On TORC, when I first saw it, I wrote:
It actually rose in my estimation on second viewing. I began to see the purpose of every scene, and was able to appreciate even more the way that Kurosawa’s commitment to realism really draws you into the film. Above all, I really appreciate both how he doesn’t try to modernise his characters, and how he builds real suspense in his battle scenes through his incredibly realistic yet still precise and fairly easy to follow action choreography. I was also able to better keep track of the individual characters on the second viewing, and was more able to appreciate the particular strengths that each individual samurai bought to the group. It’s archetypal, but still extremely satisfying, and in my view an excellent example of how to make a good movie.Overall, I found it a good film that was very skillfully done, although I wouldn�t call it brilliant. Chiefly, I thought it advanced a bit slowly; there was a little too much repetition and it didn’t really need all of its three and a half hours IMHO.
However, there is a lot to praise here.
Firstly, it has some of the best executed action scenes I have ever seen. I am one to complain constantly about lack of realism and sillyness in fights, but here it was well done, and those action scenes are just so much better for it IMHO. Kyuzo’s skill with a sword is evident not because he gets into huge flashy fights but because of the way he cuts down enemies smoothly and with economy of motion. In reality, a swordsman would avoid trying to slice and dice his enemies, especially one using a katana. A wound a few centimeters deep on one’s neck is enough to kill, and it only needs to be a little deeper in the chest. Likewise, even non-fatal wounds often take people down because of pain and blood loss. Also, there was a notable absence of overblown sword-on-sword action, which I found refreshing; in my experience, blows that fail to hit simply miss more often than they are blocked. Hence, I found the swordsmanship of the Samurai very interesting to watch.
Also, and much to Kurosawa’s credit, there was no stormtrooper syndrome. Absolutely none at all. The bandits fight well, and are not easy to take down, and they cleverly use their guns against the samurai. Likewise, the samurai themselves are not immune to bullet wounds. This realism created a real sense of tension in the battle scenes for me. Also, I find it interesting that all the samurai who perish end up falling to guns.
I generally liked how the Samurai were acted, but I thought the farmers were a little overacted at times. Still, I have never seen how ordinary people react to situations like that, so Kurosawa could be spot on.
The quality of the film was a bit of an issue, but my chief complaint was simply the slowness of the plot development; there could have been less Samurai-hunting scenes and less attacks on the village IMHO, likewise, some shots could have been held for a little less. Still, a great achievement as a film.
The 'realism' of the fighting samurai is completely gone - they are Jedi and their swords are basically lightsabers. Which is fun, too, I suppose. On, and since the bandits are giant transformer-like robots, I guess it was necessary. Kyuzo is still very much a strong, silent loner, and he has precision and economy of movement....but....not realistic fighting. They also do preserve the distinction between fighting with guns and swords, though the samurai manage to block bullets a lot..... 
vs 
