Ghost in the Machine

In its minor-key way, "Ghost" is a clever, intelligent and visually compelling thriller. Its gimmick more than carries its weight. [31 Dec 1993, p.39]

It is a competent, occasionally witty genre piece that never tries to be anything more. Read full review

It’s an effective, if predictable paranoid fantasy. The film’s social statement may be hopelessly muddy, but its adroit sense of fun and thrills cannot be discounted. Read full review

All the ways in which the killer’s evil spreads and manifests itself are consistently dazzling. The trouble is that they show up the film’s human relationships as drab and conventional in comparison. Read full review

Although the film has a ridiculous premise that's no reason for it not to work, sadly the direction it is taken in, it's poor acting, character development and shoddy action sequences are though. Allen stands out as a spunky heroine but she's the best thing in it. Read full review

It's those scenes-and computer graphics ingeniously engineered by Richard Hollander and VIFX-that give "Ghost" what little kick it generates. Its hero and villain may be hackers, but its heart is hack. [30 Dec 1993, p.20]

The plot stumbles over genre cliches after a promising start and the whole thing becomes lamentable. As an indictment of a techno-society in which too much information is available by computer, it's simply unconvincing. Read full review

Director Rachel Talalay squeezes the life out of the suspense sequences by dragging them on for too long, and doesn't always hit the macabre witty tone the gruesome murders seem to call for. [30 Dec 1993]

Ghost in the Machine doesn't possess the funky, laugh-at-me mentality of good trash, or the good sense to know when its half-baked storyline is getting old. [30 Dec 1993, p.10B]

If Ghost in the Machine isn't the stupidest thriller of the year, it certainly holds the pole position in the race for that honor. The film combines computer hacking, virtual reality and serial murder into a plot so preposterous, so incredibly ridiculous, you keep watching just to see what the filmmakers will dare to do next. [31 Dec 1993, p.G5]

The real criminals here are writers William Davies and William Osborne (obviously pseudonyms for Beavis and Butt-head), who have concocted a derivative, imbecilic anything-goes premise serving only to provide random opportunities for the CGI wizards to strut their stuff. [31 Dec 1993, p.C14]

The special effects are good, with some nifty computer-generated animation, but they're an empty, ineffective crutch on which to support an entire film--and besides, better visuals had already appeared in THE LAWNMOWER MAN. Read full review

With token computer graphics thrown in to pad an already overlong script, Ghost In the Machine gamely tries to hop aboard the Virtual Reality bandwagon and only succeeds in crashing the Net. Read full review

At least there are some decent special effects to distract the viewer's attention from the story, right? Wrong. The visual effects aren't much better than those found in any typical video game system. They're repetitive and unimaginative. Read full review