Ghost in the Shell | March 31, 2017 | Scarlett Johansson | Paramount | New Trailer on page 43!!!

[Marcus Cato]

The audience adverage rating on RT is 3.6/5, almost the same as Kong, who stands at 3.7/5. So for the general public the quality of these two movies is virtually the same. But the RT score for Kong is 78% and for Gits 42%... and it was at 73% before american critics came in. So much about objective critics.

[Water Bottle]

2 minutes ago, Marcus Cato said:

The audience adverage rating on RT is 3.6/5, almost the same as Kong, who stands at 3.7/5. So for the general public the quality of these two movies is virtually the same. But the RT score for Kong is 78% and for Gits 42%... and it was at 73% before american critics came in. So much about objective critics.

 

So if a critic doesn't agree with the audiences, they aren't objective? LOL. It's not a critic's job to try and guess what the general public will like or not like and then cater their review for that. That's the job of Youtubers.

[Dementeleus]

It's weird to find myself quasi-defending the movie. 

[Dementeleus]

Walter Chas's review is fascinating and worth reading, btw.

 

I think Ghost in the Shell is probably fascinating in spite of itself and because the environment has made it dangerous for pretty much anyone to discuss what its critics [...] wish it did. I like it because its production design is beautiful and I like it even though it's basically a RoboCop port that takes the American attitude of being horrified by technology rather than the Japanese one of being largely defined by it. It's puritanical. It was interpreted, after all, by a country founded by Pilgrims. Ghost in the Shell often doesn't know what to do with the images it's appropriating, and when push comes to shove, the dialogue falls somewhere between noodling and empty exposition. Still, there's something worth excavating here.

 

http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2017/04/ghost-in-the-shell-2017.html

[Marcus Cato]

21 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

So if a critic doesn't agree with the audiences, they aren't objective? LOL. It's not a critic's job to try and guess what the general public will like or not like and then cater their review for that. That's the job of Youtubers.

 

I mean, it's obvious that some american critics already knew they will say this movie is rotten, no matter what, just to be "politically correct". They just didn't gave this movie any chance. Like Grace Randolph in her spoilers review, she started the video just screaming in that annoying irritating voice: "this movie is racist, this movie is racist".. omg, i couldn't last more than a few seconds. Her political agenda was so clear.

[Nova]

3 minutes ago, Marcus Cato said:

 

I mean, it's obvious that some american critics already knew they will say this movie is rotten, no matter what, just to be "politically correct". They just didn't gave this movie any chance. Like Grace Randolph in her spoilers review, she started the video just screaming in that annoying irritating voice: "this movie is racist, this movie is racist".. omg, i couldn't last more than a few seconds. Her political agenda was so clear.

Grace Randolph was one of the biggest defenders of Scarjo's casting. There is no "political agenda." The film simply isn't THAT good. Its not bad either. Its an average film. And hence its average rating on RT. 

 

But thanks for making me have to defend Grace Randolph of all people. 

Edited April 2, 2017 by Nova

[Water Bottle]

Just now, Marcus Cato said:

 

I mean, it's obvious that some american critics already knew they will say this movie is rotten, no matter what, just to be "politically correct". They just didn't gave this movie any chance. Like Grace Randolph in her spoilers review, she started the video just screaming in that annoying irritating voice: "this movie is racist, this movie is racist".. omg, i couldn't last more than a few seconds. Her political agenda was so clear.

 

Does RT even include Grace Randolph? LOL. Seriously, who takes Youtube people as serious critics? They just list what they liked and didn't like about a movie. They don't practice actual criticism.

[Marcus Cato]

36 minutes ago, Telerian said:

Walter Chas's review is fascinating and worth reading, btw.

 

 

 

 

http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2017/04/ghost-in-the-shell-2017.html

 

"Consider Johansson's stunning performance, how she walks differently, how she's chosen to take another role that is inherently about the denial of the physical. She's a lot like Warren Beatty in her desire to comment on her attractiveness with the parts she plays (Her, Under the Skin, Lucy). She transcends her appearance in them. She loses the thing she's known for, more or less, or she's punished for it. The greatest impediment to her existential evolution is her appearance. Sometimes, looking like she does is literally fatal for her characters. She is the most interesting actress working in the United States, and the great irony of that is she's still seen as a starlet banking on her looks."

 

Excellent remark about Scarlett. She said in one recent interview that she was offered many "sexiest woman in the world" type of awards from various magazines, throughout her carrer, but she refused most of them, because she didn't want to be objectified like that. That's also the reason she chose to have short hair lately. She wants people to see that she's more then just a beauty. She's a reluctant sex symbol.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Marcus Cato

[UrosepsisFace]

This movie was just beautiful to watch. Scarjo's performance felt rather bleh, though. This movie and Kong has given us so much eye-candy on the big-screen. Too bad this movie is tanking. I agree that GitS isn't too far off from Kong, for better or worse. 

[Lordmandeep]

58 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Does RT even include Grace Randolph? LOL. Seriously, who takes Youtube people as serious critics? They just list what they liked and didn't like about a movie. They don't practice actual criticism.

 

In today's world

 

Critics are great if they like what I like.

 

Terribile if they hate on what I like. 

 

 

[grey ghost]

I feel like the movie is being taken for granted.

 

Is it as ground breaking or thrilling as The Matrix?

 

No but what recent sci fi movie is?

 

The movie actually made something that feels like Ghost in the Shell for the most part. There are lots of missteps like the pacing and the "hit you over the head" reminder that Scarlet is a robot (I think they forgot her mind is 100% human) but for those of us who remember back when Hollywood completely butchered 85% of fanboy properties I was pleasantly surprised by how much was familiar and straight from the source material.

 

Having said that this is for the sci fi nerds only. This movie would be hard to sit through if you're not intrigued by the premise and futurism. It doesn't offer much else which probably explains the luke warm reception.

 

 

 

 

[Mojoguy]

Is this movie as good as LUCY, another Sci Fi movie where ScarJo uses her powers to dispatch any army of hired killers?

[Dementeleus]

1 hour ago, Mojoguy said:

Is this movie as good as LUCY, another Sci Fi movie where ScarJo uses her powers to dispatch any army of hired killers?

 

I thought it was a good bit better, regardless of all its flaws. But then again, I think LUCY is pretty bad. 

[kayumanggi]

This wasn't terrible but it felt 'dry' to me. It's a visual feast, though. Johansson was okay.

[RobinHood26]

6 hours ago, Marcus Cato said:

 

I mean, it's obvious that some american critics already knew they will say this movie is rotten, no matter what, just to be "politically correct". They just didn't gave this movie any chance. Like Grace Randolph in her spoilers review, she started the video just screaming in that annoying irritating voice: "this movie is racist, this movie is racist".. omg, i couldn't last more than a few seconds. Her political agenda was so clear.

 

So your just discounting that 42% of critics liked it? 

 

Im sorry but people like YOU are the problem. not the critics. If you got your way, movies would ether be 100% positive or 100% negative. 

 

 

I bet a higher % of food critics like McDonalds LESS than the average person. does that mean the food critic is stupid or knows nothing about food, or is out of touch with americans?

Edited April 2, 2017 by Jay Hollywood

[eXtacy]

Interesting that on IMDB the US score is a lot lower than the overseas score, its always the other way round. So yeah the white washing media frenzy in US definitely hurt this.

[Marcus Cato]

13 minutes ago, eXtacy said:

Interesting that on IMDB the US score is a lot lower than the overseas score, its always the other way round. So yeah the white washing media frenzy in US definitely hurt this.

 

This is what i mean about critics also, there is a big difference between UK and US critics. Most UK critics gave this positive reviews, 4/5 stars from The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Sun. And most US critics gave it negative reviews. Is this because they just have different tastes in America compared to Britain, or is it because of the whitewashing?

[SchumacherFTW]

1 hour ago, Marcus Cato said:

 

This is what i mean about critics also, there is a big difference between UK and US critics. Most UK critics gave this positive reviews, 4/5 stars from The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Sun. And most US critics gave it negative reviews. Is this because they just have different tastes in America compared to Britain, or is it because of the whitewashing?

It's pretty obvious that people in the UK have different tastes from people in the US, we are different cultures after all. 

[Hatebox]

It's hard to compare UK and US critics, because RT acknowledges about 10-15 of the former and about 200 of the latter for a big movie.

[AJG]

Can we start doing post-mortems on this one? 

 

This shit came out way too late. The Fanboys the producers thought would help carry this thing and help promote this thing just aren't there. Anime fans don't give a shit about live action adaptions regardless of whether their American or Japanese (just look at Attack on Titan, Assassination Classroom, Terraformers. I see people in the Anime community more shocked that these films exist rather than actually discussing them).

Nothing about the production gave fans a reason to come on board outside its visuals. I remember fanboys being excited about Duncan Jones involvement with Warcraft, the cast of Assassin's Creed, this movie didn't have anything like that. It had a standard director, standard writers, and the whole casting thing speaks for itself (I'll add ScarJo never came across as actually giving that many fucks about the character. She didn't show a lot of excitement like RDJ with Iron Man and Hugh Jackman with Wolverine, she came across more like JLaw with Mystique). Could you imagine if names like the Waschowskis were attached? If the people involved displayed behaviour that suggested they fucking loved this property?

 

The whole thing is just so strange. Truly it was the least excitement I've seen for a big budget fanboy franchise film I've seen in years. I think I'm more excited to see Power Rangers than this, and I don't respect the PR franchise at all. Maybe it was just the wrong time to release this thing, maybe they waited too long.