Archive for Film & DVD Reviews

Darkest Hour (2017)


Click on image to buy

Hitler is at the height of his power in 1940. His forces are pushing aside opposition in France and Belgium and the British are retreating. An invasion of Britain is a real possibility. It’s not just the ‘other side’ the new wartime leader Winston Churchill has to worry about either. Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup) and Halifax (Stephen Dillane), think that the best hope is a deal with the Nazis and and are plotting (seemingly with some approval from the King, George VI, at least at first) to undermine Churchill’s cabinet.

Churchill is the hero of this film and his many faults are downplayed. There is reference to his poor judgment and Galipolli and we do get a taste of his ruthless streak when he sacrifices troops like disposable pawns.

His extreme political views on certain topics are not referenced. As far on as 1937, then aged 62, he justified mass genocide of indigenous peoples on the grounds of white supremacy, announcing to the Palestinian Royal Commission: “I do not admit […] that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia.

“I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

That was nothing new for Churchill. In December 1910, aged 36, Churchill wrote to prime minister Herbert Asquith warning of the “unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes” (general terms then used to describe the mentally ill and impaired).

Their rapid growth, he asserted, together with the “steady restriction [of the] thrifty, energetic and superior stocks” (folks like himself, of course), constituted “a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate.”

He argued that they should be “sterilised” or “segregated under proper conditions so that their curse died with them and was not transmitted to future generations.”

As home secretary in 1911 he brought the artillery on to the streets of east London in a somewhat onesided battle to deal with Latvian anarchists in the siege of Sydney Street.

In 1910 he ordered the military into Tonypandy to support local police and authorities in quelling disorder and the strikes of the miners.

When Iraqis and Kurds revolted against British rule in northern Iraq in 1920, Churchill, then secretary of state at the War Office, said: “I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes. It would spread a lively terror.”

In the 1926 General Strike Churchill edited the government’s newspaper, the British Gazette, and used it to put forward his anti-union and anti-Labour views.

Before the War he even had a good opinion of Fascism and Hitler.

He wrote to Mussolini: “What a man! I have lost my heart! […] Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world […] If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely.”

As late as 1935 he wrote of Hitler: “If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”

In 1943, a famine broke out in Bengal and up to three million people starved to death. He bluntly refused any aid, raging that it was the Indians’ own fault for “breeding like rabbits.”

Of course these views, which jar with our values today, were far from unusual at the time. The past is another country. That’s not to say that there were not many even then who would have had an opposed view. There were. Let’s hope that some of those who go to see the film take a closer look at the history behind it.

He was certainly a bastard but to use the Sumner Welles phrase he was “our bastard” – at least during the War. He is described as the one UK politician who frightened Hitler and, perhaps, that is true. He was also, in my view, right on the likely outcome of appeasement.

The film does present Churchill as the contradiction he was. This is brought out in scenes with his long-suffering wife Clemmie (Dame Kristin Ann Scott Thomas) and family as well as scenes with his secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James).

An underlying theme of the film is the power of language and the importance of oratory. There are many scenes where we see Churchill mobilise the English language and send it to war (as Halifax puts it). Oldman’s Golden Globe-winning performance is forceful and effective and Churchill’s speeches have lost nothing of their persuasive and stirring qualities through his delivery.

Reviewed by Pat Harrington


Leave a Comment

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)


Click on image to buy

15 | 1h 55min | | 12 January 2018 (UK)

This is a dark film dealing with big issues.
Mildred Hayes (Frances McDonagh) is a mother whose daughter was raped and murdered.
One year on and the police have made no progress and have no leads.
She hires three billboards to call out the police and the popular Chief Willoughby (Woody Harrelson) on their inability to catch the killer. Mildred is forthright in her views telling the local news channel: “My daughter Angela was murdered 7 months ago, it seems to me the police department is too busy torturing black folk to solve actual crimes.” She’s a tough woman with a fractured heart and she is angry. Very, very, angry.
You can feel the pain emanating from Mildred. We aren’t invited to sympathise with her, but you can’t help but understand the pain she is enduring and understand the drive she has for revenge, not just on the unknown killer, but on the community and institutions that don’t seem to care. That’s the root of her decision to hire the billboards.
This act has many consequences and shines a light on the divisions, hypocrisy and narrow mindedness of the small community. Most of the community don’t like the billboards and want Mildred to shut-up. They try to pressure and bully her into taking the boards down. They also put pressure on the agency that hired her the boards.
The local police are an unlovely bunch. Their Chief says that if he sacked all the racist cops in his force he’d have a handful left and they would all hate “fags”. One of these racist Cops, Dixon (Sam Rockwell), does all in his power to disrupt the billboard campaign and his violence and crude hatred are difficult to stomach. As his character develops, however, you start to have some sympathy with him for what has made him what he is and the fact that he is strong enough to begin to change. The way Dixon is developed shows how nuanced the film is.
Mildred comes over as one determined lady. She has suffered domestic abuse, the death of her daughter and virtually a whole town that hates her. Her allies, like her, aren’t at the centre of the community, they have little power and are marginalised and ill-treated.
There’s a lot of profanity in this film and the violence is raw but it is a story that is telling a truth.
There are excellent performances from the cast, and the film picked up four Golden Globe awards including Best Picture, Best Screenplay, Best Actress and Best Supporting Actor.
It also has an evocative American based soundtrack.


Reviewed by Pat Harrington

Leave a Comment

The Last Jedi (2017)



Some have seen symbolism of a wider view of The Force in this poster

This film was great. Audiences seem to have liked it too. It received a Cinemascore of “A,” exactly the same as The Force Awakens and Rogue One, and its average rating from moviegoers surveyed by Comscore was five out of five stars. In its opening weekend alone it grossed $220,009,584. Worldwide it has grossed $892,107,89 so far. I was surprised, therefore, at some of the hostile reactions to it online. What may lie behind that says more about our society than the film.

Dave Schilling points out at Birth Movies Death The Last Jedi can be seen as a metaphorical depiction of the baby boomer generation (a generation that featured a lot of white men — good and bad — in positions of power) handing off leadership roles to younger generations, particularly millennials, who tend to be more racially diverse and to advocate having more women in positions of power. The good guys are a young white woman, a black man, a woman of Asian descent, and a Latino man, while the bad guys are two white men.

Of course there are many other criticims relating to the plot itself. To give one example, Finn and Rose’s journey to the casino planet of Canto Bight is seen by some as an unnecessary diversion from the main plot. It’s certainly something you can make a case for although I take a different view. To me the corruption of Canto Bight (whose wealth is based on selling armanents to both The First Order and The Resistance) is clearly intended to provide the moral core – the contrast between the Jedi and everyone else (including the Rebels, to a degree). Perhaps that needs restating because of the suggestion that Skywalker wants to create something new embracing both the light and the dark (embracing “a larger view of the Force”). Some have even seen a symbolism of this in the first poster. Here it is depicted by Luke’s face (light side) on one side, Kylo Ren’s (dark side) on the other, with Rey in the middle separating the two and her lightsaber going from blue to red. Or so some say! So, I don’t see the visit to Canto Bight as a diversion but a small part of the film that helps you understand the rest.

This is a good movie which has a substance to it that makes you think. The action scenes are great, particularly the space battles between the bad guys and The Resistance. The fight scenes are also worthy of mention, particularly the Throne Room scene.

It was great to see Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia) again, sadly in her last role and, of course, Mark Hamil (Luke Skywalker) as a sullen, bearded recluse who has lost faith in the Jedi. Both provoked suprisingly emotional reactions in me. Real sadness in the case of Leia and disappointment, at least at first, in Skywalker.

My major criticism of the film is that the Dark Side of the Force was just not Dark enough! That’s probably, partly, because the likes of Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine/Darth Sidious are such tough acts to follow. It’s also because Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) is just too clean-cut and boyish to convince as a villain. I guess I expect my villains to be more rugged!The most interesting thing about Kylo Ren is his ambivalence toward the Light and Dark, the Sith and Jedi. In both The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi we see that. Is that fully milked as a theme. In The Last Jedi it seems that Rey could win him over but I don’t think the turmoil in Kylo was ever fully developed as a theme. There was just not enough tension.

Still, despite any flaws, this is a great film with and ensemble cast (special mention of Rey (Daisy Ridley) and Vice-Admiral Amilyn Holdo (Laura Dern).

Reviewed by Pat Harrington

Cast and Crew

Director: Rian Johnson
Writer: Rian Johnson
Actors: Mark Hamill
Carrie Fisher
Adam Driver
Daisy Ridley
John Boyega
Oscar Isaac
Lupita Nyong’o
Andy Serkis
Domhnall Gleeson
Anthony Daniels
Laura Dern
Benicio Del Toro
Peter Mayhew
Producers: Kathleen Kennedy, Ram Bergman
Composer: John Williams

Leave a Comment

Suburbicon (2017)


Click on image to buy

Director:George Clooney
Produced by:George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Joel Silver, Teddy Schwarzman
Writer(s):Joel Coen, Ethan Coen, George Clooney, Grant Heslov


Suburbicon is a very disappointing film. On paper it looks great with George Clooney directing Matt Damon in a film script originally written by the Coen Brothers and reworked by Cooney and his collaborator Grant Heslov.  Clooney and the Coens have had some big hits  with O Brother, Where Art Thou? to Intolerable CrueltyBurn After Reading, and Hail, Caesar! so the benchmark is set high It is billed as a dark comedy set in a 50s surburb. We are promised another look at the dark underbelly of middle-class America – a popular theme in Hollywood done much better in Blue Velvet.

There are two strands to the plot. First a murder mystery and second opposition to a black family moving in. How the two are connected is unclear and that is just one of the problems of the film.

The murder mystery around the Lodge family (Matt Damon, Julianne Moore and Noah Jupe) and  is very predictable.  Jupe as the son of the family stands out.  Oscar Isaac also deserves a mention for a great performance as an Insurance Investigator.

The characters of the black family under siege, the Mayerses (Leith M. Burke, Karimah Westbrook and Tony Espinosa) are not developed. It’s said that the basis is the real-life case, that of the Myers family, who arrived in Levittown, Pennsylvania, in 1957 but there is no feeling of truth or reality to the tale told in Suburbicon.

There are very few times when the script makes you really unsettled and delivers the kind of chills that would raise it above the mundane. Only, at times, when Lodge Snr is justifying himself to his son does it hit the right note. Little wonder then that Suburbicon did not do as well as expected at the box office and was, in the main, a critical flop.

Reviewed by Patrick Harrington

Leave a Comment

Fist of the North Star (1986)


Click on image to buy

Hokuto no Ken (original title)
Not Rated | 1h 50min | Animation, Action, Drama | 27 September 1986 (USA)

Warning: Spoilers

I first saw Fist of the North Star as a very young child. At the time, I had a bizarre interest in films with 18 certificates, probably because I felt as though they were out of bounds. If I recall correctly, the staff of the local video shop would let me take out a film provided it was universal or parental guidance. Those were ratings denoting who could take them out. Everyone could take out a universal, hence why it was called a ‘universal.’ Parental guidance meant a parent had to guide, I suppose. I think on rare occasion I was turned down when I tried to take out a PG, as it’s called for short.

Other than these two ratings, there were ratings: 12, 15, and 18. This is here in the UK. In the US they have a different rating system, although the two are mutually intelligible. Basically adult content was off limits to children like myself. This included on a psychological level and on a physical level in terms of violence. My mother would take out any film I asked for from a certain age onwards, I forget how old, but it was from quite young. Perhaps she shouldn’t have done this but she was not fond of rules in some respects, this being one of them.

I tended to watch martial arts films such as the ones starring Jean Claude Van Damme. Funnily enough, I became fascinated, almost obsessed with martial arts, but most specifically exercise. I would exercise a lot because I thought Van Damme had a brilliant physique, but when I would look in the mirror I noticed I did not have a physique like the one he had. Of course I know now he not only exercised a lot but took steroids as well. That being said, I did develop a somewhat athletic body as a result of this, even if it didn’t look like anything special. I retain quite a bit of this athleticism to this day, maintain it, and play a few combat sports regularly.

I almost never watched Disney movies. I wonder how that affected me and perhaps still affects me. Disney movies are meant to instil a strong moral compass in the viewer, whatever his age, although this is more likely to be successful if he is very young, for reasons I hope are obvious. One thing I vividly recall was wanting to not be strongly affected by depictions of violence. This was because I was affected by them. After watching many action movies for young adults, I did get a bit used to it, but never completely. Even now if I watch one from the Resident Evil series, I get a bit uncomfortable at some of the depictions involving violence and gruesomeness.

Now let’s go back to Fist of the North Star. I have sentimental feelings about it because I saw it for the first time while so young. I have seen it a number of times since. The first time I saw it, I was mostly struck by its cartoon violence. I mean literally cartoon violence, as it is an anime. Some people use that term to describe live motion films as well, but Fist of the North Star really is a cartoon. An adult cartoon, but not a pornographic one, to be clear.

Beneath the violence, the metaphysical musings of a character called Ryuken struck me. I was fascinated by the stars at night already, and certain star constellations are shown early on in the film and the meaning of constellations is central to it, as you may have guessed, with it being called Fist of the North Star. There is mention of polar opposites, of balance, and things being one way for a time until eventually they are the other way, due to the nature of life.

Despite this, much of the story is immature, but this fact is in a way highlighted by the character Ryuken, who is older, wiser, and knows some of the protagonists are idiots, despite their prowess in some areas. Usually only one area – fighting. I know a bit more about the story than is depicted in the film, because it’s based on a comic and there are a few TV shows based on that also, so I will sometimes mention things not shown in the film.

Ryuken is a master of a martial art called Hokuto Shin Ken. It’s passed down through the generations of his family bloodline. Unfortunately, he does not manage to have any children, but tasked with continuing on the family tradition, and calling that is an understatement, he decides to adopt 3 boys. The rule is that the most competent son is the one who continues on the tradition of having children, teaching them the art, and choosing the one to be the successor. The other sons must cease to practice the art. They may have children but they may not teach them the art. Only the successor can continue to practice the art and must pass it on.

The reason why is because it’s a difficult task and must be done with maximum competence. It’s importance to the bloodline is not bordering on spiritual – it is spiritual – to them. Although nothing exactly like this exists in real life, there are elite families who pass down knowledge generation after generation, and most especially pass down wealth as well. It’s also interesting that there is a genetic interest in some cases also, because some families do not want their heirs to have children with people not also from an elite family. Due to this practice, the resort to inbreeding has occurred, especially with royal families. It’s odd because usually inbreeding is associated with intellectual impairment and various issues but in the case of the elite families and royalty, the opposite is intended. It is believed there is some innate quality they possess that puts them above the herd, and the hope is people from other elite families have this quality too, and it can be preserved and passed down through breeding together.

Now in practice, whether it actually works, is up for debate. Perhaps it does sometimes and doesn’t at other times. It’s quite well established that genetic diversity increases the chance of good health and generally better physical appearance. This goes against the elite family idea, but I’m sure there are many more variables and things we don’t understand. It’s evidently the case many people are sheep and cannot think for themselves. Those who rise to the top tend to be able to act on their own initiative, bring something new to the table, and resist the urge to just go with the herd.

Anyway let’s explore the general outline of the film’s story. Just a bit into it, after we hear Ryuken’s voice over, we’re introduced to the characters Julia and Ken. Ken is Ryuken’s adopted son and Hokuto Shin Ken successor. Julia is his fiance. There has been a nuclear holocaust, and there doesn’t seem to be any plant life as a result. Julia carries seeds in a pouch and hopes to grow plant life. Terribly unfortunately for Ken, his so called friend Shin appears and is in love with Julia. Shin is the Fist of the South Star. He practices an equally formidable martial art to the one Ken practices. Julia explains how the Fists of the North and South are not supposed to fight and that he knows this. He ignores her. His intention is to beat Ken, to show her he is better than him.

He does beat him but it only upsets Julia. He begins to torture Ken in front of her. He tells her he won’t stop until she admits she is his. That she does, and he takes her away, leaving Ken on the floor but still alive. Ken’s two brothers watch all of that play out from somewhat afar, and it angers one of them, Raoh, because he would probably have beaten Shin, but was not chosen as the successor. The other brother, Jaggi, is a good fighter but the weakest of the three.

It was Jaggi who convinced Shin he could have Julia if he performed this diabolical stunt. Jaggi becomes known as ‘Jaggi the Pretender,’ because he goes around pretending to be Ken while committing terrible acts. He does this to do as much damage as he can to Ken’s reputation, which was very good prior to his cunning intervention. He even drags Ken’s body to a canyon edge after his fight with Shin, to toss him over it. With it being a supernatural story, Ken survives, and even comes back stronger.

The rest of the film is about Raoh’s fight for power and recognition, despite being rejected by Ryuken, about Ken’s search for Shin who has Julia captive, about whether or not Jaggi will get his comeuppance, and some other little story lines along the way. The most poignant thing for me was that Raoh was not chosen as successor because despite his competence and prowess, he is an idiot. The best part of the film is right at the end when he realises this, after causing an untold amount of carnage. It’s a message to everybody but especially the people who need to hear it most – the idiots of the world just like him.

Reviewed by Alistair Martin

Leave a Comment

Breathe (2017)

breathe**SPOILER ALERT***

Starring: Amit Shah, Andre Jacobs, Andrew Garfield, Ben Lloyd-Hughes, Camilla Rutherford, Claire Foy, David Butler, Dean-Charles Chapman, Diana Rigg, Ed Speleers, Honey Holmes, Hugh Bonneville, James Wilby, Miranda Raison, Roger Ashton-Griffiths, Stephen Mangan, Tom Hollander
Director: Andy Serkis
Rating: PG-13
Runtime: 118 min

The first part of  is a straightforward boy-meets-girl romance set in the 50s. Robin (Andrew Garfield) is an amateur sportsman (tennis and cricket) who drives a flashy sports car and has a mischievous, roguish humor. He has his eye on Diana (Claire Foy from “The Crown”). Both Robin and Diana are what we might call posh. Diana and Robin begin a relationship and all seems set fair for their future. This part of the film is very dreamy and light and is worth watching in itself, quite apart from how it leads on to the next part of their story.


Click on image to buy

It’s the next part of the story, however, where things turn bad that gives the film a special interest. Robin is struck down with Polio and paralysed from the neck down. The heart of the film is about how Robin, Diana and their wide circle of friends deal with that. It’s an inspirational story based on the life and struggles of Robin Cavendish, a man who though tempted by suicide overcame that urge with the love of his Son and Diana and began to challenge the perceptions of and limitations placed on the disabled.

Despite it’s subject matter Breathe is not a dark or depressing film. It has very sad and dark moments (the scene in the German hospital is unsettling, for example) but is generally positive with a very English dry humor that just won’t go away or be worn down by adversity. There are also very uplifting, joyous scenes (like the Spanish roadside Fiesta).

Breathe shows how misconceived public and medical attitudes to the disabled were for decades but it isn’t preachy. It does show how far we, as a society, have come on this. Though we need to remember that progress has been, in no small part, because of the actions of disabled people like Robin Cavendish and that we still have a long way to go.

Reviewed by Pat Harrington

Comments (1)

Ghost in the Shell (2017)

Rating: PG-13 (for intense sequences of sci-fi violence, suggestive content and some disturbing images)
Directed By: Rupert Sanders
Written By: Jonathan Herman, Jamie Moss
Runtime: 106 minutes
Studio: Paramount Pictures

I decided I would review Ghost in the Shell starring Scarlett Johansson some months back but just didn’t know when I would do it. Please note this review will have some spoilers as it is also an analysis of the film. I was already familiar with it from the 1995 anime of the same name, which explores the same story. I vaguely recall it as I actually saw it around that time and haven’t yet re-watched it to refresh my memory.

Nonetheless, I am in touch with its themes not just from the films but from the subject of transhumanism which is ever more prominent as technology in real life progresses. Back in 1995 it didn’t seem absolutely certain the ambitions of the technologists, specifically artificial intelligence and robotics people, were going to come to fruition. This was because at the time, although they had achieved some impressive accomplishments in those fields, they had not yet done anything like what we see today.

Judging by what we see today, it looks strongly as though most if not all of the technology in Ghost in the Shell will become a reality. Only world war or catastrophe, natural or man made, would prevent these advanced technologies illustrated in the film from coming to be. They are mostly a combination of artificial intelligence, often referred to simply as AI, robotics, and transhumanism.

Allow me to give a brief description of each. Artificial intelligence is what is used in things like Chess programs. They enable you to play against a computer opponent if you don’t have a human opponent. An AI chess program can beat the best human Chess players in the world now. Another AI program can beat the best Jeopardy players. Jeopardy is a television game show. The name of the AI program that can play it better than a human is called Watson. He or it, scans Wikipedia pages as part of his program so he can, as I understand it, answer general knowledge questions. One could say he reads wikipedia, in a way, although very quickly.

Going even further, AI programs can produce music in the style of notable musicians as well as just produce general music. They are also used in stock trading done by major banks. In fact, the biggest banks use AI and according to my knowledge it is superior to traditional methods now. AI programs have not been able to produce works of fiction that can rival ones written by human authors, but it’s only a matter of time before they are able to.

In the future, it could be the case that an AI program could write endless novels in the style of your favorite author with great accuracy. In the more distant future, perhaps a book could be written just for you, exactly the way you are predicted to like it. On the one hand this sounds good but on the other it doesn’t sound so good. This raises the problem of what we will do when machines, robots, and computers can do everything better than we can.

The phenomenon of human labor being replaced by machines is called ‘technological unemployment.’ One proposed solution to this problem is to augment human beings with machine technology. This action is called ‘transhumanism,’ which I mentioned above. Ghost in the Shell 2017 is rife with transhumanism. Rife has a bit of a negative connotation because it’s usually used to describe something unpleasant. And some of what happens in Ghost in the Shell is unpleasant in my view. Take for example a young girl learning to speak fluent French in under 10 seconds.

Normally a person has to study a language for 4 years to reach fluency. This process takes tremendous effort, will power, concentration, time, dedication, intelligence, problem solving, practice, study, and patience. All of these things are beneficial to a human being. They strengthen character, provide something for one to do with one’s time, encourage discipline, and in the end reward all of the hard work with the acquisition of the language.

Without putting your sweat in, nothing is really worth anything, some people believe. And so if all you have to do is hook your brain up to a computer for 10 seconds to bypass all of the journey, isn’t it cheating? What’s the point of that? You’d be going straight to having the language at your disposal. The use of it would be you could speak to people in their own tongue when you couldn’t before. You could enjoy a holiday more freely, when it comes to the social aspect of it. But it’s in the process of learning a language the hard way that you figure out how you can express yourself the way you want to.

If you have a language downloaded into your head, you are not going to learn exactly the way you wish to express yourself in it, which is learnt during the normal slow process of acquisition. What is more, if everyone knows you downloaded it, no one will be impressed. One of the nice things about learning a language is when people compliment you on your hard work. So you can see much of what is good about doing it the hard way is destroyed by doing it the transhuman way.

So the idea with transhumanism is to make us as competent as machines so we can have jobs. But that makes no philosophical sense because in the eyes of many, the objective is to not have jobs, but to have only hobbies instead. Pleasurable activities, basically. And yet many hobbies become jobs for a lot of people. Take musicians for example. Many of them say they want to make music anyway. Elly Jackson of the band La Roux says she only did music commercially because she didn’t ‘want to be broke while doing it.’

I suspect if technology completely took over all tasks, people would want to experience things in simulated realities, much like they do now in video games. In video games people play the roles of soldiers, gangsters, skateboarders, race car drivers, fighters, etc. I think if people could not experience being these things in real life, they would opt to experience them virtually. This is where virtual worlds would flourish. People would not have to risk their lives doing these things for real but all of the blood sweat and tears element could be engineered into the worlds so the players could have the sense of accomplishment they seek.

Now I’ve addressed AI, and transhumanism, I’ll address robotics. We already have robots that can perform surgery and make cars, among other things. Much of the robotics in Ghost in the Shell is, I’ll be frank, sex robots. In the film they’re called ‘geisha bots.’ They’re for men obviously. It’s an embarrassing subject for most. But with the franchise being from Japan, it’s to be expected, and it’s relevant. We don’t yet have effective robot cleaners and that is because we have yet to create robots that can perform all human movements. Many of the first humanoid robots would walk a few steps and simply fall over. For some reason human movement is a difficult feat.

So let’s move on to the film in some detail. It has visually appealing cinematography. Many of the shots feature futuristic backdrops, costumes, cars, weaponry, and equipment. There are a few gratuitous shots of Scarlett Johansson, it should be said. The excuse given implicitly is her body suit is skin colored because this enables her to become invisible, for tactical purposes. Nonetheless, we get to see her as though she is naked. Howard Stern in his interview with her brings that issue up with her. He told her she is basically naked in it. She said yeah in the sense that it’s a rubber skin colored body suit. She sort of agreed with him but still pointed out she wasn’t actually naked. It was just a rubber skin colored body suit which made her appear naked.

But this is Hollywood. It’s to be expected. Gratuitous means lacking good reason. That the body suit allows her to become invisible is not good reason. We know the real reason. So anyway, her character is a human brain transplanted into a cyborg body. It is the first of its kind. The reason the film is called Ghost in the Shell is because it is said a human brain contains a ghost or a soul. All other cyborgs or robots, no matter how advanced, do not have a ghost or a soul.

It’s unclear whether society has established some sort of spiritual understanding of human beings. Sometimes it seems like they mean there is a ghost or a soul, but it is generated by the human brain, rather than separate from it in some way. Like they can’t generate one using machines but a human brain can generate one. It’s mentioned this ghost has capabilities machines do not have. The one that stands out the most is intuition. AI in the film does not have intuition. The idea is she can have all of the capabilities of her human soul meshed with the extreme capabilities of AI and robotics.

She is a transhuman supersoldier, and used for tactical military purposes. People get killed is what I’m saying. There is mention of terrorists. There is mention of people who disagree with technology, dislike it, perhaps hate it, and they go into what is described as a ‘lawless zone.’ Such things already exist but here in the UK they are very small. I’m told there is one housing estate where if you go into its parking area, it’s very dangerous, and if you call the police, they won’t come. Apparently if people see police from out their windows, they will drop televisions on them. I’m not joking. I saw a documentary about it. But that’s by-the-by.

I do wonder if there really could be a lawless zone in a world like the one presented in Ghost in the Shell. Perhaps there could be. It would allow for a demarcation between the technological world and the non-technological world. The people in the lawless zones could be subjects of study. They would no doubt be infiltrated by agent provocateurs as well.

As the story progresses, it turns out there is a conspiracy. Scarlett’s character, Mira Killian, is actually not the first of her kind. She’s in fact the first of her kind to actually be a medical success. By that I mean many were operated on before her, in failed attempts. One such failed attempt is the character Kuze played by Michael Pitt. He is claimed to be a terrorist by those above her but she finds out he was a prototype. He is much like she is only not as good. Flawed and in a great deal of pain. Full of hatred and seeks revenge. He managed to hack her system while she was doing something called a ‘deep dive.’

She has interactions with him and he enlightens her as to what has really gone on. She sympathises with him and wants to know her true origins. They have been hidden from her but stored on some sort of memory disk, while she has fake memories implanted by the robotics division of Hanka Corporation. I couldn’t help but think the film is a warning to us all. Almost pre-conditioning. It’s said in conspiracy circles that China does peculiar experiments to do with technology, ones often to do with stem stells and DNA editing. These are purely biological and do not involve robotics etc. But nonetheless, it’s disconcerting.

The film co-stars Pilau Asbaek who had a brief appearance in the first scene of Lucy, also starring Scarlett Johansson. He is so different in Ghost in the Shell, both in appearance and personality, I didn’t recognise him at all. Good actor, literally. Managed to trick me into not thinking I’d ever seen him before. Johansson sings his praises in one of her interviews. He plays Batou who is a key character in both the original anime film and in the anime television series, called Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex.

It would be a crime of me not to mention the film also co-stars Takeshi Kitano as Aramaki. This character is Mira Killian’s figurative angel, for without him, she’d have no back up in high places. Takeshi Kitano is a legend in Japan. He speaks Japanese in the film, with subtitles. As far as I know, his English is not that great. But even though he speaks in Japanese, you can hear how cool he must be if you understand Japanese. Juliette Binoche also has a pivotal role and she was once a very prominent actress. She does a superb job. She comes across as very manipulative when she is meant to but then has a change of heart when her conscience finally emerges as actually existent within her as a person, despite all she has done.

I certainly recommend Ghost in the Shell and multiple viewings are comfortable because it’s quite light dialogue wise with what is often visual artwork that can be seen again and again with much pleasure.

Reviewed by Alistair Martin

Comments (3)

« Newer Posts · Older Posts »