So what does this all mean? Is The Spirits Within a good or bad movie? Let’s look at each traditional judging criterion.

Is the story good? The actual "science" in this serious attempt at science fiction is severely underdeveloped—which I guess means that the film unexpectedly lives up to its "fantasy" title. Many of the film’s mystical elements go unresolved and the ending is simply inconclusive and hollow. The overall plot isn’t exactly formulaic, but it doesn’t standout either as being richly poetic or coherently complex. The structure of the film is not surprisingly set up like a straightforward videogame where there are long static sequences designed to setup the basic story followed by action-driven resolutions with a "party" of characters undergoing a quest of sorts.

Is the film entertaining? The script is rather dry. The romance is tacked on by default. The special effects don’t particularly standout in an age where nearly all films incorporate some form of CG-assisted imagery. None of the action sequences are particularly memorable either, considering the nearly boundless medium.

How is the quality of acting or drama? The digital actors don’t connect with audiences as I mentioned previously for physical reasons, but The Spirits Within is also severely lacking an emotional core as well. So much so, that it literally tries to steal its character foundations from James Camereon’s film Aliens. Aki Ross "borrows" her tortured angst from Sigourney Weaver’s career-making role as Ripley, Neil Fleming is basically the wisecracking Hudson, and Jane Proudfoot is the tough-as-nails-chick, Vasquez. Rounding out the cast is a bunch of action-genre stereotypes. Gray Edwards is the cynical white-bred hero. Dr. Sid is the wise old sage complete with a beard. Ryan Whittaker is the forever "loyal" token African American who inevitably is the first in the group to "buy it." And General Hein is the obvious villain of the film because of the angular shape of his eyebrows, the conniving sound of James Wood’s voice, and most critically, his all-black wardrobe.

Are the visuals worthy of praise? This is one part of the film that seems to make good on its promise. Almost all critics universally agree that this film – despite its flaws – is indeed a new benchmark for computer graphics and film imagery, but more so for its set and graphic design than for its action or special effects sequences. I whole-heartedly agree that if there’s one part of the film that deserves praise, it’s the visually arresting set designs, unique props, luscious landscapes, and distinctive art direction. My only gripe is that the filmmakers seem artistically unaware of what they have accomplished. Great science-fiction films don’t try to convince audiences that this is a film about the future, but rather that it’s a film actually from the future or from another world. The filmmakers for The Spirits Within seem so desperate to connect with audiences using familiar conventions and grammar (i.e. romance, one-liners, stereotypes) that they don’t realize that, in essence, they’ve created a new type of reality. In trying to create a film with mass-market appeal, they failed to realize that this film could have been this generation’s 2001: A Space Odyssey or Blade Runner. I can’t shake the feeling that this movie could have had so much more impact if the filmmakers had more confidence in the medium and just let the style be the substance rather than trying to create substance around the style.

Does the film raise interesting ideas? Yes, but not through its narrative. A tale about spirits, aliens, and after-life is old hat and insignificant. Its most valuable contributions are the ethical and philosophical questions it raises about the medium of film and the role of computer animation. With that said, I honestly don’t feel that I can rate this movie as being "good" or "bad." I think to do so would be severely missing the bigger picture. What I propose is that The Spirits Within isn't really as much a movie as it is an amalgamation of ideas; a centerpiece for discussion in an art theory course. Throughout this review, I tried to scratch the surface of those ideas and examined the questions that arose.

I am unaware as to whether or not the filmmakers ever pondered these questions or even if they are interested in answering them. Indeed the goal of Square Pictures all along may have been to produce a Hollywood summer blockbuster epic with mainstream appeal and unknowingly have opened up a Pandora’s Box. Ultimately, I don’t have the answers to the questions I have raised. That’s not my job. I’ll let the filmmakers of tomorrow debate the virtues and discover the answers. As a critic, I’m only here to frame the questions.