Age of Samurai: Battle for Japan

Whenever a historian/s talks, in so much detail, i immediately begin to question the source. The whole series is incredibly detailed to even their emotions. It seems more speculative rather than fact.

All in all, its an entertaining series. I would say all the main points and timelins were accurate but everything else was questionable. (Anything for the gram?) Lol

I wish this series was done a bit more accurately but they did a good job. Good productio, good actors and great storytelling even if it was embellished.

A definite watch but take it as a grain of salt and possibly do your own research.

This is a proper doc, polished too the nines. The problem with its polish is it glamourizes and dramatized the period to a Hollywood standard. I am not sure how historically accurate the scenes are. Looks like Last Samurai. But it all sells the story and you def need to stay on top of it because the names will throw you. I would love to now go and read a book about the subject for further details. I am no expert so I have to take the information as factual and thank the producers for one polished historical production. Very similar to the one on Rome which was epic!

I don't know anything about this subject so I can't speak to the veracity of the information. However, it is overall quite engaging and the mix of dramatized scenes, information from their experts, and narration is good. However, I feel like there could have been better diversity in their "experts". I find it odd that they're essentially all British or American. I can't believe that they weren't able to find more Japanese subject-matter-experts to interview. That strikes me as a real issue with their production decisions.

So i went through the reviews and people are offended by the white historians and the dramatic acting/scenes in this series. (Lol)

None of it bothered me, but i know nothing of Japanese history and i enjoy content over presentation. I don't mind a bit of dramatic flair in a scene at all despite it being a historical inaccuracy, i think it broadens the audience to keep more people interested. Plus the series is not going in the details, it's just giving an overview of complex events and politics. At this point acting inaccuracy is not on my mind.

I loved the way this was edited and split into episodes, i watched the series in one sitting it kept me interested! I was delighted to learn more about Japan history, especially since i went to japan not too long ago.

I found it super informative although i couldn't say if it was accurate because i have no prior knowledge. I thought the historians presented it well and since im guessing this is made for a non-Japanese audience it doesn't bother me at all that the historians were Occidental. But to be fair, having more diversity would've been great! I would've loved a Korean or Chinese historian.

The acting was fine in my opinion and so were the sets considering this is made on a documentary budget. The blood added in post looks like they used the little budget they had left but so what, this isnt the point of this documentary.

Honestly watching this made me want to learn more about Japanese history and that's a win in my book!

All Japanese history is new to me so everything exposed sounds truthful, as a starting point it was an interesting show and a more dramatic approach, mainly focused on iconic people and their motivations. Context and culture are underdeveloped in my opinion and just linked to war and conquests. It doesn't go deep on samurais persona. It could be any other soldier executing the same wars and it would be irrelevant to the show. When they faced japanese an chinese armies it felt the same, they were just more experienced warriors.

Considering there are big differences in the strategic approach of some japanese clan leaders it also doesn't go deep on why they took their approaches. It is reduced to something like "there is an opportunity to take control, i want to take control to be the lord of Japan". I think one of the things that make the show feel flat is that, the motivation is kind of always the same, and even when there is a more stable approach, it doesn't explain how that specific warlord came up with his view and his strategies. There's a few times where education is mentioned but not a lot on what are their principles or logic. In the China's invation campaign, some other great warlords/emperors of other continents were mentioned, but not if the japanese warlords had some prior knowledge about their history or if they were some motivated by them. It was an open reference, and the only concrete one was that China was always a big goal. So i would say the show is a review of wars and control shifts monstly in the XVI century. The biggest principle to feel connected to the characters is the general sence of constant war, as a defensive nature, so they eat to not be eaten. It might be that way, so that is not something i consider so much to base this rewiew.

I enjoyed the show mostly (as a war documentary I think), however I didn't like how many times battles, decisions or anything important is stated as the "ultimate", "greatest", "biggest" and a lot of other flashy words. At some point we started joking about this with my wife because we actually got confused, to the point we couldn't compare turning points or battles. Is not a history class but as an informative piece it kind of takes away the importance of some historical moments trying to expose everything as epic.