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.
Nice try but no cupcake. The film feels thematically confused and artistically compromised due to studio constraints. It is very beautiful looking, I must say. Also, isn't it weird how it's essentially about the cultural appropriation of itself? I don't it works in the way it thinks it does.
I tried to be objective and see this with fresh eyes, but it's the most lifeless, sterile adaptation I could've possibly imagined. I think some things just aren't meant to be given the live-action, western white-wash treatment. I will try my best to forget this as quickly as possible.