Ghost in the Machine
December. 29,1993 RAfter a freak, fatal accident, the soul Karl—aka The Address Book Killer—ends up trapped in the electrical grid. He targets Terry and her son for his next victims, turning home technology against them as deadly weapons.
Similar titles
You May Also Like
Reviews
Touches You
Absolutely brilliant
It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...
A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.
Josh Munroe likes to pull scams with his friend Frazer. His single computer-illiterate mom Terry (Karen Allen) is overwhelmed. Karl Hochman is a technician at the computer store and also "The Address-Book Killer". He gets into a car crash and sent to the hospital. As he gets a CAT scan, an electrical surge downloads his consciousness into the network. He retrieves a page from Terry's address book and starts killing people on that page. Former computer hacker Bram Walker (Chris Mulkey) turn white hat in a main frame company tracks down the ghost in the machine.The kid is annoying while a brat. Karen Allen isn't able to save him or the movie. Mulkey is too old and doesn't look like a hacker. He's more of a blue collar guy. This was a time before the internet took off. I'm willing to accept some of the cheesy ideas about computers. The filmmakers spent a lot of time and money to represent the computer world but it isn't that compelling. It looks kind of bad. There are moments of fun horror. The kills are similar to the Final Destination movies. However, every good moment is interrupted by a bad moment like the creepy stripe tease in front of the boys. In the end, the bad moments outnumber the good.
... and I should have never watched it now. A bad rip off of Nightmare on Elm Street mixed with Lawnmower Man, & a bit of Shocker.Sure, you are not supposed to ask questions like "Gee, why is the Address Book Killer such a stupid name?" or "Why don't CAT scans have surge protectors?", but it's hard not to.I found myself at odds with even more bewildering, illogical explanations. Such as how a serial killer suddenly has control of every single electrical appliance and mechanism. Look, I'm not the one to judge intelligence when it comes to sci-fi or any "good" movie that requires a stretch of the imagination. But had the movie moved out of the realm of a typical hospital CAT scan, and more into a mad scientist lab...I cared so little for the characters, with the exception of Karen Allen's. Her son is a brat, so what if he dies? The bad guy is so... meh. Typical & boring. Special FX's are laughable, even by it's time of release. Compared to computer sfx extravaganza Jurassic Park, which released the same year, GITM showed it's low budget like strings holding a UFO. Like many 80's movies, it tried to reach out to a new "computer horror" genre, but this movie was from the 90's. Too late.
Movie about a divorced mother (Karen Allen) and her kid (Wil Horneff) being menaced by the Address Book Killer (Ted Marcoux). He steals peoples address books and kills the persons mentioned in them. Through a series of increasingly stupid (and illogical) circumstances, he ends up dead but his soul has been transferred into machines and travels around through computer systems and such. Also, Allen's book was put on computer and he uses it to kill her friends and family...and go after her and her son.I was one of the (very) few people who paid to see this in theatre. Saw it in a huge auditorium with a large screen and a great sound system. I saw it because I like Karen Allen, I love horror movies and the premise sounded interesting--not good but interesting. With the large screen and the stereo sound this movie really comes to life. The special effects are actually pretty good (especially for 1993) and the sound effects really kick in at the end. I love the way you "see" him travelling through computer systems and wires. The special effects however can't totally save the movie.The plot (as said before) was just ridiculous. I mean come ON! He also manages to make electrical appliances do things they can't do. HOW can a hand dryer spit out flames? How did he manage to get on the radio of all the police cars in the area and give them different signals? And I wasn't aware a microwave oven has enough radiation to kill a person! I realize you have to suspend disbelief with horror films but this one just got way too silly.The only things that make this work are good acting (especially by Allen), good direction by Rachel Talalay, a few funny bits by Jessica Walter and cool special effects. Still the plot really sinks this one. I give it a 4.
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