jrwygant

I am intrigued by the difference in ratings between those who are reviewing this 2017 film and those who are comparing it to the 1995 animated version of the same story.

The original animated film, which is considerably shorter than the 2017 version, has nearly constant, continuous explanatory dialogue. You could follow the story line about a "Puppet Master" with your eyes closed, relying on the extensive explanations. The 2017 film demands that the viewer assemble a story line from what is seen, not just heard. If you don't pay attention you are certain to miss important elements in the plot, some that are both critical and subtle. As the story develops so do the characters. They change realistically, so that a viewer who is not paying attention is likely to be disappointed.

This is not a cartoon or a TV show, in which everything is explained. The viewer in this instance is required to pay attention and to allow what is on the screen to influence observations and expectations.

In addition to the action, there are parts of this film that carry strong elements of a character's personal confusion, disappointments, and longings. These are things not conveyed in the animated version. The animated version follows a relatively simple story line, while the 2017 film focuses on the main character's personal confusion and her determination to resolve her confusion.

I was surprised at how real the characters' personalities seemed, and how understandable were their reactions, which take the viewer beyond an elemental story line.

Slow build-up to an exaggerated horror movie ending. Unnecessarily violent. If you put in enough mutilations to qualify as a horror movie and mix it up with a love story you will then end up with an ugly mess that is unpleasant to watch. Triggering our sense of extreme displeasure (some scenes compell any reasonable person to turn away) does not equate with quality. The acting was good. The story was impossile to appreciate. I know that when this came out in 1999 it was well received, maybe because it was so different from all other Japanese movies. Being unique does not mean that you created something worth watching.

I read through previous reviews and was surprised that some viewers were disappointed because this was not a "formula" film. That would be a film that explained everything and laid it all out in obvious steps leading to a predictable conclusion. Instead of that, this film realistically addresses the shock, evil and sadness of war, and the importance of personal commitment to those sharing the same experience. If you don't like to think about what you're watching on a movie screen, this film is not for you. If you want to be impacted by incredibly good acting, a remarkable exposure to the evils of war, and a refusal to provide an ending that answers all possible questions, then this is not your movie. This film will make you think.

Director Garland deserves extra praise for doing something I have never seen in a feature film. He uses the black and white photos attributed to the press photographer characters to freeze the action for a few seconds. Those still shots are held long enough to remind us that when the real world presents us with something frightful it often plays out in those same kind of frozen moments.

Unfortunately, none of the above is captured in the trailer, which presents this film as though it is a typical war story with a conventional salad of explosions and shooting. Don't expect that and you will be captured by one of the best films ever made about conflict occurring in the midst of human relations.