I told myself I'd hate this, but holy shit that was exquisitely shot and is a landmark film of the genre for its visuals alone (the deep dive scene being a revolutionary approach to hacking imo). Like, it gives me faith that there could be a Neuromancer film done well (whose plot is much more suited to live-action). That being said, **terribly** written and my eyes didn't stop rolling despite decent plot additions.
Good casting idea : since "Her" and "Under the Skin", we kind of accepted that Scarlett Johansson is basically a robot without body. I usually don't like big blockbusters played in front of a green screen but it's here partially justified by the script and the visual result is stunning. So we got an entertaining first hour before Hollywood's dark side takes over. The last bit is a mess. Still a pleasant surprise.
La transposition assez fidèle du manga en film semble avoir oublié qu'un manga n'est pas un film. Sanders édulcore l'important et augmente l'inutile. Le côté sombre devient pop. Le découpage des planches devient des ralentis. Dramatiquement, il ne reste qu'un enchaînement de scènes de fusillades sans intérêt. Sous l'esbroufe des effets spéciaux, on s'emmerde.
This Hollywood version of GHOST IN THE SHELL is not bad as some people said. I know this movie kinda messed up the original source. Maybe this decision would make some fans of the anime mad. Well, I still get entertained with this movie. GHOST IN THE SHELL is thrilling and entertaining. It's less philosophical than the anime. But GHOST IN THE SHELL still a pretty good sci-fi movie. Overall, it's still worth to watch.
Film intéressant. Les images sont magnifiques et fidèles au dessin animé. On comprend mieux l'univers, en particulier les relations entre les personnes, si on a vu l'animé ; par contre, on peut facilement être déçu par le film si on l'a vu! Le film de 1995 est plus profond, alors que celui de 2017 est plus simple, s'adressant à un public plus large. Je le recommande. Isolément, c'est un très bon film de SF.
Secondo me non è malaccio, è vero che resta in superficie di tante questioni e che è super derivativo (ma non poteva essere altrimenti), però si segue senza particolari strappi, il design dei nemici è fantastico e Scarlett mi è sembrata in parte. Il problema grande è che le scene d'azione sono piattissime, che in un film di questo tipo è una rogna mica da poco.
2.5 Stars. Gorgeous but boring. The original's story was sorta present but was severely gimped by Americanization ("Hey let's explain every little subtle nuance") and PG13inization ("Hey, let's make this as mass marketable as possible"). It was entertaining enough as mindless action schlock but that's going against everything that the original was.
Pretty much just a 90s Sy-Fy original but with a ridiculous budget. Michael Pitt, strangely, follows the exact same character arc as Anakin in Episode 3, including limb loss and hood. It might've been okay were the dialogue not the worst dialogue in a film this century. Music, visuals and pacing were pretty solid. Also, record for the most references to a film's own title? It even comes up twice at the start...
Can i be honest here? Scarlett looked damn hot. Huge futuristic mess. Is that much more to say about this adaptation? Maybe that it is visually so intricate and beautiful: kudos to the art director, and the camera guy... My overly nice rating only goes to the scenery and lighting. For me it isn't worth seeing. Unless you want to be turned on or find yourself feeling fat and ugly in comparison to the miss Johansson.
I appreciate how visually striking this is. Rupert Sanders's vision doesn't seem to want to stray far from the 1995 masterpiece that Mamoru Oshii gave us (in a good way); however, you can tell that this vision wasn't fully realized in the final cut. With flat action editing and a dumbed-down story, this live action remake showcases as many faults as it does successes.