Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence

The movie takes a little too long, this is because the plot of this film is overwhelming simple. It raises a lot of philosophical questions about human cyber enhancement, but the amount of fleshing out quote after quote got a bit tedious. The first film was unlike anything I've ever seen, a full 9 years before the release of this film and the animation and styling of the first was way better in my opinion.

Yes it has some amazing visuals, but the blend of digital on top just didn't work for me. Not a bad film and it does further the Major and section nine's story, but it just doesn't feel like it should be a sequel, instead, it stands alone as another story.

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.

A new Japanese cyberpunk masterpiece that makes the original GiTS look primitive by comparison. Mamoru Oshii and his crew did a masterful job creating a worthy successor to their 1995 adaptation of Masamune Shirow's original manga.

As in the original movie – as well as in that other quintessential proto-cyberpunk movie, Blade Runner – the movie explores human nature in a world that is becoming more technological all the time, to a point where people ARE technology, the boundaries are rapidly fading away. What does it mean to be human? If we join with technology, would we become something else? Should we welcome it, or fear it? Will humanity lose or gain from the changes?

After the events of the first movie, Major Motoko Kusanagi has seemingly disappeared; focus of the second movie has shifted to Bateau, who is still working for the secret government "Section 9". This is by no means a bad thing, since Bateau is at least as interesting a character as Kusanagi ever was. Going beyond your basic cyberpunk cyborg tough guy with attitude, he is very intelligent, and has some nice human touches (like the dog he loves taking care of). At various points he and other characters routinely indulge in philosophical debate, often quoting literature, from Milton to biblical psalm verses. Just to say this isn't your typical sci-fi action movie, although there is some action, and when it comes, it's fast, brutal & violent.

The actual plot involves an incident with a sophisticated robotic "pleasure model", if you will, gone berserk. The investigation leads us through the darker parts of near-future Japanese society, including yakuza, companies with questionable ethics, and mysterious hackers.

Visually, the movie is stunningly beautiful, using a combination of traditional cell animation and state of the art CGI. Many of the movie's backgrounds are gorgeous to just look at; even dark and dirty back alleys are shown so rich in color and detail, you could gaze at them all day. Like in the first movie, Oshii lets the movie halt at times, immersing the viewer in the richly detailed world he created. Many of the computer screen readouts resemble those seen in Oshii's "Avalon" a lot – which again is not a bad thing, as they look both high-tech and yet elegant & artistic.

Last but not least, the music by Kenji Kawai is hauntingly beautiful, adding more layers to the sophisticated richness of it all.

I cannot recommend this movie highly enough. Anyone who likes science fiction, anyone who was blown away by movies such as Blade Runner and of course the first "Ghost in the Shell" (which you should see before watching this one) will enjoy this.

On the same page, this movie is called both "Intellectually Weak," and "In love with its own intelligence" by different IMDb users. Clearly, that alone makes this film worth your time and worth forming your own opinion about.

The thing is, this is not a stupid film by any means. 'Visually stunning,' it is constantly called, but it's not just that: It's an assault on the senses (in a good way), both visually and aurally. The sound is incredible, the images stick with you. Even a simple, seemingly underthought image like the final two shots of the movie will stick with you long after the closing credits roll.

But how is the story? I haven't seen the original in years, but this one held my attention, and kept my brain engaged. I remember not liking the first one when I first saw it (too many scenes of nothing moving, while we listened to voice-over), but I give this one an enthusiastic thumbs up, plus a wink and a smile. It FEELS like the middle chapter in a story... there is too much left unresolved, and while seeing the first one isn't necessary to understanding this one, there ARE many references the original "Ghost in the Shell." It's not so much a continuation of the story, as it is a continuation of the characters. Which I think is the better call.

Constant quotes from literature is not a sign of intellectual weakness, I don't think. People accuse the movie of not having a brain of its own, but I think any movie that engages the brain of its audience needn't make apologies. This one remains interesting on all levels; I just hope it doesn't take them another nine years to produce part three.

10/10

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.