Review of Ghost in the Shell (2017) by Peter T — 15 Apr 2017

TL;DR: Not nearly as bad as everyone is saying. I enjoyed the movie a lot, and I think you will too if you're a fan of the original, or in general a sci-fi fan.

In particular, one thing that this film indisputably has done quite well is the cyberpunk aesthetic. Very reminiscent of Blade Runner and the like. The movie is well-crafted from the props to the sets to the prosthetics and animatronics to all the VFX, and it shows.

It also seems very clear that the people who made this movie have a lot of love and respect for the original. So many incredible scenes that were faithful to the original. The opening scene with Major diving off the roof and crashing through the window, the fight with the hijacked garbage man in the shallow water (I was a little bummed that they cut the market part of this chase, but that is extremely inconsequential), Major's dive in the harbor, the climax, it goes on and on and on.

Obviously, no plot spoilers, but I will say for those of you who are concerned that they butchered the plot of the original, in my opinion they did not. Again, I will avoid going into detail, but the primary change in the narrative from the original is that the blonde woman "shell" that the Puppetmaster inhabits when he is taken to Section 9 does not exist in this film, and then several necessary changes stem from that one. I will leave it at that.

Is this a perfect movie? Did it absolutely blow my mind? No, I am not claiming that this film is going to be Best Picture of 2017. One thing I want to touch on briefly is that I think a lot of the hate for this movie was already set in people's minds beforehand (there was a lot of controversy around this movie for a number of reasons). That may very well be, but it bothers me that this film, an adaptation of animated film is getting dumped on (when it clearly does not deserve it) and another recent adaptation of an animation, Beauty and the Beast, seemingly gets a pass. To be clear: I love Beauty and the Beast, and I thought the adaptation was pretty good, but seemingly suffers from the same "flaws" that most are complaining about in Ghost in the Shell (that it doesn't distinguish itself enough from the original, that it doesn't build on it, that it doesn't really say anything new). Seems like a double standard to me. And on that note, people will never be happy. If they stay faithful to the original they complain it's not original enough. And if they change it up too much others cry foul.

And in regard to the RT summary above: "[The movie] lacks the magic of the movie's classic source material". What does that even mean. It sounds like lazy review writing to me, honestly. I love the original too, believe me, but the whole "magic of the original" is so ambiguous, there is no way to know what they actually think about the movie. What do you think was missing from the film? "Oh, uh, you know, it lacked that 'magic'". Yeah okay guy, thank you for the valuable insight. Provide some actual critiques for once.

In the end, people will think what they want to think, I can't change that. But if you are a curious onlooker observing this film, or a fan of the original that was disappointed and warded off by bad reviews, and you're reading this, please give it a shot anyway. At its worst, the film is still entertaining and enjoyable, despite its lack of "magic" (hah). At its best, it is a well done live-action adaptation, made with love and care towards the original source material.