cloverallovermd If you're intending to watch this movie, just go ahead and fast forward through the first 30 of the 76 minutes. I guess the repetition is supposed to build suspense, but it just annoyed me. The character, Emily is very likable. She's perfect for the role in every way except that her nationality doesn't fit the setting and is very different than the photographs of her family. There wasn't enough backstory for me to really build a connection with Emily before the end of the movie. I expected more interaction with the living and more suspense, but all I got was a good 10- 15 minutes of cheaply implied fear and a open ending. FYI "The Ring" came out in 2002 and this movie was made in 2012.Being a psychology major, I really wanted to like this movie. I do love the concept, but so much more could've been done to make this a good movie, even with no budget.

alexentric If you appreciate a movie that pulls you in, all the while requiring you to think; at the same time eliciting strong feelings in you that you do not expect and might rather not feel, then this is a movie for you. Simply presented, economically fashioned, and searingly executed it is soul-freezing in its directness; subtle in the manner of a systemic disease that presents as a seemingly innocent bump while complications reveal themselves only as you begin to pay closer and closer attention. This is sophisticated psychospiritual horror. It had (has?) me wondering if I was (am?) a Ghost. It is not a quickly developing story, but the pace befits the subject and the shifting rhythm carries you along until patience definitely pays off. I would suggest a mild warning for those who have issues of a traumatic nature. This movie may be an unsuspected trigger (that is cocked and ready...and loaded).

ketcham26-1 I hate to disparage independent films that are attempting to do something "against the grain" in contemporary horror. I appreciate that "I Am A Ghost" is attempting to be a more intelligent, dialog driven film than the usual horror drivel, but Its many flaws compel me to write something to balance out the reviews I saw which, preposterously, likened it to Kubrick, Bergman and Hitchcock, or even "Lake Mungo." Beyond some interesting applications of After Effects, there is very little style, let alone Kubrick's. The only thing that can be compared to Bergman is the furniture. There is nothing the least bit Hitchcock about any of it. All in all, it feels like the first project of some competent filmmakers with good taste but not particularly good writing skills. Worse, it suffers from some basic logic problems and apparent anachronisms that, rather than elevating it into something fantastic or dream-like, are simply distracting. When did the main character die? The fashion and interior decoration in the ghost's remembered vision of the house (which is inexplicably the same furniture that exists in the clairvoyant's future time-line...did all future residents of the house just keep the same furniture, including the carpet on which an insane woman was stabbed to death?) appears to be from the late 19th century or even earlier. And yet the character listens to radio from the 1930s and there is a reference to electro convulsive therapy which didn't happen in the States until at least the 1940s. Perhaps this can be explained with some alternate interpretation of the ending, but any clues leading to that explanation would be so obscure that even a fan of Bergman would find it baffling. Add to this a ridiculously humorous "monster" (a nude man in gray body paint with a face manipulated by computer into something the Japanese might have been bored by twenty years ago), dialog that confuses awkward formality for intelligence, and moments such as the villain, in response to the heroine's prayers, menacingly proclaiming "Your god is dead," (shades of "Hellraiser), and it begins to become clear that this is, in fact, not the "original," "artsy," "sophisticated" movie that it's being represented as in reviews. Even the plot is nothing new to anyone with passing knowledge of ghost stories. Don't get me wrong, this isn't absolute trash, but if you are an intelligent film fan looking for something sophisticated and original, wait until it's on Netflix...

marais-alexander Wow. What a powerful, moving, scary, and relatable story. Horror has always been my forte, but this micro budgeted beauty is far more than horror. Anna Ishida is excellent as the lost spirit, who even in death loses something more. The film is stripped of traditional storytelling, and is very art-house so know what you're headed in for. It's not one of those straight- forward, clunk-headed horror action pictures. It takes time to build suspense, its character(s), and its haunting and surreal atmosphere. What is especially haunting is, and this is coming from someone who worked with a shaman, it seems ultra-realistic to accounts of dead person's experiences (the little the clairvoyants in this world can understand). I could actually see this being the experience of a spirit who clearly is bound to this world by a force she thinks she cannot control, but in the end realizes she can. It's a great film about finding out who you really are, and about the beast in all of us. I hope to see more from this director, and this was a solid effort. Encore.