User Reviews

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.

Influential animation director Mamoru Oshii returns with a follow up to the impressive if disjointed Ghost In The Shell, which to be frank is even more impressive and possibly even more disjointed than its predecessor. Ghost In The Shell 2: Innocence is a creation of great beauty, intelligent thought that throws up some very interesting, sensible and above all engaging points on which to debate the nature of humanity, what constitutes being human? When are we deemed as being alive? However, for all the reasoned debate Ghost In The Shell 2 unfortunately follows and falls into the trap so many Eastern stories ( in particular many mangas and anime) do, which is an incoherent storyline, which proves the ultimate irony seeing as how this a film which engages your mind, you're forced to switch it off in places and just 'go with the flow'.

Innocence is an extremely visual film, and you will be awed into watching from a seamless combination of 2D and 3D animation techniques which to be frank makes Sky Blue look like the work of a preschooler. It is simply ravishing and you find yourself hooked intently and intensely to what is simply a blisteringly well constructed piece of animation, and is worth a viewing by all fans of the genre on this basis alone. But is that enough?

Well, to be honest, no it is not. As with Sky Blue the animation was painstakingly created over a long period of time, and as with Sky Blue the plot suffered slightly for it. Yes the philosophy is interesting, poignant and it does make you think, this I am not denying, but it's sometimes thrown around complete uncontextualised, just for philosophy's sake. I'm not arguing against the introduction of philosophy and metaphysics into the medium of films, I'm all for it, but when characters are throwing around Descartes name like he's going out of fashion instead of developing what little plot there is within the film, it does tend to lend itself to the criticism that this film is for pubescents coming of age who wish to "expand their minds". Mamoru Oshii is an influential director and his works have always included a degree of philosophy, mostly he tends to tackle the constructs of humanity and reality and the link between the two, can one define another? are the two linked at all? can one survive without the other? However, the original Ghost In The Shell was philosophy crammed, and yes again the story had an air of incoherency about it, but the philosophy was not driving the narrative, the narrative was driving the philosophy, and this is where the sequel fails in its intent.

Ghost In The Shell 2 is indeed impressive, but seeing as it was co-produced at the remarkable Studio Ghibli and was a "selection" for the Cannes film festival you can be forgiven for asking for something with a bit more bite to it. There are a great number of positives to take away from this experience, as the animation is impeccable, it is so sublime, it just makes it so fantastically easy to slip into the world and enjoy the feast, and yes a summary can't be made without a nod in the direction of the thought put into this film. However, If you'll forgive this rather audacious metaphor, think of this film as a sandwich, and all this wonderful philosophy provides the contents, the filler, the real taste to go inside this sandwich. Think of the most ridiculously packed sandwich you could possibly imagine, with everything on it, and then imagine no bread with which to hold it all together.

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.

Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence. I went to this movie worried that it would end up like just about every Peter Framptom Album after Frampton Comes Alive; they were all pitiful albums only because Frampton comes alive did not leave much room for improvement. The original Ghost in The Shell is a classic. It was a good action film that had some deep undertones. Well made to say the least, full of memorable characters.

Ghost in the Shell 2 was so different that there could be no comparison. As opposed to an Action film with deep undercurrents, this is a philosophical film that occasionally had some action sequences. The basic plot is very simple: Android created for pleasure killing their owners. Cyborg cops trying to get to the bottom of these strange crimes. The cops, section nine operatives Batou and Togusa spend more time quoting everything from Bazooka Joe to Milton as long as it serves a purpose. This is not Ghost in the Shell. This is a Mamorou Oshii original, with his own ideas and philosophies not being bound by the original manga.

I venture to say that I actually prefer Innocence to the first one, because it struck chords in me the first one did not. Somebody who has a different outlook on everything, however, would disagree. If you have seen the first one, remember how there is more or less a quest for humanity? THis one takes an opposite spin on things. As well as takes a look at how humans feel this need to immortalize their own image.

The animation was enough to prove that traditional and computer animation could work together and create a beautiful picture. However, the underwater and in air scenes seemed to rely too heavily on the computers, which then completely made up the world. The world itself was not the world I remember from Ghost in the Shell. THis was a whole new futuristic world as opposed to a slightly more advanced modern setting. This film also focused a lot on the relationship between Batou and the now 'missing' Kusanagi.

This film seemed to be lost on many. There are many scenes of complete silence, which are intended as 'breathing time' and and other points really to build tension. The film also slows down at a few points so that the audience can absorb the scenery, and gives extra time for the audience to catch the symbolism. The film ended with so many angry groans. It would seen that the film was lost upon those who wanted to see a sequel to Ghost in the Shell with the same themes and ideas. The only similarity to the first film would be that most of the story is superficial, and what the film is really about is the deeper meanings.

This was an excellent film, and though it can be seen as superior, it will never be as well known and recognized as the first film. Though this is not just a sequel: This is a whole new Ghost in the Shell altogether.

**** out of ****

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.

Brand names sure can sell a product quick. Just slap the "Ghost in the Shell" label on anything and it'll probably sell like hotcakes. GITS trading cards, GITS lunch boxes, GITS cologne.

And of course, any wise prophet of the industry would tell you that the "Ghost in the Shell" brand name would sell its own sequel instantly. I mean, how could anyone miss seeing the sequel to the critically acclaimed Ghost in the Shell?

Yup, I was sold instantly, and as I popped the DVD in, I took a deep breath and calmed myself down.

The opening of Innocence, Ghost in the Shell 2, features an enhanced CGI rendition of the girl android getting assembled underwater. It's just like the opening of part 1 and is backed by another haunting choir & Koto drum score. Those first five minutes seem to say, hey, you're in for one heck of a ride!

Make room for disappointment because the other 95 percent of the movie is pretty dull. Sure, Innocence has some spotty moments of well done animation, but the story isn't so good. A virus has infected a cartload of pleasure-droids making them homicidal. Special agent Batou, a tough as nails android, and his squeamish human partner investigate the situation and find that it leads from one bad guy to another. After overcoming some flimsy obstacles, Batou makes his way to the last stage and beats the boss, all the while listening to his partner groan about the burdens of human life. That's really all there is to the story.

The same kind of story and growing pains partner situation can be found in the Lethal Weapon series. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Lethal Weapon. That's because they flesh out the generic storyline with witty humor that's fun for the family. Innocence fleshes out its generic video game kill-the-boss story with long drawn out scenes where nothing really happens. The original GITS breathed with life because it introduced us to a world inhabited by trash men who didn't know they were robots and a villain who lived in the Internet. It asked the big cognitive science questions with style. By the time we get to Innocence, all the characters are moaning and groaning in the rain. Horray.

While "Ghost in the Shell" was appropriately named for the subject matter it dealt with, I'm still at a loss why the sequel was called Innocence. Was it because of the piles of dead Yakuza members? I would have called it "Cut out my good parts and compress me into 15 minutes."

JY

Jimboduck-dot-com

A new Japanese cyberpunk masterpiece that makes the original GiTS look primitive by comparison. Mamoru Oshii and his crew did a masterful job creating a worthy successor to their 1995 adaptation of Masamune Shirow's original manga.

As in the original movie – as well as in that other quintessential proto-cyberpunk movie, Blade Runner – the movie explores human nature in a world that is becoming more technological all the time, to a point where people ARE technology, the boundaries are rapidly fading away. What does it mean to be human? If we join with technology, would we become something else? Should we welcome it, or fear it? Will humanity lose or gain from the changes?

After the events of the first movie, Major Motoko Kusanagi has seemingly disappeared; focus of the second movie has shifted to Bateau, who is still working for the secret government "Section 9". This is by no means a bad thing, since Bateau is at least as interesting a character as Kusanagi ever was. Going beyond your basic cyberpunk cyborg tough guy with attitude, he is very intelligent, and has some nice human touches (like the dog he loves taking care of). At various points he and other characters routinely indulge in philosophical debate, often quoting literature, from Milton to biblical psalm verses. Just to say this isn't your typical sci-fi action movie, although there is some action, and when it comes, it's fast, brutal & violent.

The actual plot involves an incident with a sophisticated robotic "pleasure model", if you will, gone berserk. The investigation leads us through the darker parts of near-future Japanese society, including yakuza, companies with questionable ethics, and mysterious hackers.

Visually, the movie is stunningly beautiful, using a combination of traditional cell animation and state of the art CGI. Many of the movie's backgrounds are gorgeous to just look at; even dark and dirty back alleys are shown so rich in color and detail, you could gaze at them all day. Like in the first movie, Oshii lets the movie halt at times, immersing the viewer in the richly detailed world he created. Many of the computer screen readouts resemble those seen in Oshii's "Avalon" a lot – which again is not a bad thing, as they look both high-tech and yet elegant & artistic.

Last but not least, the music by Kenji Kawai is hauntingly beautiful, adding more layers to the sophisticated richness of it all.

I cannot recommend this movie highly enough. Anyone who likes science fiction, anyone who was blown away by movies such as Blade Runner and of course the first "Ghost in the Shell" (which you should see before watching this one) will enjoy this.

Mamoru Oshii moves away from the small screen in order to bombard you with a repetitive message and a rather redundant plot line (one familiar to anyone who has seen Stand Alone Complex). This movie is pitifully dull and filled with useless dialogue.

Watch the original then the stand alone complex then if you hunger for more watch it with remote in hand and thumb above the stop button. This will save you power if you fall asleep.

The graphics are staggering, and he definitely pushes non anime watchers towards the genre. One moment there is almost total photo realism, the next the classic Batou chinline gives us an alternative to realism. Using realism and anime in contrast Mamuru blurs the line and allows watchers to fall into the world of anime.

I just got through watching this film and it amazed me. I agree with the previous post that Innocence is full of philosophy, Descartes is even mentioned by name, and this is by no means a negative.

Constant rhetorical statements within the film make you think which is very refreshing.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the first film, which i am a fan of, but isn't improvement a good thing? Who wants to see a rewritten film anyway? Look elsewhere for films like that, I'm thinking Cruel intentions 1, 2 & 3 etc etc etc I might even like this more than 'Akira', but ill see if i manage to watch Innocence another 14 times and still love it...

I would highly recommend this film to anyone, not just Anime/Manga fans.

Do not dwell too long on my rating: its just that this is a work of art masquerading as a film. What we get here is not really a cogent motion picture, more a set of themed scenes and ideas presented as a story. This is the source material that other films will use to make the more familiar Hollywood entertainment. If you want to chew popcorn, go watch "I Robot". Stay here for sumptuous animation combined with philosophy.

Batou returns as the cyborg cop, continuing his job in Section 9 picking up the pieces of crimes committed in the corporate / political sphere that is just an extreme version of our own world. Eastwood like, he is seen as trouble by his new cop partner. But the old Major is never far away, accompanying him as a guardian angel.

Unlike other landmark efforts like "Spirited Away", there are a variety of styles used - sometimes heavily modelled, sometimes detailed animation. This is done with little concern for continuity - its much like walking through a gallery.

There are some issues with the English subtitles; the characters quote so often that its a moot point to use quotation marks. Its one of the few details that diminish the film as a work of art - and vice versa.

You have to own this, there is no point seeing it once. There are few context clues to what you are watching. A little more effort is used to explain "external memory", and what being hacked actually means. A character actually says, "is this reality now?" which is sufficient warning that you may need to examine the next picture to understand the last.

The first thing that must be said about this film, is that the visuals and imagery are breathtaking. Yet it does not rely solely on our awe. The plot, although very complicated and often convoluted, is rich and laden with allegories, philosophy, analysis and even theology. At first glance, the characters appear to be static and somewhat stoic, but when one thinks about it, the characters are that way to represent the similarities we share with "dolls." Does an effigy infused with meaning and symbol constitute as a being on it's own accord? Or are we simply defined by the mere fact that we are alive? The film is laden with imagery suggesting the war/hybridization of: nature vs. machines/synthetic life, how machines mimic nature, how tradition becomes assimilated by it, and how reality may or may not be a virtual construct based on our own perspective. This is an intellectual, symbolic film that not only gives eye-candy galore, but also delivers more cerebral fare than most films. Although the characters are ultimately forgettable (save the expressive dog owned by Bateau,) one can perceive that too as being a tool to suggest that ultimately, we are all drones living our predictable lives...perhaps unaware of more intricate powers and forces surrounding us. Whether you watch this film for the state-of-the-art visuals or the perceivably potent content, I recommend this film enthusiastically for anyone who would like to think...or just say "ah" at the incredible scenery.

Some science fiction movies get it right. They mix interesting and novel science with fantastical-but-semi-plausible plots, and then round out the edges with a little philosophizing on the nature of man and machine and whatnot. Some science fiction movies get it wrong, and end up with uninteresting science, ridiculous plots, and way too much philosophizing. The latter Matrices gave us case-in-point examples of science fiction gone wrong. Ghost in the Shell was a good movie that got the formula right, and had good animation to boot. Ghost in the Shell 2 gets the formula wrong, badly, and the animation, which very good, is awkward for its combination of CGI, live action and hand-drawn animation. Basically, it's really boring.

Consider the following: 1) While Ghost in the Shell had interesting riffs on cyberspace and cybernetics, Ghost in the Shell 2 has a lot of Star Trekkish jargon about networks that adds little to the basic framework. There is actually a sequence of scenes that apparently consisted of human-shaped machines, hooked into other machines, talking about what was going on in their networks. I'm not sure who thought that long periods of still shots of blooping machinery with voiceovers would be equivalent to climactic action, but they were wrong.

2) Anime movies often have plots that make no sense. Like in Jin-Roh: Wolf Brigade, where everyone at some point is like, Oh well, I don't think there is a plot at all, but those drawings sure are darn nice to look at. You can't do this in Ghost in the Shell 2 because a) the pictures aren't that nice to look at, and b) the movie is trying so hard to maintain a cohesive plot that you want to try along with it. There are long periods where the writer clearly wanted the audience to be confused, so you would naturally assume that it would be explained. So you listen to what the characters say afterwards, but become frustrated at how reasons are hedged with made-up technology and a lot of talk about dolls.

3) The success of the first Ghost seems to have convinced the writer that he is now free to expound upon his topics of interest at length and the viewer will remain entertained. While there are interesting topics touched on here, albeit somewhat clichéd and overused ones, actual reflection has been passed over in favor of an astounding number of random quotes, ranging from the Bible, to John Milton, to some that may have been overheard on the street. I may be a philistine, but it seemed as if there was no greater plan tying these quotes together than the simple goal of having a lot of quotes, and the result borders on the inane. Especially because almost every character in the film is a complete and utter nihilist, delivering their lines as if they had long ago resigned themselves to death, the dialogue becomes intensely uninteresting. And I wouldn't hold my breath for badass action scenes to pick it up, either—most of the time the only punctuation to these listless conversations is the whizzing of some random mechanical part.

This is all very sad because clearly there were high aspirations for this movie. The animation is very well intricate, and at times almost awe-inspiring. The movie keeps its own pace, and the characters stay true to form. It's possible that a lot of these complaints are the product of awful, awful subtitling, and it was pretty awful, since it was actually closed captioning, with lots of (noise) and (silence]). Still, I almost fell asleep.

I feel a little guilty talking about this movie right now. It's a little like going to class without having fully digested the previous night's reading assignment. Sure, you read it through fairly deeply. You take notes. Maybe you had a midnight BS session with your roommate or the kid down the hall.

Maybe you were a little drunk. For whatever reason, you think you might have missed something important. Image Hosted by ImageShack.us That's more or less Ghost in the Shell 2's 100 minute running time in a . . . ghostshell. It doesn't help that the dialogue is in subtitles (the way it should be) and the animation is some of the most beautiful I've seen since . . . ever. Your eyes pull double duty, straining to digest polysyllabic words stacked 10 deep while soaking up animation of unrivaled scope and grandeur. Beauty and the Beast has nothing on this.

It's a much more assured and revelatory work than it's 1995 predecessor.

Credit Mamoru Oshii with improving upon every facet of an already intelligent and fascinating premise. Yes. Everything is better.

Much of the first Ghost in the Shell felt like a fleshing out of the various philosophical topics woven into the game of Artificial Intelligence. It was about debunking the line of demarcation between man and machine. It was about finding something unique in humanity amidst the clamour of our technological near-future. Oshii was struggling with this right alongside his characters, and it showed in a somewhat lackluster visual presentation, a jumbled thesis, and a messy ending. The plot itself, a techno-noir murder mystery, felt tacked on. Still, the original Ghost in the Shell was something to behold.

In the 9 years that have passed though, Oshii definitely did his homework. In a time when everyone needs a kickass firewall for that lumpy grey mass between their ears, knowledge is immediately available to all, and the section nine detectives Batou and Matoko use all the net has to offer in contemplating their place in the vast, jacked-in world they inhabit.

They drop anecdotes about Descartes, quote Confuscious, the Old Testament, reference Rabbi Judah Low ben Bezalel and the Golem of Prague. They quote Milton. I studied English literature and I can't quote Milton.

But then, maybe it takes someone like Milton, someone with sympathy for the devil, to live as a human in a world where men are ever more becoming mechanized, and the machines they build take on the characteristics of their creators.

Maybe it took Oshii a few years slogging through the quagmire of western skepticism and self-doubt to realize that.

The plot this time--another nod to noir--is more focused and accessible, except for the beginning of the third act, when someone hacks Matou's brain. Things get a little fuzzy then, but they're supposed to.

I don't believe the philosophy involved can totally reveal itself in one sitting. Certainly, trying to flesh it out here would be pointless and boring. Suffice it to say that in Oshii's future, humanity has angst to spare and it looks like things are only getting worse.

Even the animation choices reflect a feeling of alienation, and shows such painstaking love on the part of Oshii. The movie is dominated by advanced computer graphics and lush matte paintings for its backgrounds and many of the dolls (see also: robots, see also: gynoids, see also: sexroids etc, etc). Cars, library Stacks, great post-apocalyptic landscapes are by turns vivid and dingy and exploding with detail. They burst off the screen. Batou and Matoko and the rest of the humans (as well as the gynoids who have been given ghosts [souls]), in contrast, are cell animated the old fashioned way. In this environment they seem helplessly two dimensional, out of place and almost inferior--which is just the way they actually feel. And when a gynoid, through pursed lips and with seductive langour, pleads "help me," the hackles on your neck are at full attention. Brilliant.

I took notes during this movie. I felt compelled to. I think I'm going to find some pop-culture doctoral program and write my thesis on it. The depth and breadth and sheer complexity of the imagery and symbolism in Ghost in the Shell 2 is crippling. It feels at times like Heart of Darkness, but is careful to remain far less turgid and depressing. It fully warrants a second or third viewing, to mine the depth of what Oshii is offering.

At a time when the vast majority of films--even art-house flicks--opt for allegorical poverty rather than alienate potential ticket sales, it's all the more refreshing to see a beautiful, self-assured movie that's content to do more talking--about Milton for godsake--than shooting.

On the surface this is the story of an investigation of sex bots that kill, in reality this is an examination of what it means to be alive and to experience the world. Its a head trip.

I'm finding it hard to express what I feel about this film. Visually this film pushes animation and visual story telling to new places. I know that some of the look of this film can be found in video games but never has the current state of art on many levels been brought together to rattle, nay destroy, the cage of the status quo. Much of this film had my jaw hanging open, often with tears welling up at the beauty of the imagery. This film rocks and then some. The computer generated worlds of Immortel and Sky Captain are blown away by the magic worked here.

The plot is too murky. Frankly, I was lost half way into the movie as to what the plot was, however I was seriously getting off on the visuals and most of all the ideas that were being batted about. How do we know whats real and what isn't? This film makes it very clear that we can never know, nor can we know what it is to be alive. Certainly not all of it works but enough does, and all I can say is wow.

I have no idea how to adequately rate this film. I'm sure some people will find it form over substance and others will think little of the visuals. Me they rocked my world and I gave it a 9 out of 10, but I'll add that your mileage may vary.

The first one was better, but this one was fine too.

OK, so The Matrix (part ONE, the sequels just shouldn't have happened!) used to be my absolute favorite movie of all-time ever, since I'm a computer nerd and into eastern philosophy and all that. Now this movie comes along, takes all I liked about The Matrix and does it even better!

It is (compared to The Matrix):

* Visually more stunning. Loads of beautiful eyecandy, even more than "Crouching Tiger / Hidden Dragon"

* Broader range of philosophy. While The Matrix mostly focused on getting the western part of the world to understand what the Hindus are talking about when they say that the material world is an illusion, this movie contains explanations of quotes from The Bible, Confucius and Buddha. To name a few. Now, I'm just waiting for a movie explaining the monotheistic firmament of the Qu'ran, but as long as the U.S. keep pursuing the worthless "War On Terror", such a film isn't going to make it big anyway.

* More impressive weapons arsenal. OK, so it's science-fiction, whereas The Matrix had to stick to conventional weapons, at least in the cyberworld. But there are also some old-time (20th century) weapons being put to "good" use! How about Bato (the lead character of the movie) cleaning out a mafia café with an M249 PARA? All you Counter-Strikers out there know what I'm talking about!

In total, it rules! Also, there is no need for major Kusanagi to show her nipples for this movie to work out. It's so jolly good that it can kick any other movies ass without even having to allude to sex!

10 out of 10, definitely!

A lot of this film went right over my head, and I'm sure the bad, hearing-impaired-only subtitling had a lot to do with that (thankyou Dreamworks).

I don't know if I'm just not "intelligent" enough (I usually seem to get by alright with every other movie - and no I don't need to be spoon-fed all the information) but there are a lot of references in this movie that seem to be there just to make it seem more intelligent, and a lot of dialog that just seems to go round and round. So overall I was kind of disappointed.

What GiTS2 does have is plenty of amazingly beautiful imagery and perhaps the most impressive CGI I have seen in a couple of years. Coupled with a haunting soundtrack and great audio effects, Inoccence could have been something special if it just wasn't so darn smart..

I could only recommend this to hardcore anime geeks, uber intelligent people who will get all the references and be able to follow it all, or people who like looking at pretty things.

Its a very complex film, both in terms of its philosophical dialogue and the plot is also a little harder to follow than in the first film. Overall, I found it to be an attempt to be "bigger and better" than the first film that failed, somewhat. Still, a very good smart science fiction film about artificial intelligence and the meaning of what is being human.

Note that my scores are pretty rigorous: I only give 7/10 for a great film. 99% of the films score lower than this one. It was probably among the best films of the year (2004). I use this scoring system to differentiate the very good films from the best.

I have seen this film just tree days ago. The first impression after the screening was "It may be too early, maybe for 20 or 30 years." Oshii and his crew achieved unbelievable images, telling a very simple story with complex details of the future. The story is set in 2032, but it seems to be in 22-th century, judging from the technology. If you like hardcore SF novels by Greg Egan or by Greg Bear, or Oshii's other films--I'm sure you will love it and will see it again and again. The film has already enchanted many Japanese viewers only for three days. Of course, there are people who actively hate it, maybe from jealousy of too simple people. But those who has fallen in love with it--say that they will see it two or three times on the screen. It seems that I am one of them. Though it is produced as "Ghost in the Shell 2", its artistic level is much higher and the direction is more delicate. For this beautiful film, I can use the word "Masterpiece".

This movie looks absolutely amazing. I wasn't impressed with the original's visuals (perhaps it would have been better in the theatre; I saw it on TV) but this one is amazing, full of utterly gorgeous images. My girlfriend, who had never seen anything anime and isn't into action movies was quite enthusiastic about the look of this movie.

Unfortunately, like the first one it is a jumble of sophomoric philosophizing on the nature of humanity. Characters go on and on in a way I expect more from French filmmakers like Truffaut than from the Japanese. The movie thinks it is profound and so does a lot of its audience but this is very much existentialism lite. The plot seems a little less incoherent than the first one but you have to pay sharp attention and I think I'd need to see it at least once more before I could fully piece together the story, but I have the feeling that if you know exactly what was going on you could poke holes in the plot. It's all kind of interesting, at least.

If you are into anime, or just like striking visuals, this is worth looking at, but like the original, this movie is far less brilliant than anime fans would have you believe.