Criterion Collection, for its print of Kobayashi's 'Hara-Kiri' and Donald Ritchie's informed introduction to it.

Much lacking compared to original

[perica-43151 · 6/10 · 16 September 2018]

The Japanese cinema used to be much more powerful in the past. This remake of classic masterpiece Harakiri is far worse in many ways. It toned down criticism of authority, that is the core of the original movie. The central story is overdrawn, and it does not bring much new. What is new in this presentation is almost always at a loss, spare a somewhat simpler structure. Acting is also better in the original. But what is most annoying, is that some key subtle points are missing in this version, almost as if they were not understood, or worse yet, almost if hypocrisy of the authorities is to be whitewashed. It is far less powerful rendering of the story, it lacks authenticity that Kobayashi had with his then contemporary comments. By all means, if you can, see the original first. One of the least justified and worst remakes. However, when the original is so great, this lazy if not outright stupid remake still leaves us with a somewhat shabby but not too bad a movie. It is a disappointment coming from a director that had better days, and especially from a cinematography that seems to have grown tired, and has been surpassed by South Korea but also China to an extent.

Great movie

[Cactus737 · 9/10 · 8 March 2014]

I thought they did a wonderful job with this movie. They didn't sell out by making it all in English with American actors. They didn't go crazy making it a bloodbath just to get the younger viewers. The movie really gives you an insight into Japan's history and what life was like for these people. The atmosphere and story telling really draws you in. The acting is great especially one scene that had me cringing. There were a lot of parts where I was like whoa I didn't see that coming. I can understand those out there loyal to the original but you at least have to give the film makers of this remake credit. They stayed true to Japanese culture, they didn't get tom cruise or Keanu reeves to star in it. They didn't write it for the newer younger audience and make all the characters smart mouth kids. Unfortunately I haven't seen the original yet and I understand how those people might not like this one. I don't know how I would feel about a seven samurai remake? I think this movie was well done. It succeeded in telling a truly gripping story without going all modern on it and ruining it. I enjoyed it.

No surprises when it comes to this remake, but it is at least well-made

[Jeremy_Urquhart · 7/10 · 26 February 2023]

It would've taken guts to remake one of the most acclaimed Japanese films of all time (1962's Harakiri), but then again, no one could accuse Takashi Miike of being a gutless filmmaker. I was curious to see this because some of Miike's best films are remakes or updates of stories that have already been adapted to film (like 13 Assassins and Graveyard of Honour).

This remake really follows the original perhaps a little too closely. I think it's just a few minutes shorter, and I can really only think of one scene that was in the original that wasn't in this. Visually, it replicates Masaki Kobayashi's style really well, but maybe part of me was hoping that Takashi Miike would do something a little more out-there or unexpected. Instead, he chose to be reverent to the original, but then again, it is a classic film that deserves reverence.

There's one infamous scene from the original that feels even harder to watch here, and I think the climax shakes things up a little too, to mixed effect (the final fight is fairly different). Otherwise, the story and all the characters are near-identical, and anyone familiar with the 1962 version is unlikely to find too many surprises here.

It's strange to try and review this, because it is a high-quality film... yet it's based on a high-quality classic that still holds up extremely well, so I'm not entirely sure what the rationale was behind this. For those who want to see a more modern-looking version of Harakiri in colour instead of black and white, this is very well-made and watchable, but I feel like the original is still more worthy of being watched first, for anyone unfamiliar with either film.

How The Mighty Have Fallen

[georgep53 · 8/10 · 3 August 2012]

Where does mercy fit in with the esprit de corps of a warrior class? Can there be honor without it? These are interesting questions raised in director Takashi Miike's poignant remake of the 1962 classic "Harakiri". This film may not satisfy the audience for slashing, body-count samurai movies because the emphasis is on mood and character but there are a number of things to recommend this film. "Hara-Kiri:Death of a Samurai" is beautifully photographed by Nobuyasu Kita and has laudable performances. Ebizo Ichikawa is Hanshiro a samurai with a young daughter of marriageable age. Hanshiro has adjusted to living in a time of peace. He isn't a wealthy man but seems happy and content making a living doing the odd job here and there. Ichikawa is wonderful in this role giving great weight and humanity to the character. He is a memorable samurai. Eita is Motome a young samurai who hasn't adjusted as well. He has been unable to find employment and so enters the house of a great lord asking for permission to commit harakiri in the courtyard and thus achieve an honorable death. Hikari Mitsushima is very affecting as Hanshiro's daughter, Miho. When I approached the theater showing this film I noticed someone walking away with teary eyes. I can't recall the last time that happened but after seeing "Hara-Kiri:Death of a Samurai" I understood why someone would be so moved.

Mostly a successful effort

[franklindf · 7/10 · 2 June 2020]

It's a good film. I didn't see the original and so I wasn't tainted by how they compare, or the book either. It probably made this film a little hard to understand because the chronology jumps around and there are a lot of flashbacks - but I stuck with it and it did begin to make sense. The movie is a basically a tragedy that also dissects the samurai code and provides some thought provoking material to consider. The movie is reasonably well paced and for a Japanophile the set design and costumes are very well done. I don't know if Japan was that squeaky clean and tidy 400 years ago, but it seemed well considered and accurate. The movie was a little slow but portrayed a sort of Zen tranquility, so it worked for the mood or atmosphere. You could pick apart this movie, and it may not stand up to the original but if you're a fan of Japanese cinema it's definitely worth seeing.

A Unique Take on the Samurai Vendetta Genre

[mistabobdobolina · 10/10 · 3 August 2013]

A samurai film set in the first generation after the rise of the Tokugawa Shogunate -- when the samurai were beginning to perceive the bitter reality that unity and peace were the death knell of much of their usefulness as a caste -- Hara-Kiri centers around a story of disgrace and revenge, but its take on this subject matter is unique, and it is one of the very few samurai films that actually reaches the point of questioning the ethos of "warrior's honour." It is not an action film, for the most part; although its climactic act does feature a fascinating one-against-many throwdown, it isn't there to provide gore and death. This is a film that revolves around story, characters and ideas.

The basic premise: with many samurai penniless and out of work under the Shogunate -- which has become vindictive about eliminating all possible threats to its power and has shut down whole domains -- a uniquely samurai kind of con artistry has sprung up, called the "suicide bluff," in which a ronin shows up at a well-appointed lordly estate, begs the use of the courtyard to commit seppuku, and thereby hopes to win the lord's sympathy and to be offered some money or a position in his retinue instead.

The film begins with one such story set at the House of Ii; the senior retainer, set to hear a suicide request from a penniless ronin, eyes him skeptically and then tells him (in flashback form) the story of another such ronin who came by attempting a suicide bluff just a short while earlier. The story of that young man, who shows up looking skinny, timorous and pathetic to make his request, is the story of an unsuspecting rube badly miscalculating the seriousness of the House of Ii's commitment to the samurai ideal, notwithstanding that most of its younger warriors have never seen combat. When the retainers of Ii discover that the young ronin has brought only a bamboo practice sword with him, they decide in rage to call his transparent bluff, summoning out the whole house to witness his suicide and sternly demanding that he go through with it... using only that same bamboo sword.

The youth's panic and seeming cowardice seem contemptible at first... but there is something just as twisted about the retainers' contempt when they discover he was just trying to get money to buy medicine for a sick wife and child. Finally, seeing that there's no way out, he does contrive to commit seppuku with the bamboo sword, in a scene of surpassing drawn-out agony and horror that will stay with you for days. (His "second," assigned to behead him, seems in particular to almost relish the young man's suffering, refusing to end it until he's twisted the bamboo blade in his guts to the man's satisfaction.) Back to the present, and the senior retainer of Ii offering this latest ronin the chance to leave with no questions asked. And that's when we discover that the two ronins' stories are connected... and that there's a larger objective of retribution in the newcomer's actions.

The drama that follows -- which affords us a chance to see the two ronin in an entirely different light, to discover their relationship and what brought them to their desperate pass, and to question whether the suppression of humaneness and empathy in the samurai code of conduct really just isn't a form of empty madness -- is deliberately-paced, intricately structured, and moving. It is well worth seeing, and indeed quite probably the best Japanese drama to be produced so far this century.

Subtle, mature, sometimes excruciating drama

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 17 June 2013]

HARA-KIRI: DEATH OF A SAMURAI is Takashi Miike's follow-up to the crowd-pleasing, SEVEN SAMURAI-alike, 13 ASSASSINS. This film is a whole different kettle of fish entirely and it's almost as if Miike went deliberately out of his way to make an anti-13 ASSASSINS; there's no action here, none of the wonderfully choreographed fight scenes that made his previous film such a smash.

Instead, HARA-KIRI is an intense and emotional drama that explores notions of honour, familial ties and duty, packaging it in such a way that makes it a unique movie. As with most Miike, it's a sometimes obscure, often unwieldy production, deliberately going out of its way to be as slow-paced as possible and letting the story unfold in real time. Flashbacks are used extensively and those looking for an explosive, revenge-fuelled drama would do well to seek elsewhere as this isn't satisfying in that way at all.

Instead, it's a unique beast. The first 30 minutes is completely horrifying, a grisly ordeal that nearly manages to outdo PASSION OF THE Christ in its depiction of on screen suffering and pain. The rest of the film is a slow burner, although it does build up to an effective climax of sorts. The actors are well accomplished, with the excellent Ebizo Ichikawa holding the fort for much of the time. Needless to say, the level of technical proficiency is high and the film as a whole is expertly made; the intense drama of the characters' ordeals makes it one of Miike's most mature works yet.

Take that 2 hours and watch it

[NikolozGabedava · 8/10 · 23 May 2020]

This is the film about life and how hard it can be. What a true warrior should aim for and what does it mean to be a man of action. Very interesting film with an exceptional rhythm of story telling. At first flow of the film looked too slow for me, but after warming up I did truly enjoy it. As I got very sharp emotional feelings form this very melodramatic remake of Original Harakiri (1962), at the and of the film I've got a special gift, something which will be an interesting suggestion for life and a different angle of view for it.

Compared to the original this film is shallow and meaningless

[JoshuaDysart · 7/10 · 12 August 2012]

Compared to the original 1962 Masaki Kobayashi film this movie is shallow and meaningless. But even taken on its own merits it's still pretty flawed.

An extremely powerful first act gives way to a ponderous middle, where the Ryuichi Sakamoto score over-dresses dreary long-winded sequences. Then it all culminates in a last act that is exciting both visually and intellectually... but completely unearned.

Miike has rarely been able to close in on a theme in his work with much accuracy (the two big exceptions that come to mind are Audition and Visitor Q, respectively being powerful explorations of misogyny in Japanese society and the collapse of the Japanese family), but when his films are crazed and breezy and fun, that's rarely a criticism worth voicing. This time the subject matter demands something more, and whatever Miike has to say about the Ruling Class or misplaced tradition or the role of the noble and ethical warrior in a time of peace comes out hopelessly convoluted.

Also, the 3D sucks and gives nothing to the experience except for muddling some gorgeous images with that dark uninspired light that those stupid glasses impose on even the best shot of 3D films.

So what's good about it? Well, the projected lighting issues aside, it's a beautiful looking movie. Miike always knows where to place his camera, is never afraid of silence (sabotaged repeatedly by the uninspired score) and the movie has a wonderful seasons motif. Some of the acting is wonderful to watch and when it's being a powerful act of filmmaking, it's mighty powerful.

But here Miike doesn't quite have the right touch and the lack of dedication to a deeper exploration of theme makes the film seem little more than a sequence of events with hardly any cohesion.

Bamboozled

[tedg · 13 February 2015]

What a lesson in filmmaking! More or less the same script, but radically different films. And insofar as viewers want a moral, these work on two different aspects of society.

The original was in the tradition of Ozu: flat, stationary camera and balanced greys. It had little overt symbolism, and the acting style was concentrated in small, almost ritualistic movements of the characters.

When the counselor shifted in his seat or moved his fan, it mattered. It was more tea ceremony than drama, though the story was tragic. Our hero in the original does take serious revenge and we are left thinking the house of Li is now cursed.

This later film is relatively garish. Gone is the studied flatness and the thing is presented in 3D. There is a wide range of tones, with the happy times being rosy and the dark times darker than Kobayashi would dare go. There's too much portent, too much explicit showing compared to the former.

Why this matters. The story is about stories. The main story is what is told to us, the inner story what is told to the assembled household. Both concern the story that each of the strutting, comfortable retinue tell themselves about who they are. That's a lot of telling and the three have to mesh so that the inner story demolishes the outer one.

Miike has restructured things. The second samurai appears first here. The boss is repelled enough to intercede in the shameful forced suicide. The revenge at the end is with a bamboo sword, that appears to do little damage. In the original, the assembled swordsmen are so intimidated that guns have to be called in.

Everything is more explicit. In the original, for instance, we only know that the three shamed officials will kill themselves. Their shame is increased by us not witnessing what we assume is ordered (at least in two cases). That greatly underscores the shame on the house, and we hear the counselor trying to fabricate a story that is not dishonorable, and that we know won't hold. This one ends with the master returning with no consequence.

One thing that mattered to me in the new one: we learn that the two clans were allies and that the wealth of the rich clan was partly won by the effort of the disbanded clan. I have great respect for Japanese films. I thought Audition was fantastic and some of the recent stuff is fascinating. But this seems to have too much Rosemary's Baby in it for me.

And little understanding of how one story can pull on another.

Good to make a remake with a different Screenplay, Howrever...

[Vaudrey-etienne · 4/10 · 24 May 2011]

Masaki Kobayashi's HARA-KIRI is my favorite movie of all time, Timeless story about Authority, Unjustice, Family and social links, but I tried to watch this one as partial as i could (well i saw the original 15 times so it's hard but i tried) and the changes in the screenplay are great because they throw the movie in another direction and that's what we want for a remake, not the same movie with better technology only...

Let's talk about technology : The 3D stereoscopic experience Ruins the cinematography... when you put off the glasses you got nice colors, contrasts and well balance luminosity... then when you put the glasses on you loose 2 diaphs, the contrast are flattened to the extreme and this is completely ugly for inside scenes... I saw it in Cannes 2011 so it was the first versions, i am sure they will change it for the theatrical release, if you have the choice between 3D and 2D versions don't hesitate a second and choose 2D.

Better be aware : the storytelling is very simple and contrast a lot with the masterpiece of Kobayashi, some who haven't seen the original said that was a problem, and some others said it was the way to tell this screenplay but the original one have to be better constructed. I would said honestly that even as this version is 5O years younger than the original, the filmaking is so simplified in this version that you couldn't tell which movie is the remake if you get rid of the technology differences, one is in Black and white, the other in 3D so...

My advice is you need to see both beginning by Kobayashi one as any human being should experience this story, one movie is a masterpiece of film making and give a great lesson to the viewer, the other is a smart adaptation of the screenplay and gives a great lesson to the characters of the movies, both are good to watch if you are a filmmaker, a movie reviewer or a movie addict.

EDIT : i saw it again in 2D in theatre last week IT IS FAR WORST than the original. no rhythm no conflict too much debriefing than a smart storytelling, run away from this betrayal and watch kobayashi masterpiece ASAP. i can't believe i was too gentle with this one IT IS A DISGRACE ! miike remake of eichi kudo's was great but this is a slaughter.

Surprisiingly muted given the original and the genre

[Hunt2546 · 7/10 · 19 July 2012]

Miike remade "13 Assassins" to take full advantage of technical advances since the original arrived in the early '60s. Thus it was more spectacular, a great battle movie that put us in the heart of slash-pierce-hack-crunch-and-filet combat.. Of its kind, it was great and the update made sense. The same cannot be said for his remake of the Kobayashi masterpiece, which was intimate, a rumination on the cruelty and hypocrisy of bushido. A nutshell: an impoverished older samurai comes to a great house seeking a place to commit hara-kiri: he's told a young man tried the same trick earlier, a "bluff" suicide, hoping to get money or a job. But the House forced him to live up to his word, even though he'd sold his swords: thus he committed seppuku with wooden blades. It turns out that the older man is the younger's father in law: he's come for vengeance on the house, and (spoiler) after revealing he's defeated the young man's three primary adversaries in single combat, he draws blade on the house and goes down in a bloody frenzy of vengeance. Great revenge movie, but Miike rewires it. You'd expect him to lay on the gore (as he did in "13" and many of his quickie yakuza films) but instead he dials it way down, keeps it somehow intellectual rather than visceral. Sorry, but I'm shallow enough to be disappointed: I wanted to see heads roll and arms chopped off. (It's a SAMURAI movie, right?) He retains Kobayashi's deliberate, almost ritual like pace and symmetrical compositions, but the understated intensity (SPOILER!: the old man fights his last fight with the wooden sword, so he is incapable of killing the Household guard) of the climax lets the movie end without the emotional catharsis it demanded. A disappointing exercise.

Once upon a time in Japan a small samurai family lived happily till ...

[Reno-Rangan · 9/10 · 8 August 2013]

Takashi returns to the samurai world after the success of '13 assassins' in 2011. This movie was a remake of 1962 'Harakiri' which was also a massive hit movie. I have not seen the original but this movie blown me away. As usual the story opens slow and hard to identify the situation of the story but at the right middle of the movie the flashback strikes with awesome drama about poverty and family sentiment. Once the flashback was told you will easily say where the movie is heading. The story was classic and the movie was presented with rich cinematography. The first digital 3D movie for Takashi Miike as well the first 3D movie to premier at 2011 Cannes film festival.

You have to learn a word to understand the movie completely. 'Seppuku' - which means ritual suicide committed by a samurai. So that is why it's called 'Hara-kiri: death of a samurai'. You must have patience during opening sequences, without character and story development you will be in a tough position to understand about what's going on. While the story and character progress with the development you will start to get and you may fall for the emotion parts if you are a tenderhearted. And also you will be uncomfortable during 'seppuku' scene.

Takashi Miike's career best, this is what already everyone saying about it. But Its to hard to say which was his best, I like many of his works. I might be overwhelmed by the watch but will be happy to recommend it to others. I was very little unhappy for the ending scene otherwise I could have said it is the best of Takashi's work.

I am so curious about Takashi Miike's upcoming and Hollywood debutante project 'The outside' with Tom Hardy. Expecting it would be another 'The last samurai', I wish a good luck to the team.

Boring and unsatisfying compared to the 1962 version

[mevmijaumau · 12 October 2014]

Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai is a remake (or better yet, an adaptation of the same novel) of Masaki Kobayashi's 1962 masterpiece Harakiri. Does the story really need another adaptation? Of course not, and once again it's proved that remakes can rarely catch up to the originals. The 2011 version was directed by Takashi Miike, and is actually in 3D. If you watch the original film, the last thing that'll come across your mind is "I wonder how this would look in 3D" because about 80% of the film is just people talking.

These are the major differences the remake offers:

1) Motome's harakiri scene is longer and bloodier. Well, it's Miike. What can you expect.

2) The Iyi clan retainers are bigger bastards this time around. First, this time Motome actually tells them he needs some time to take care of his family, but they ignore him. Second, the guy serving as Motome's second man during harakiri seemed unusually sadistic. Third, the chief retainer is now more like a quirky supervillain; has a white cat like Blofeld from the James Bond series (white cats are actually a leitmotif in this movie, it seems) and walks with a limp, which makes me snicker because this way he reminds me of herr Flick from the British sitcom 'Allo, 'Allo!

3) This time around it's immediately revealed that the three retainers Tsugumo chooses as his second men were killed by him (by "immediately revealed" I mean 40 minutes in). This is just stupid because it makes for a considerably less suspenseful viewing than the original.

4) Remember the battle in the grass field with the retainer in the '62 version? Well, it isn't here anymore. In this film, Tsugumo takes out all three retainers at once, in a scene that's way too short to enjoy.

5) The final battle of Tsugumo vs. the Iyi clan is a bit longer, but two major things were changed: first of all, Tsugumo now sports a bamboo blade instead of a true katana during the fight. Secondly, it snows all the time during the battle. Exactly why I'm not sure, except for actually giving a reason for the film to be in 3D.

6) In Kobayashi's film's ending, Tsugumo is quickly shot down by the musket-bearing retainers. In Miike's version, he is killed by swordsmen, but not before making a cheesy dramatic speech.

The cinematography is great and stays true to Kobayashi's original visions. The geometrical positioning of the shots and character composition isn't copied from Kobayashi, but gives it a new spin, what with the colors and all. It's a very well made film from a technical aspect. Then again, Miike is an experienced filmmaker so you can pretty much expect that to be true.

The music is a major letdown. Kobayashi's movie has a tense soundtrack aperiodically played on strings, which sounded weird to me at first, but I quickly got used to it and I realized it's a very unique and memorable score. It does a great job of raising the tension. Miike's film's music is tremendously forgettable - it's just your typical silent orchestral soundtrack we're so accustomed to nowadays. It's not as daring as the original, instead I can barely distinguish it from other, similar soundtracks.

Ebizô Ichikawa is a good replacement for Tatsuya Nakadai in his main role, but overall I prefer Nakadai because he manages to pull off complex emotions just by speaking in the same tone during the entire film - and this is hard to explain, but just by looking at him you really feel like everything that happened to Tsugumo also happened to Nakadai. Ichikawa is alright, but is not as rage-filled and imposing as Nakadai.

However, the major reason why the remake fails is the way the story itself is told. Half of the movie is spent on endless flashbacks of Tsugumo's life, which are a chore to watch and completely ruin the mood. The 1962 movie is highly unsettling, the message is laid out clearly and it's unbelievably tense the entire time. The 2011 movie is anything but suspenseful, clear or confrontational, it's horribly bland and Miike fails to deliver the message as passionately as Kobayashi did.

Is it truly necessary?

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 19 May 2014]

17th century Japan is in peace and countless samurai are without work or masters. Many roam the countryside with nothing to live for. An older samurai Tsukumo Hanshiro (Tatsuya Nakadai) seeks admittance to the house of a lord to commit the Hara-Kiri or ritual suicide and thereby maintaining his honor. Then the samurai in charge recounts the story of Chijiiwa Motome who was also from his town. He was a young man who also asked for help to commit Hara-Kiri. Right before the ritual, he asked for one more day and then 3 ryo to treat his sick wife and child. He was heartlessly denied. Motome had nothing but a bamboo blade after selling his sword and they forced him to perform the ritual with the dull blade.

Of course, this is a remake of the 1962 Japanese hit. Other than being in color, I'm not sure if there are any improvements. I don't think it's any worst, but I can't tell if anything is better. The big Harakiri scene is the big draw. I remember the original to be more compelling. Yet I don't know if that has more to do with the shock of seeing it for the first time. I remember they explained the roles better in the original especially about the second. The tension seemed to built up more. The original Motome seemed more scared. I can't be sure if it's a trick of memory to view the first with more admiration.

Masterpiece. Sensitive and Poetic. May be Best Japanese Film since Two Decades.

[sriram_m · 10/10 · 23 May 2012]

Director Takashi Miike has emerged and grown as an explosion of artistry in modern Japanese cinema, from controversial past image, from international notoriety for depicting shocking scenes of extreme violence. He became an auteur to write his mark in modern world cinema. With unmatched emotional intensity, using silence as fierce force, he got abilities of higher order. With incomparable emotional portrayal, unmatched visual precision, beauty and poetry, he became a legend of modern cinema. His style is slow, powerful, intense, beautiful and spiritual. With Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai(2011) Takashi Miike is ought to have great respect as much as akira kurosawa got. His style of making is like injecting venom directly into our nerves, instantly it flows to our brain, spreads all over the body to every cell of it, and blocks all the movement of consciousness so potently, instantly. We are not but to surrender to its emotional potency and masterful artistry. Suddenly we become helpless and merge into visuals of painful melancholy. We become helpless as the characters of his movie. In fact, we are all same as human beings, since the beginning of human race. Our inner emotions are same. Our instincts are same. But there is awaking in some souls. They struggle for truth. They need to fight with brutality of customs, traditions and with ignorance of cultural madness. Characters of Takashi Miike's new movies are indeed spiritually awakened, and able to understand the true values of life. They fight with traditional madness in the name of respectability and the honour. Ignorance is darker than darkness. It is the cause of all the misery of mankind. His characters have wisdom of life. They fight with ignorance.

Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai(2011) is more matured than his magnum opus 13 Assassins(2010). Those who liked 13 Assassins(2010) for solely action sequences may not like Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai(2011), but who liked visual artistry of 13 Assassins(2010) should not miss this movie. Final action sequence is unique and unforgettable. People who like gore may disappoint to watch it. But indeed it is a classic samurai sword fight we can't imagine to see on a screen since the birth of cinema, for its classic nature and action choreography. I am sure no one ever composed such a sword fight in the history of cinema. One must prepare to see an epic about poverty and ignorance, rather than to watch merely an action movie. It is very sensitive movie. Legendary music composer ryuichi sakamoto's mystical music made this move as sensitive as true to life, like pure poetry, to create a transcendental experience. Takashi Miike is not only master of swords, indeed he is¬ master in human expression. We can't see him in the shade of his past movies. Right now he is a master. No one can deny it.

Very good. Very poignant.

[athena24 · 7/10 · 19 May 2015]

After reading the reviews of others I got an impression that people didn't understand the message the movie or the main hero tried to convey (or they just expected something totally different, by comparing it to director's other work). Yes, the catharsis here is not as strong as in the original, and generally it's not as complete. Nonetheless, the story is masterfully told both visually and emotionally and the actors perfectly fit their roles, so for me it was a very moving, very strong experience.

There is one detail in the third act that makes a difference between the two movies (in favor of the original). There is also a slight, but subtle, difference in the messages of the movies. The message of the original is that honor and principles are empty words, without much substance behind them. People living by them are hypocrites. The message of this one is that the intrinsic value of life is (or should be) higher than any honor bound principles. And this is a much personal message not tying itself to times, places or nations.

Not as good as Kobayashi's, but equally powerful

[dussaultjulien · 10/10 · 20 April 2019]

Yes it is not like kobayashi's original 62 version, but in a way it is a little more interesting when it comes to the ending. In the original 62 version we see a extremely bloody, yet extremely satisfying, ending to this film. Takashi Miike does something a little cooler and gives you an ending you wouldn't expect, yet an ending that is just as powerful as the original. To have the gall to face as many men as the main character did, who are armed to the teeth with actual katanas and spears, with a bamboo sword and defeat them, not by shedding blood, but by destroying honor. The main character kept his honor, as he did in the original, and died a death befitting a warrior of great standing. To face death, shame, and unimaginable grief with more honor and grace than the original, Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai is exactly that. The death of a true Bushido who believed in peace, of mind and of sword, to The Bitter End, and taught every single man who claimed to be samurai in that building what a true warrior looks like, and what it means to be one. Crap on this movie all you'd like it's still worth the watch, and always interesting to come back to.

Excruciating samurai drama with seppuku as its narrative vehicle.

[Akira-36 · 7/10 · 2 January 2014]

I have to say that Miike's jidaigeki or chanbara movies tend to be more consistently mature, well produced and of high quality narration. There are instances of the auteur director's trademark brutality or fetish popping up in one or two scenes in 13 Assassins as well as in Hara-Kiri.

But in the latter's case, it's almost entirely appropriate as the camera lingers on the excruciating pain suffered by samurais committing seppuku, the suicide ritual of regaining one's honour.

I watched 13 Assassins first, and had an uncomfortable premonition that Miike would shoot a movie with harakiri with its central theme, as 13 Assassins was opened with a painful harakiri scene. I felt that Miike hasn't completely purged his inner demons yet with that short but deeply affecting scene.

So now we have a well-made remake, with harakiri or seppuku as the movie's central narrative vehicle. I haven't actually watched the 1962 original, but feels that Miike's version has little pay offs by the end of the story.

Don't get me wrong, it is a well told, well acted piece of samurai drama with a strong message at the end of the movie - that by the time of the Edo period, honour in the samurai caste is but a farce or of superficial value. Reading Japanese feudal history, one would even assume that there was little honour to begin with when it came to the samurai caste of the past.

I find that the situation that the poor samurai families had to go through during that time was presented with panache, but I can't shake the feeling of fatality and hopelessness in Harakiri. I guess such feelings is to be expected of Miike's movies. His movies are rarely uplifting, although I have to say that I was totally satisfied, elevated even, with the ending of 13 Assassins.

Harakiri is bitter all the way through, with very little sweetness. It reminds me of classical novels where all the main protagonists suffer through the story and all end up dying in horrible manners.

I'm going to have to watch Samurai Fiction a couple of times to wash away the sadness that still lingers after watching Harakiri.

It does stand up to the original

[ashtonlee-writer · 10/10 · 14 June 2017]

The Kobayashi version is one of my favourite movies, so I came in expecting a decent but ultimately not-as-great remake. I was blown away. I cried at several points. It focuses even more on the raw human drama and overall the story is more detailed. The actors are excellent and the cinematography is beautiful.

The build is slow but keeps up tension, and the three duels are condensed (compared to the old movie), but the final battle more than makes up for that.

I'd say both versions are masterpieces, and watching them back-to-back would be worth it.

great movie, but translation seemed off

[vajeanv · 7/10 · 12 February 2014]

The basic plot of the movie is amazing.very original, and like nothing I've seen. The way the director chose not to end the movie with a revenge killing was amazing and didn't leave me with wanting of the characters to die. It made me feel as if his message got through and that his death at the end was fitting due to his completion of what he set out to do. The knowledge of the clans wrong doing set him for revenge but more powerful than blood. It seemed as if he made all the right moves and kept his honor. Unlike the clan. It made me feel content and confused with what really happened during the time of the samurai. The ending made me feel as if the icon of the armor was almost a god figure. When he tried to take it it said to me that the main character was saying to the clan " you aren't good enough to have it". And the throwing away of the hair knots made me think of how low the country of Japan got with the lowest point for me being world war 2. It was a very strong movie with lots of satisfying shots. But the only thing I didn't like was the subtitles. Sometimes they went to fast to read and left me wondering what someone said. Or the translation would be off for me.

Do yourself a favour, watch the Original Hara Kiri instead

[borismk-38942 · 3/10 · 10 July 2021]

On it's own this film could maybe be a passable (perhaps 5/6 stars), but it commits the horrific crime of undoing the infinitely better work of the original movie.

The pacing in this film needs serious work. The movie spends a long time in a mostly needless flashback sequence that slows the movie to a crawl. What took ten minutes in the original takes forty minutes here. A lot of this film just feels like padded runtime.

The intricacy of the original also involves a a slowly unfolding series of twists which, ironically considering my last point, is harshly rushed in the remake. The late scene revelations of the original get hurried out here.

The camera work has suffered greatly between the two films, as has the acting. Somehow despite having a high budget and modern tech the new film fails to capture the exceptional camera angles and spot on facial expressions of the original cast.

All in all, it was a remake that wasn't asked for, I'd much rather have seen a digital remastering of the first film.