SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Joanna Mccarty Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Celia A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

leslia30 This is a beautifully done documentary. If you love animals' it is not to be missed. The four -leggeds, the winged ones, the ones who swim. They are all here, as Humans are here, to live out their lives to the best of their ability. Did you pay attention? Even after suffering, never being shown compassion,no "normal" living space,no care past being kept alive, either long enough to get fattened up for the kill, or long enough to suffer pain and mutation......EVEN THEN the rescued ones,bear no hatred of humans. They deserve LIFE. Life as Creator meant for them. I feel like I may be preaching to the choir... How do you get this movie in the living rooms of Corporate America?

SCLB Grandt "Ghosts" is a film that tries to do too much and yet accomplishes very little. It is an overly simplistic take on a deeply complex issue. If Director Liz Marshall and Jo Anne McArthur want the average viewer to feel empathy for animals, they perhaps succeeded. But if their goal is to inspire the viewer and convince them to stop consuming, using and/or wearing these animals I am not sure this film was sufficiently persuasive.The intended audience of this film is clear: It is meant for a viewer who has spent minimal time contemplating animal suffering. Not surprisingly, the animal rights and ethical vegan community are rejoicing over the film's release. It is so rare for theaters to give mainstream attention to a film that delves into the human-animal relationship and shows something the viewer may be incredibly uncomfortable seeing or acknowledging. A film like "Ghosts" is different than movies such as "The Cove" or "Blackfish," as it is relatively easy for a viewer to detach themselves from the any sense of personal complicity. In the latter two films, if an audience member feels that atrocities are committee at the expense of marine mammals they do not have to point a finger at themselves since they are not hunting the animals. But when a film demonstrates to the viewers that they themselves are part of the problem and forces them to critique their own consumption and rethink cultural norms, the film will not as readily gain mainstream support or popularity.Unfortunately, the intended audience may be different than the actual audience, as much of the movie's support and viewership will come from the animal rights movements... the ones who need little convincing.That said, the viewer is kept waiting for the plot in this film. The brilliant cinematography enhanced the film and the emotional response to its content, but the plot climax never seemed to come. It is easy to emphasize and root for Ms. McArthur. In an early scene in the film in which Ms. McArthur documented conditions on a fur farm, I was left waiting for amazing footage of atrocities in an unseen world. The film however left me disappointed by proceeding to spend much of the next 45 advertising for Farm Sanctuary.The film addressed the exploitation of purpose bred beagles in laboratory research. I was inspired by the adoption these wonderful beagles, but at the same time it was an incredibly wasted learning opportunity - what exactly were these dogs rescued from? The viewer saw them in cages but the film did not explain what was being inflicted upon them and why. We saw shots of notebooks and an explanation that the dogs were scared and could take months, if not years, to re-socialize. But what type of harm did they endure? what is a "teaching animal?" The credits at the end of the film contained a sentence about beagle testing for medical and dentistry purposes. There was not a single mention of the cosmetics, chemical and pharmaceutical industries that inflict horrific and needless tests on animals. The 2 second shot of a bottle of perfume and a make up counter were very likely lost on most viewers. Moreover, it was not explained to the viewer why medical testing is cruel, unnecessary and provides flawed results.Virtually no point in the film was fully explained. Proponents of the film may respond to my criticism to pointing out that the film doesn't aim to educate with facts or discussion, but instead to show suffering, to show the faces of these creatures that human chooses to capture, torture and turn into commodities. This may be a valid artistic choice, but it left the movie feeling empty and pointless. Veganism, a lifestyle involving a conscious abstention from the products of animal suffering, was given minimal attention in a very short part of the film. The problems of the dairy industry were barely mentioned and eggs were not mentioned at all. The potential for confusion between the idyllic scenes of rescued at Farm Sanctuary and advertising for various humane products seems especially high. Or perhaps even if a viewer concludes that any method of killing an animal is ethically questionable, they may persist in their consumption of eggs and dairy by rationalizing "I will buy my eggs from chickens who have lots of space and are well care for in small traditional farms." It was not lost on me that Ms. McArthur continuously used the term "factory farm" over and over again, but never explicitly condemned the myth of "humane" farming except for in one line towards the very end of the movie.Overall, advocates for animals should be pleased a film that might inspire viewers to go vegan is receiving mainstream attention. However, the film had way too many missed opportunities and no definitive plot. I could have saved my $15 and simply gone onto Farm Sanctuary's website (or visited the place myself) to see it be shameless promoted. That said, I would definitely share this film with my non vegan friends and family, but I would insist on viewing it with them so that I could fill in many of the unfortunate gaps in its presentation of the issues and address any of the likely confusions that may arise for those unfamiliar with its themes.

Danielle Legg The Ghosts in Our Machine is a brilliant look at the relationships that humans have with the animals that we see, or deny the existence of, every day. We see and get to know each of them through the lens of Animal Rights photographer Jo-Anne McArthur, we feel her emotion as her photographs tell a story few people know, and fewer want to hear. There is a beautiful balance of sorrow and joy in the film, and a hope that Jo-Anne's work with We Animals, and this film, will change the world for animals.Anyone can watch this film and learn more about how they can become a part of the change. The films robust social media campaign provides support and resources on changes that anyone can make in their everyday life to help make the world a better place. For themselves, and for the Ghosts.

tonywohlfarth Documentaries are designed to educate, and that is the stated purpose of Liz Marshall's film. Two years in production, Marshall chooses to tell the story of the treatment of animals are through the eyes of activist Jo-Anne McCarthur. McArthur, a self professed animal-lover, beds down with cows, sheep, and pigs in her quest to demonstrate that animals are humans (www.torontopigsave.org). Marshall's film has a number of problems, but the main one is she became too close to her subject. In the credits, the Vancouver Aquarium is condemned as they refused to be interviewed. Perhaps they figured out in advance that her film was anything but balanced? Marshall also deliberately confuses the issues of animals raised for human consumption versus animal research and factory farms. Temple Grandin, who favours humane slaughter methods, is one of the only talking heads who doesn't buy McCarthur's party line "we love all animals"). Marshall is an accomplished film maker, and there can be no excuse for such a one-sided portrayal of a complex issue.