There are two things about this movie that make it more than a little absurd. Of course US movies tell the US perspective, and Japanese movies will tend to tell theirs. But Japan does not even teach what happened in World War II, no one growing up after the war has ever been taught what they did to the subjects under their rule, or that they started hostilities. This is why China and Korea to this day maintain a cold peace with Japan. They have not forgotten.So this movie once again skips over anything -- Japanese perspective or not -- about the war, and focuses on the only thing Japan has ever focused on since -- their own suffering.The other thing is that the fight scenes make it look like they are at least making the US pay a heavy price. This is typical Japanese face- saving. If you are going to make a movie about these dead heroes to the state, you have to at least make it look like they died being somewhat competent. In fact, the count for the day was something like 10 US planes downed, and 14 pilots wounded. Considering that 4000 Japanese sailors died, this was an incredibly lopsided fight. So in other words, the battle must have looked very, very different than this movie.I understand that a Japanese director probably cannot make a movie in which Japanese sailors are dying by the thousands -- and ARE NOT EVEN ABLE to inflict much damage in return. But that isn't US propaganda -- that is what happened. Surely at this point, it's time for someone to tell the young people of Japan something closer to the truth? Yes, Japan paid for its mistake, but it was not an innocent victim.In 2001 I taught for six weeks in Japan, 2 weeks before, then later 4 weeks after 9/11. My students incredulously asked me in amazement "who would think of using an airplane as a suicide weapon and killing themselves and lots of other people?" They had not even HEARD of kamikazes! I did not have the heart to enlighten them, so I restrained my natural response "Your people invented this!"Modern pacifist Japan is rooted in ignorance, and this movie contributes nothing to understanding. This is the telling of a war that happened in another dimension, not here. This is a tale from a Japan that still cannot own up to its own history.

I live in Hiroshima and I have a colleague whose lost his father on the Yamato when he was 13 years old. My nephew is staying with me and today we visited Kure, where the Yamato was built, and the Yamato Museum. Actually, my colleague still cannot bring himself to visit the museum or even watch this movie, though it was made sixty years after the sinking.Actually, the movie opens in the same museum, where there is a 1/10 scale model of the battleship, and loads of information/memorabilia. There is very little English in the explanations and I suspect that foreigners are not really expected to visit the museum, given the contents.After returning home from visiting the museum we watched the movie. It was just as moving as it was when I first saw it. It has a local feel, which I can appreciate, since I have lived here for nearly 30 years. The Yamato was built in Kure and it would be interesting to see how many local actually people served on the battleship (I have no idea, but records probably exist).Of course, the clichés are all there, as is the unique way of Japanese acting. I used this movie in one of my classes and had students compare it with Pearl Harbor and Troy. Pearl Harbor did not receive much praise, but students were challenged to compare the human elements in Otokotachi no Yamato and Troy.

I am almost through a great book on the history of Japan in WWII. The naval battles are fascinating to read about, and so when I saw this movie in the local Asian mall I picked it up.Yamato (the old name for Japan) has good and bad points. Starting with the good - I find the story fascinating, how the remainder of the Second fleet made a run for Okinawa on a mission that everyone knew was suicide due to lack of air support (Japan's air force had been finally crushed at Saipan). Some of the acting was great; I thought Uchida really stood out. As far as I can tell the film was very historically accurate. Some of the insights into "bushido" were interesting, especially the admiral's explanation of bushido vs. English chivalry. And some of the effects were pretty good too.On the bad side... the film had kind of a made-for-TV movie feel. As I said, some of the effects were good, others were far from great. The director shied away from showing the large sections of the ship, or the whole ship, maybe because of lack of budget - but I found myself really wanting to see those shots of this 65,000 ton superbattleship. It was obvious the whole film was made in a studio. They really should have invested in substantial steel tubes for the anti-aircraft guns, the fact that they jittered around like toys bothered me. Also in the silent dialog scenes, there should have been an omnipresent rumble of the ship's engines to add to the illusion that we are on the largest battleship in the world.It wasn't great, but I enjoyed it anyway, and anyone else who is interested in Japanese naval history I think will also enjoy it despite its shortcomings.

Here we have the epic tale of the battleship Yamamoto. This ship was eventually destroyed by a U.S. air strike off the coast of Okinawa; well over 2,000 crewmen went down with the ship, and most where new conscripts who were merely teenagers. While adhering to most factual details, the movie embellishes with dramatic tales of family and friends, lovers and mothers, the effect of which is intended to heighten the sense of tragedy over the loss of youthful lives. The viewer also witnesses the brutal discipline of the Japanese military of that era, replete with punishment and beatings for those who fail to meet the exacting service standards demanded by superior officers.The young sailors are depicted as striving with gusto to serve in the capacity expected of them. The fact that all are deluded into thinking they are serving to protect Japan is left to modern historic sensibilities to recognize. No mention is made of the abhorrent brutality of the Japanese military in Asia. On the other hand, American airplanes attacking the ship are merely an impersonal airborne antagonist; the planes appear as nothing more than menacing vehicles streaming down from the sky in much the same manner as the Japanese aircraft in the American movie Pearl Harbor.While one might argue the exaggerated masculinity that the Japanese military exhorted its members to assimilate led to the ruin of the young men, and this may be a central tragedy the movie sought to explore, the relish which most sailors seem to take in the fight does little to promote sympathy from the viewer. In cinematic terms, one strong point of the film is the Yamamoto's final battle where a grim and bloody onslaught, reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan, depicts the Yamamoto's denouement. Another feature of the film: it is told in a limited "flash back" style. It begins with a young woman seeking to find the Yamamoto's grave on the anniversary of its sinking, (There is more than one debt the movie owes to Saving Private Ryan). The movie ends with the young woman and friends in a small boat saluting the dead at sea. While this scene, too, is calculated to yield a strong sentimental response from the audience, its most useful purpose is to show that the issues of World War II remain difficult for contemporary Japanese to accept and resolve. But surely the difficulty is much more than grappling with the results of a failed military adventure.One very weak point of the movie is the fact that most of it was shot in a studio, something easily discernible. There is no out-at-sea feeling to the movie; scenes are shot too tightly to give the impression of being out in the open on a large vessel. The CGI effects are very poor, with the Yamamoto looking like a battleship on a video game display.In spite of strong performances by a number of the actors here, the movie cannot escape its own limited scope--it will not attract viewers outside of Japan. It is a movie designed for Japanese, and one that asks a limited number of questions about that nation's tragic march to disaster.