Ghost in the Shell

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. (04/04/2017)

I assume that hardcore fans of the original will be grumbling, and sci-fi enthusiasts won't be completely thrilled either, but I can’t say that Ghost in the Shell is a dud. Though I wouldn't consider it a good film even by mistake, either. It looks great, the passages through the city full of giant holograms are beautiful, the makeup artists and the overall production designers did a great job, and that's probably the main reason to go to the cinema. Unfortunately, the rest is weaker. Scarlett Johansson stares weirdly and looks terribly serious most of the time, without any sex appeal or charm. The action is more average than interesting, and although it doesn't offend, I can't remember a single scene that I would want to see again a few hours after the screening. The main problem, however, lies in the woefully transparent and uninteresting plot, which is B-movie level and embarrassingly predictable. Overall, we have a visually attractive world, but with fairly boring characters doing not very entertaining things, and you'll always know what will happen fifteen minutes in advance. I didn't get bored, but I wouldn't go again even by mistake. (16/05/2017)

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. (31/03/2017)

I was intrigued by the cast, which made me excited to see the film, but I was actually disappointed. There were a few interesting moments now and then, which is not enough for 107 minutes, so it ended up being average to below average. I liked Takeshi Kitano, who kept reminding me of a koala bear. But the special effects gave the whole film a cheap plastic feel to it, like a kind of action PVC theater. It's a shame because the theme had decent potential. 3*- (27/08/2017)

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! (02/04/2017)