Ghost in the Machine (1993)

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Not scary, not thrilling, and filled with dull characters who are phoning it in all the way through. The kid was punch in the face annoying, and eventually I wanted the killer to win. Plus this is one that actually needs to be remade, as technology is a little more sophisticated in 2017 then 1993. I think we can do the virtual reality with the killer scene a whole lot better. Karen Allen was so attractive and likable in her early roles and seems really embarrassed to have ended up in a cheap serial killer flick. Rachel Talalay must also have regretted that as a woman director all she ended up doing was D grade horror movies rather than something interesting. Skip this one, thankfully it's hard to find, and it should stay that way.

The opening credits to "Ghost in the Machine" show over a background of simulated computer circuitry at a microscopic level. The effects are just about what you would expect from the original "Lost in Space" television series, and I'm thinking to myself that surely this movie was made no later than 1980. Then I check its info on my digital cable...danger, Will Robinson! It was made in 1993. Wow, I think to myself, I don't remember special effects being that bad back in my teenage days. But hold on, I remind myself, wasn't T2 made in 1991, even before this movie? Then it hits me: "Ghost in the Machine" just really really sucks. But by then it's too late and I'm sucked into it's riveting story line...if by riveting you mean mind numbingly retarded."Ghost in the Machine" takes place somewhere in Ohio, a location as befittingly bland and pointless as this film. (I actually forget exactly what town it takes place in because I performed a lobotomy on myself right after viewing this pile of crap.) The main premise is that some serial killer guy, about whom we are given no background information other than he sports the smile of a child molester and likes to drive into oncoming traffic, transfers his consciousness upon his death into a vast computer network into which apparently every computer in the country is hooked up to. Surely, had Al Gore's nefarious scheme to invent this so-called "internet" been thwarted, the subsequent tragic deaths of several innocents would have been avoided. But alas, Bill Clinton was elected, and the fun's just beginning.There exists a solemn, unspoken trust between filmmaker and viewer. This covenant is summed up by the concept of suspension of disbelief. (I'm going somewhere with this, just give me a second.) In other words, the viewer agrees to temporarily accept the reality posited by the film, and in exchange the filmmaker agrees to keep the story line roughly within the bounds of that reality. The writers of "Ghost in the Machine" saw fit to not-so-delicately urinate all over that covenant, and just when you think they couldn't possibly desecrate it anymore, they proceed to pull down their pants and spray diarrhea all over it.Just what exactly am I talking about? OK, OK, so the killer's consciousness is supposedly now in the form of computer data. I'll buy that. It starts gathering information about the people it wants to kill...everything's still cool. The moment I call bull is when the killer is able to enact its whims through whichever electronic device it chooses. Apparently there is no distinction between a data network and the power grid in this universe; the killer happily goes about terrorizing people with microwaves, dishwashers, and pool covers that have no data storage capacity to speak of and aren't even hooked up to the network in which his consciousness is stored. The filmmakers further insult the viewers' intelligence by giving the killer the ability to make these devices do things WHICH THEY ARE PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF DOING. For example, one poor schmuck is killed when the business end of a hair dryer spews 10 foot long flames. Another moron meets his doom when the killer fills AN ENTIRE ROOM WITH RADIATION FROM A MICROWAVE OVEN. I mean, if these devices were actually designed to do these things, the terrorists would have already won. I can take some level of stupid, but when I am looking for the nearest pane of glass to throw myself through, it's gotten bad.The heroes temporarily keep the killer at bay by putting tape over the electrical outlets in their house (I am NOT making this up). Apparently this guy can use a seemingly harmless kitchen appliance to roast human flesh but cannot make his way through a bit of weak polymeric adhesive material. I mean, have you ever heard of an electronic serial killer ghost stopped by mere tape? Yeah, I didn't think so. Needless to say, the heroes succeed in overcoming the killer in an ending so stupid that summarizing it will lower my IQ another ten points.The real question I have for the makers of "Ghost in the Machine" is this: if the killer can at a whim transfer himself from computer network to power grid to phone lines, why can't he go into other utilities as well? Why stop at electronics? Imagine if he were to get into the gas mains and emit poisonous mustard gas! Or, how about getting into the water lines and creating an army of angry steam zombies? Cable lines, air ducts, sewer systems...the sky's the limit here. I smell sequel. Just please remember me in the credits when you make "Ghost in the Machine 2: Now with 50% More Stupid." In conclusion, there are bad movies, there are awful movies, and then there's "Ghost in the Machine." If you get the urge to see for yourself how truly bad this movie is, I advise you find the nearest steel pipe and bang yourself in the head with it for ninety minutes. I guarantee a lot more entertainment and far less pain.

Predictable. Horrid. Waste of time. The only thing appealing about this steaming pile of $#!t is the laughs it provokes. That's all I could do; was simply laugh - hysterically. I saw something about a possible sequel to this... I seriously doubt after 12 years that anyone would remember this thing, but the problem is that the newer graphics would be better, and someone might try to fix the story. But why would anyone want to do that? The storyline was a fairly good idea, but the execution was beyond terrible. Even for 1993, The Lawnmower Man came out a year before, and although the graphics are a bit dated by todays standards, they were so much better. If this thing ever airs again on any of the premium networks... get some friends together and give this the old MST3K treatment. It deserves it.

not one of the best movies I've seen but on a scale of 1 to 10 its a 5. kinda not as attention grabbing as it looked but it was an OK movie. i liked the book better. pretty decent plot. wasn't one of those movies id sit and watch every second of. the actors were good for the movie. could have used more of a special effect to it. although the effects at that time were OK . my attention waned after the first few minutes, since i didn't see it before , i felt compelled to at least try to watch it. i did watch it until the end. i still felt it was slow to gain my interest. although the way the killer enters the systems as he does did look pretty cool. the ended was okay but i still didn't gain a lot of interest. if it came on again i probably would not watch it. it was okay as far as the material but still not the best movie I've seen in awhile