Ghost in the Shell

The shell is there, but where is the ghost? Ghost in the Shell is a narrative action-packed summer blockbuster intended for an audience with the mentality of a 14-year-old boy raised on video games. However, its cyberpunk appearance does not hide the cyberpunk philosophy. The title invokes the idea of a great conspiracy, a mystery that will be surprisingly revealed in the end. But the plot is trivial and predictable. Furthermore - and I really don't like this - the creators try to evoke the feeling of something smarter, with a philosophical overlay. Fortunately for Sanders' film, both Matrix sequels, which are probably the most glaring example of this flaw, were two levels stupider than Ghost in the Shell. Even the visuals didn't impress me as much as the creative team intended. It is overdone and not darkly depressing enough, as befits cyberpunk. The action is too frenzied, simply tailored to the generation of computer kids. It will receive two stars from me only just barely, and they are mostly for Scarlett. Overall impression: 35%. (04/22/2018)

I haven’t seen/read the original, so… Visually impressive. An interesting story, but doesn’t go into as much depth as it could do. I presume that the comic book does. Philosophical themes are only lightly hinted at, while action plays the leading role and it’s really good to watch. Scarlett Johansson is really robotic (probably intentionally), while Michael Pitt is excellent. I didn’t see many parallels with The Matrix, so I have no idea why it’s compared to it. Sanders has nothing to be ashamed of in terms of direction. (03/30/2017)

First cinema disappointment this year. I only know Ghost in the Shell as a game, I haven't come into contact with the anime and I have no idea what the film benefits from more, anyway it's rather bland. This is hardcore sci-fi with a cyberpunk twist that won't be very appealing to many viewers, I think the film is aimed at a very narrow audience, i.e. to the average viewer who is unfamiliar with both the game and the anime, it doesn't have much to say. Scarlett Johansson was surprisingly good here, visually the fictional world has something to it, the action scenes are rather average except for the opening one (which was flawless) and the finale is unfortunately the weakest part of the film. In some places I was a bit bored, so there is no question of great fun. It was watchable, but I would skip the cinema. 60% (03/31/2017)

A bit of a weaker combination of Robocop and Blade Runner... Especially when I think of the latter film, I'm struck by how dated and unsurprising Ghost in the Shell feels, while Blade Runner is still a great philosophical spectacle to ponder and still has something to say about people, humanity and other values. I quite liked the special effects, Scarlett Johansson had one and a half expressions from start to finish, but the role didn't give her more options, so okay. The action scenes weren't completely bad (maybe only the one against the walking tank or whatever it was, was terribly boring) and the music sounded interestingly atmospheric (it also wanted to remind me of Vangelis' Blade Runner), but I didn't take away any great experience from the movie theatre this time. In addition, it seemed to me that the film lasted about two and a half hours. (04/03/2017)

Who the fuck is Rupert Sanders and why does such an artless routine artist get 150 million, solid actors and a good composer to make a boring, hopelessly unimaginative, sterile shithole full of darkened shots, uninteresting plot and logical lapses? You could do such wonders with all the glitter and jingle of those fluffy big city visuals! The inspiration from Cloud Atlas and Blade Runner is quite obvious, but completely wasted. After this disappointment, at least we know for sure that we don't want this contrived void as a sequel to Blade Runner! (04/01/2017)