Innocence

This sequel doesn't come anywhere near the original in either story, atmosphere, artwork, or provocativeness. From the onset, the viewer is slammed with a philosophical quandary, this is given by the cyber- coroner and feels so out of context that it appears forced. Whereas, in the original, it was subtly woven throughout the film and its context. You just don't get that here.

I don't know if this is Disney's influence at work... The first film was a little convoluted, though, with a little brain power you could figure it out. For "Innocence" they give it to the audience in black and white.

Then you have the appearance of digital artwork, fused and mixed with the more original. For most of the time, this works, though it does have less effect on building atmosphere, as does the setting and direction of the scene. The worst scenes containing digital art are the cars driving down the street. The street backgrounds are dark with a mat lustre, howbeit, the cars are ultra shiny bright metallic. The reflections flowing over the surface of the car doesn't tally with their surroundings. This draws the viewer out of the story to register the imperfection of the scene, this hurts the movie as you want your viewer to feel as though they are apart of the story and not a third party just watching.

The story was a nice follow-up, even though I don't think is was told all that well. Something is happening to the sex-bots! For some reason, they are malfunctioning and killing their owners and whoever's in the vicinity before committing suicide. Section Nine is called in as this could be an act of terrorism since robots cannot kill humans or themselves.

Under better hands, this could have been as great as the original film had they decided to entwine the philosophy, the mystery and thriller elements, and mood and ambiance into the story and artwork instead of segregating them and lessening the power of the piece.

Worth watching if you've seen the original but be warned it's not as good.

I agree with an earlier reviewer that both hardcore Oshii fans and narrow-minded American viewers are missing the point by not viewing this movie on its own terms. In many ways, it's more thoroughly conceived, and less action-justified (more thoughtful) than Ghost in the Shell. For me, it progressed naturally from its predecessor: Where Ghost in the Shell asks questions about the nature of human individuality, Innocence asks the next set of questions, about human existence. And it asks them in ways so much more directly pertinent to our own lives than utterly fantastic treatments like the Matrix films and silly diversions like The Butterfly Effect.

The ideas of the story are genuinely original, and thoroughly conceived. I don't think I've ever seen a science fiction film that was as true to the real spirit of the genre as this pair; Japan in general seems to take science fiction much more seriously than any western film-culture, and so out of Japan we get real, serious attempts to tell science-fictional stories, filled with real ideas and real characters, instead of the Bat-Durstonized monstrosities we get in the west.

For me, the integration of 2D and 3D elements was jarring; but the story stands on its ideas and the strength of its plot.

On the surface this is the story of an investigation of sex bots that kill, in reality this is an examination of what it means to be alive and to experience the world. Its a head trip.

I'm finding it hard to express what I feel about this film. Visually this film pushes animation and visual story telling to new places. I know that some of the look of this film can be found in video games but never has the current state of art on many levels been brought together to rattle, nay destroy, the cage of the status quo. Much of this film had my jaw hanging open, often with tears welling up at the beauty of the imagery. This film rocks and then some. The computer generated worlds of Immortel and Sky Captain are blown away by the magic worked here.

The plot is too murky. Frankly, I was lost half way into the movie as to what the plot was, however I was seriously getting off on the visuals and most of all the ideas that were being batted about. How do we know whats real and what isn't? This film makes it very clear that we can never know, nor can we know what it is to be alive. Certainly not all of it works but enough does, and all I can say is wow.

I have no idea how to adequately rate this film. I'm sure some people will find it form over substance and others will think little of the visuals. Me they rocked my world and I gave it a 9 out of 10, but I'll add that your mileage may vary.

The first thing that must be said about this film, is that the visuals and imagery are breathtaking. Yet it does not rely solely on our awe. The plot, although very complicated and often convoluted, is rich and laden with allegories, philosophy, analysis and even theology. At first glance, the characters appear to be static and somewhat stoic, but when one thinks about it, the characters are that way to represent the similarities we share with "dolls." Does an effigy infused with meaning and symbol constitute as a being on it's own accord? Or are we simply defined by the mere fact that we are alive? The film is laden with imagery suggesting the war/hybridization of: nature vs. machines/synthetic life, how machines mimic nature, how tradition becomes assimilated by it, and how reality may or may not be a virtual construct based on our own perspective. This is an intellectual, symbolic film that not only gives eye-candy galore, but also delivers more cerebral fare than most films. Although the characters are ultimately forgettable (save the expressive dog owned by Bateau,) one can perceive that too as being a tool to suggest that ultimately, we are all drones living our predictable lives...perhaps unaware of more intricate powers and forces surrounding us. Whether you watch this film for the state-of-the-art visuals or the perceivably potent content, I recommend this film enthusiastically for anyone who would like to think...or just say "ah" at the incredible scenery.

Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence. I went to this movie worried that it would end up like just about every Peter Framptom Album after Frampton Comes Alive; they were all pitiful albums only because Frampton comes alive did not leave much room for improvement. The original Ghost in The Shell is a classic. It was a good action film that had some deep undertones. Well made to say the least, full of memorable characters.

Ghost in the Shell 2 was so different that there could be no comparison. As opposed to an Action film with deep undercurrents, this is a philosophical film that occasionally had some action sequences. The basic plot is very simple: Android created for pleasure killing their owners. Cyborg cops trying to get to the bottom of these strange crimes. The cops, section nine operatives Batou and Togusa spend more time quoting everything from Bazooka Joe to Milton as long as it serves a purpose. This is not Ghost in the Shell. This is a Mamorou Oshii original, with his own ideas and philosophies not being bound by the original manga.

I venture to say that I actually prefer Innocence to the first one, because it struck chords in me the first one did not. Somebody who has a different outlook on everything, however, would disagree. If you have seen the first one, remember how there is more or less a quest for humanity? THis one takes an opposite spin on things. As well as takes a look at how humans feel this need to immortalize their own image.

The animation was enough to prove that traditional and computer animation could work together and create a beautiful picture. However, the underwater and in air scenes seemed to rely too heavily on the computers, which then completely made up the world. The world itself was not the world I remember from Ghost in the Shell. THis was a whole new futuristic world as opposed to a slightly more advanced modern setting. This film also focused a lot on the relationship between Batou and the now 'missing' Kusanagi.

This film seemed to be lost on many. There are many scenes of complete silence, which are intended as 'breathing time' and and other points really to build tension. The film also slows down at a few points so that the audience can absorb the scenery, and gives extra time for the audience to catch the symbolism. The film ended with so many angry groans. It would seen that the film was lost upon those who wanted to see a sequel to Ghost in the Shell with the same themes and ideas. The only similarity to the first film would be that most of the story is superficial, and what the film is really about is the deeper meanings.

This was an excellent film, and though it can be seen as superior, it will never be as well known and recognized as the first film. Though this is not just a sequel: This is a whole new Ghost in the Shell altogether.

**** out of ****