Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Before I begin, I advise you don't show your kids this film. It's sort of violent in some areas.Ghost In The Shell 2:Innocence is the 2004 sequel to Mamoru Oshii's original 1995 anime classic. The film isn't as well known as it's predecessor, so I thought I'd review it.The film is mainly about Batou and Togusa trying to unravel a case surrounding murderous sex dolls. The dolls kill people before self destructing. The pair will have to solve the case before more are murdered. By the way, Motoko isn't even really in the film, only at the end.I really enjoy this film. It's astounding in almost every way. Also, if you're wondering about the dub, I personally really liked it. Go see Ghost In The Shell 2:Innocence and be amazed!

Even better than the first one, which is very difficult to overcome.I 'll begin to highlight two little flaws (if we can call it that way): 1- Some of the philosophical quotes in the movie could be a bit misplaced. The characters seems to be compelled to quote in an almost steady manner. Anyway, we have to keep in mind this is a very philosophical film in many ways, with a remarkable psychological burden. 2- Being a masterpiece, the movie is too short. Just 100mn. is not enough to recreate oneself with that beautiful imagery and thorough substance.Having said that, this movie goes beyond perfection. And i'm not talking about the amazing music or the astonishing visuals. I'm talking about the serious, accurate, transcendent, intelligent plot/script.In some way is like a mind-blowing trip with many different layers of reality. At a certain point, the viewer does not know in which of them he is. The question has therefore arisen, as to whether we really know where are we heading to, about computer applications in the internet world.10/10

This is a difficult film, more than is necessary I think, with a thickly layered narrative, full of visuals allusions and quotes of everyone from Buddha to Plato. But let's cut through it and take a simple look.We have here a wholly artificial cinematic environment, an anime, about artificial individuals, androids, caught in dilemmas about the artifice and illusory nature of life. Powerful alignment, difficult to hash. The question that looms is the oldest one and most important: what does it mean to be me, a living being, among all this stuff?What separates one possible reality from all the others, real from not real? This is frequently brought up in films of this sort from Matrix to Waking Life, it seems to have public traction as a thought. It crops up in cyberpunk and New Age thought of all sorts. How can I be sure that this is all real and not dreamed by something? How can I know that I am awake, if I am never fully aware of dreaming?The film is designed so that we gradually loose the certainty. It is filled to that effect with androids, dolls, virtual realities and folded dreams, but we aren't always immediately aware. Part of the point is this surprise as awakening. There is a strange sequence that repeats three times only for us to find it was someone's AI being 'hacked' with us inside.Okay, but what does it mean to be real? The answer, well more of a suggestion, is inside the film but disguised from itself.We have all these constructed realities as expression of self, obvious enough. Anything we build expresses self, this includes language and cities. Films. And yes, as the film says, the sense of incompleteness in life is directly connected to its unomniscience, to the fact I am always tethered to a point of view. This same incompleteness urges me to dream, to construct the omniscience, so we have thought and mathematics among other things, stabs at eternal (objective) truth.(This undoes the philosopher who has to think about it, because he tries in thought, in virtual reality, to assume that omniscience. He's never going to be happy. I think the mathematician has by far the advantage, it seems to be less that he has to think and more that he has the sense of running his fingers over an original fabric. Certainly I don't have to think 1+1, the numbers urge me on.)Okay, here is plainly how it works in the film. We have a film about constructed realities, itself constructed as one. The main cinematic reference for most of these things is of course Bladerunner. We begin in a Bladerunner world, a more or less tangible future. There's a scene with our android at home feeding his dog and relaxing with a beer, so we can feel at 'home'. Jazz music and cars. But from about the halfway point on, the imagery becomes increasingly unreal, alien landscapes that repel the eye, and frequent quotations that call for us to reflect on what we see.And yet it's right there before us. The film appears difficult because we start in a certain reality which we can trust, and halfway through that is arbitrarily changed: the 'info city', the temples and parades, the strange Locus Sul palace and ship, it doesn't make apparent sense how these coexist in what realm. So we don't just lose the narrative ground beneath our feet, it's beneath that the perceptive ground that gives way.In other words, there is no assurance of reality that thinking can provide that can match experience. I don't need to think of what is real, the question answers itself just as 1+1 does. Schizophrenics are not faced with equally 'real' images or voices, but feeble imitations which they inhabit, just like this film disorients from a certain point if you try to inhabit it. Of course it does! It has no reality, stuff just happens.Among the quotes is one about how we shouldn't look into mirrors but down on them, with some amused detachment, which is the Buddhist undercurrent that runs beneath the film. All these exotic things are empty, in the Buddhist sense, apparitions in space, artificial flowers of mind.So this shows promise but it's ultimately laborious if you simply trust your eyes, a condemnation of inhabiting the artifice and letting ourselves stray in reflections, in other words this film.

Having watched the original Ghost in the Shell for the first time ago a couple of nights ago and really enjoying it I had high hopes for the sequel; unfortunately I don't think it lived up to the original, that is not to say it wasn't good, just not as good. Surprisingly one thing that put me off was the improved animation; quite often I found my self thinking about how well animated certain objects were rather than just sitting back and enjoying the story.The story itself is pretty good; set three years after the original film the major is no longer around but her old partner, Batau, is back, this time he is partnered with Togusa, a less experienced officer who feels he will forever be in the major's shadow. Their case involves a series of murders where people have been killed by their cybernetic dolls. As they pursue those responsible they must confront violent Yakuza and a hacker who can seemingly effect their view of reality.As mentioned before the animation is stunning to the point of distraction, like the first film there is a fair bit of philosophising which seemed a bit heavy handed but wasn't too bad. I also missed Major Motoko who was my favourite character in the first film, Batau made a good lead though. If you enjoyed the first film I'd certainly recommend that you watch this one too.These comments are based on watching the film in Japanese with English subtitles.