Charles Herold (cherold) I enjoyed the first movie in the famous Samurai trilogy, but I was considerably less impressed with this middle film. The disjointedness of the first movie is even more noticeable here. There are a lot of characters and subplots and characters that don't really go anywhere. Much of the movie is laughably absurd, such as the way women fall at their feet over the rather bland protagonist (Mifune isn't nearly as memorable in these films as in his Kurosawa movies), and the determination of the students of a fighting school have in protecting their master at the expense of his reputation makes little sense, especially as Musashi keeps mowing them down.The whole looking-for-people-to-kill premise seems a bit weird as well; in American westerns it's usually the bad guys who keep picking fights. And the rather standard "there's more to being a Samurai than killing" message seems murky; it's no wonder Musashi takes so long to get it.Some of this may just be cultural, with tropes that make sense to the Japanese. But I can't see any way to excuse the use of master swordsman Sasaki. He's a really interesting character, well acted by Koji Tsuruta, but the whole movie is his just happening to be in the right place at the right time, and it's an incredibly lazy screen writing crutch.As in the previous movie, the sympathetic Otsu and women in general are treated by dirt even by those who care about them. That may be accurate, but it's also depressing.Visually the film is striking, and the combat scenes are well done and pretty entertaining, but overall this movie is poorly structured and generally absurd.

Cosmoeticadotcom Hiroshi Inagaki's 1954-1956 three part color film, The Samurai Trilogy, is unlike many filmic trilogies for the very fact that it is, indeed, one exactly five hour long film, and not three separate linked films, for the first two films have no real endings. In this way it has much in common with The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. However, whereas those three are separate films, more or less, their source work is not. Yes, J.R.R. Tolkien's book is often printed in three separate volumes, but it is one work. This three part film is also derived from one singular literary work, from Eiji Yoshikawa's 1935 novel Musashi, loosely based upon the real life 17th Century Japanese folk hero, the samurai Musashi Miyamoto, who penned a classic book called The Book Of Five Rings. That all stated, the landscapes of Japan and sheer numbers of extras in this film are far more impressive, visually, than the CG crap that the Lord Of The Rings films spewed. Overall, The Samurai Trilogy is a good film, but while the narrative story gets better and tighter with each succeeding film, the visual quality of each succeeding film worsens on The Criterion Collection's three disks, both in the original film stock and the poor transfers.If nothing else, this film, The Samurai Trilogy, can be seen as a sort of training ground for the great Toshiro Mifune to try out and perfect a wide range of acting styles and characters within character that he would unleash on the film lovers of the world throughout the rest of his career, be it in his films with Kurosawa, or long after. And, if a film can be said to have allowed something like that to happen, then its merits are certainly more than its flaws, melodramatic or not. But, even on top of that, a film like this acts as a sort of entrée into the greater and deeper art put out by the aforementioned masters, and allows those great works of art to be more greatly appreciated, for contrast can clarify what the mists of the ineffable do not. In such a spirit, thank you sensei Inagaki.

frojavigdis I've watched the entire trilogy of the Musashi Miyamoto films, of which this film is the second part. The first film, titled simply "Musashi Miyamoto," introduces us to the characters of this and the third film. Without having seen the first film and developing some interest in the welfare of the characters, I certainly wouldn't have sat through the second and third films."Duel at Ichijoji Temple," this film, deals with Musashi's exploits as a sort of samurai knight-errant, seeking glory in a very ambiguous and roundabout way. Two women are trailing after him, as Kurosawa films would say, "like goldfish dung." Musashi himself is a flat character on whom Toshiro Mifune's acting skills are wasted. He displays very little emotion or intellect, despite his supposed interest in one of the women and enlightening education by his monk teacher (as we saw in the first film). If Musashi is flat, the female characters are steamrolled. Their hand wringing, collapsing, and sobbing is typical of American movies of this time period and grows tedious in a samurai film. Having seen other films from this time period set in the days of samurai, I've seen that much more can be done with female characters. The plot was likewise predictable and slow-moving.If you don't care about characters or plot, the high points of the movie may compensate: beautiful color landscapes and Toshiro Mifune's thrilling fight scenes. Otherwise, I recommend films by Kurosawa or Mizoguchi ("Sanjuro," the mysterious "Ugetsu") over this trilogy. 5/10

OttoVonB The tale of Myamoto Musashi - thief, lover, rogue, then warrior, hero and master - is enshrined in Japanese culture, perfect showcase material as it were. It has been adapted more than once to the screen, and Inagaki's classy, colorful version is perhaps the best known. It is everything you'd expect from a period samurai film if you've never seen one and harbor no negative preconceptions.After a playful first part that has a classic hero's journey structure, part II takes things to the next level without having to rush to the finish, and is the more interesting film. It allows the hero to wield his newfound power without the restraint and inner peace he will later find. It allows him the get mad, and nobody does unleashed fury like Toshiro Mifune, not when you throw 80+ armed fools in this way.I chose to review this one because it is a good sample of the very best this trilogy accomplishes: compelling archetypical characters, lush cinematography and that "oriental" elegance that always seduces non-Japanese audiences, drawn in as they are by the very universal plot and character dynamics.I cannot put it in the same leagues as the masterpieces of Kurosawa, Ozu and Kobayashi, but if it is to be a gateway film experience, then it is a bloody good one, and laudable for what it accomplishes.You might really enjoy this, and if you do, it's just the beginning!