>On technical merits the film is state of the art in human animation that looks almost human. Another five years and/or faster computers with more memory (bigger Linux Clusters anyone?) and you won't be able to distinguish a real actor from a graphical one. Only in a couple places could I see the effects of polyhedra surfacing. They paid considerable attention to the facial closeups, but the medium range shots showing the squad of soilders in tee shirts had the usual problems of too perfect in texture on the tee shirts, the muscles of the forearm and humerous. The distance shots, most mountain and such, were obvious fractals. Technically, I'd give the film a B+.

I agree. The opening scene looking into Aki's eyes and seeing the reflections was fantastic.

>
>Plot, wise, I'll give an F. It's about GIA (and I don't mean Geography In America).

I wouldn't give it an F. Probably more on the lines of a C/C+. I liked the actors behind the voices (Ving Rhames, James Woods) and that goes a long way for me.

Here is one movie goers commentas from imdb.com. http://us.imdb.com/Title?0173840#comment
And the fact that it has made 30+ million dollars says something about it. (This fact may say more about us as movie goers than the movie itself.)


Also, I never saw it spelled that way. I've always seen it spelled "Gaea".