Ghost in the Shell 2 - L'attacco dei cyborg

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.

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.

As the saying goes, "you don't have to have a degree in philosophy to enjoy Ghost In The Shell, but it helps". Well, I'm sure it's a saying in some circles anyway :) Mamoru Oshii has always been a pretentious director, but also a very talented one. The original Ghost In The Shell and his live-action Avalon in particular can be viewed as much as philosophical essays as they can action-driven films. However, in those two he is content to use the philosophical ideas as a foundation to build the film's story and aesthetics on, as layers to ponder if you are familiar with the ideas and inclined to ponder. In INNOCENCE, perhaps he was afraid people wouldn't understand the philosophical references, so he makes them very explicit - characters respond to almost every event that happens with a quote from Descartes or Milton or some other respected source. In the end one is forced to conclude that this is less to help the viewer understand the philosophical ideas in the film as to make sure everybody knows how well read Oshii is (I don't think the quotes would help anybody understand the ideas that wasn't already familiar with them). In other words, he lays it on a bit too thick for his own good... yet from a first viewing at least the film seems to have less of real substance to say than part 1 or AVALON. Neither of those films presented any real answers or new theories, but they were very effective artistic framings of the questions they addressed at least. INNOCENCE perhaps seems like it's trying to offer answers and explanations for issues that do not really amean themselves to answering, but more to a thorough considering of the questions and an abandoning of pre-conceptions based on a very narrow perspective (that of human existence).

But, criticisms aside, Oshii also knows that the audience is not really there to hear a lecture on philosophy - they want to be dazzled with the highest possible production values and animation standards, and he does not disappoint. The work from Production IG exceeds even their own incredibly high quality standards, and the soundtrack from Kenji Kawai complements the visuals perfectly. If the scene where the film's title is accompanies a surreal parade through a desolate high-tech urban landscape doesn't send chills down your spine then... well, that's your business, but I am surprised. It has absolutely nothing to do with the plot or any particularly clear point regarding the philosophy, but it's an aesthetic thrill of the highest order. Oshii knows that the viewer is expecting some action with his philosophy too, and the film offers a few scenes of shockingly powerful violence (especially with a big screen and modern cinema sound system). They're inserted almost arbitrarily though (there is an attempt to make one of the middle scenes more meaningful, but the climactic scenes especially have little point except the celebration of destruction). The first film's action scenes were a huge influence on THE MATRIX, and through that film were highly influential on world cinema in general - Oshii probably wanted to make sure his newest and costliest film would not go unremarked on this front too.

Conclusion: the film must be admitted as flawed, but what Oshii work isn't?

The first GITS was the closest to flawless he has come, and part 2 definitely doesn't put him any closer. It does raise the bar aesthetically though, and is the new benchmark for animators to beat.