MovieChat Forums > Innocence (2004) Discussion > Terrible sequel to an amazing movie

Terrible sequel to an amazing movie

posted 13 years ago by geffreyy
5 replies | jump to latest

The dialogue in this movie was terrible. You know how in every creative writing course you learn to make your story about the characters and the plot more than the overarching message? Well this movie completely abandons that rule and the result is some preachy sophomoric drab.

I loved the first movie, I'd say without a doubt it was and is one of the best movies of my generation. The biggest quality in that movie is that it had a balance between message and realistic dialogue, something which this movie fails at.

Also the messages in this movie were basically the same messages already conveyed in the first movie, the difference being that in this movie it was shoved down your throat in an explicit manner in case you were dumb enough to not be able to infer it from the first movie.

Ghost hacking for instance was much more effectively portrayed with the garbage truck driver who thought he was once happily married. The same message was repeated with Batou encouraging Togusa to question his memories. One is a clever and heart wrenching anecdote and the other is a boring and explicit statement, both elicit the same message. Which one is better?

I feel like this movie was made for a dumber audience who were not able to extrapolate the core ideas in the first movie.

Infact the only new idea this movie brought to the table was contained in the dialogue by the forensic autopsy woman near the beginning of the film.

It is also my opinion that the first movie was visually and stylistically much superior to this film. Even disregarding the fancy additions, you will notice that the first effectively showed a dark atmosphere while this movie is inordinately bright even in places where it does not make sense to have such bright tones.

[–] OneFilmLover 13 years ago

I'm about 5 minutes in and already disappointed because of the extensive CG work that while effective is anything but revolutionary. I'll finish the film but having just rewatched the original film right before and blown away by the excellent animation I'm disappointed to see a decade of technological evolution only lead to CG effects that became dated right after release.

I much preferred the credit sequence for the original to the Final Fantasty-esque credit sequence of Innocence that's for sure.

There. It's on the Internet. Thus it's official

[–] Matt345 13 years ago

I think most criticisms are understandable but I also think the movie is making valid points that are understandable if one gives it a chance, as well as attempting an interesting balancing act between entertainment and experimentalism. It is actually a pretty clear meditation on culture and art: just take the stupid dog. Humans have made the dog an image of themselves like they do with everything around them, until everything becomes an artifact of human "soul", which correlates with memory (cities as huge coral reefs of stored data) and the whole fooling around with time loops... There's certainly much more in there, ignoring almost all of the drama, but this is just to give an example of how the actual points of the movie are rarely even identified when complaining about it.
In my opinion, it is overloaden, feels unconnected, many scenes lack impact, but oh well. It's still ok.

[–] noirlethal 13 years ago

yeah i like this one, but its so different from the first. the animation in this is amazing, effects are unbelievable but I feel it lost a lot of the original's style and is too heavily packed with almost random quotes lol. also I did not like some of the "dream" repetition at the cyborgs mansion.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] porsche1974-1 10 years ago

Exactly. Sometimes the dialogue is not about moving the story, but rather
to provoke the audience into thinking. A lot of philosophy in that script.
A lot.

'Let's eat Grandma!' or, 'Let's eat, Grandma!' Punctuation saves lives. Use it. Save a life.