The Ghosts in Our Machine

The Ghosts in Our Machine

Through the heart and photographic lens of international photographer Jo-Anne McArthur, 
we become intimately familiar with a cast of non-human animals. The film follows Jo-Anne over the course of a year as she photographs several animal stories in parts of Canada, 
the U.S. and in Europe. Each story is a window into global animal industries: 
Food, Fashion, Entertainment and Research.

A cinematic documentary that illuminates the lives of individual animals living within and rescued from the machine of our modern world. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Ghosts in Our Machine torrent reviews

Amanda H (kr) wrote: I can't say I was completely blown away, but this is a pretty solid recent musical with a very capable cast. Forest Whitaker and Jennifer Hudson were what made me want to watch, but everyone held their own and the music was really enjoyable. The story was a bit cliche, but that's true of many Christmas movies, so I can forgive that.

Elliott F (ag) wrote: Alright documentary, but not the greatest. Shown through the eyes of some young, regular U.S. soldiers, asking the soldiers I would argue pretty dumb questions like 'why are you fighting'? The soldiers respond with answers like 'I don't even know why I'm fighting...' It gives a bad look on the whole war, and the answers need to be taken with a grain of salt. If you are young, and don't have another job, or college education, or much else going on, of course you're going to probably be bewildered, maybe disillusioned about fighting in a foreign country far from home. The reality is though, there is a mission, and the mission is above the individual. Soldiers have similar feelings the whole world over, but that doesn't mean the war is pointless, it means the soldiers are just voicing their personal thoughts. It should be taken like it is, not as a statement that the war is bad, Bush is stupid, or anything else political. Unfortunately, you get the feeling that this whole movie is basically saying just that.

Jho R (ag) wrote: Liked the pacing and good story.

Hannah M (fr) wrote: This has to be one of the most depressing little movies I've ever seen. And yet nothing seemed to come of it. The first half is a nice portrayal of this guy's "loser" life, but then it just stops and meanders for another fifty minutes. It appeared to try to be manufacturing some sort of "happy ending" at the conclusion of the film, but this happy ending was all a lie because in reality, nothing had been solved and only one thing had even been in the slightest resolved. The subject of Duane's drinking habit is tossed to the side an hour into the movie, although that first hour kept promising us this was a major issue. Apparently not THAT major.I will say, however, that David Schwimmer was remarkably good in this. I haven't seen him in much else apart from Friends, where he played Ross, a character who was forced to be constantly depressed because the writers kept toying with and then destroying his love life for ten seasons. But while his suffering there was comic, Schwimmer makes an elegant transition here to portraying real suffering, real denial, real pain, without the audience being able to laugh at him. Kudos to him. I was going to give this movie just 2.5 stars, but his unexpectedly great performance earns another half a star.

Leonard D (es) wrote: This was a decent action film. Just wish that I could care about these one dimensional characters, but no.

Glenn S (it) wrote: Tends to wander at times, but it's good to see the good doctor himself running amok when he still walked the earth.

Jamie C (br) wrote: Great comedy from Jim Carrey yet again, Maybe drops at the end and becomes more of a drama than anything and it does kill the mood of the film.

Dan E (br) wrote: A cynical attempt at being cleverly ironic, Irreversible is only a mash-up of one terrible event after the next but in reverse. Not recommendable.

Hugo G (jp) wrote: It was a weird movie, and by that I mean that it sometimes was funny in a strange way, and also it was hard to know what was going on with the characters and their actions. Also the twist wasn't much of a twist since the reason behind it was weird as well. Still it was well shot, and the suspense was more so effective, and it wasn't boring. That being said it isn't the worst horror film by far, yet it wasn't very good. ~August 19, 2016~

Don S (ru) wrote: Much like my feelings about Leaving Las Vagas, this movie was too disturbing in nature to be enjoyable. The performances were excellent, but they could not overcome the subject matter. Maria Bello has become a favorite of mine, and Ben Stiller was almost too believable. The scene with the baby in the car speaks volumes about just how low someone can fall. Though it makes a powerful statement, I just can't say that I liked it.

Remi L (de) wrote: The premise of this film is the story of two brothers "fighting to keep their start-up company afloat on Wall Street", a month before 9/11. The real story is about a young man (Hartnett) whose cockiness ends up biting him in the @$$. Like many films, I only watched this film 1) because Josh Hartnett was in it, and 2) there was a refreshing interracial romance in it (with Ninja Assassin/Pirates of the Carribean actress Naomie Harris). But other than that, this film was nothing to write home about. I think even the creators knew this as they tried to make the film seem more important than it really was by trying to frame it historically with all the big things taking place at the time; like showing news clips of Bush's first few months as president; as well as what was going on in entertainment news at the time. What particularly unnerved me was the news clip of R&B singer Aaliyah's death in the Bahamas. I'm a huge fan of her music, but even I couldn't see the point of interjecting the story with a mention of her passing. We already know the film takes place in 2001. Stop beating us over the head with "breaking news." We get it. The movie had a sweet ending though, and I LOVED David Bowie's small but enjoyable appearance in the film.

sophie w (it) wrote: sounds nd looks bad bt it ok rele

Mason R (it) wrote: Funny at times, painful most of the time.

Christopher H (ag) wrote: So, finally saw the Davies version. It was as good as the 1976 version, Jeremy played the character with his signature tics and whispers, but occassionally lashed out making his Manson a bit more frightening. This film was more of a character study, showing what led up to the murders,where the original took place after the murders and dealt with the legal stuff. If you want the big picture I say watch this version first and then the 1976 version after.

Paul D (au) wrote: An excellent vehicle for Elvis's musical talents, although he isn't the first person who gets to sing in the movie.

John B (es) wrote: A tremendous tale of two unlikely friends stuck in a prison cell together somewhere in South America. They form a bond throughout the course of the film that is quite engaging to see develop. Escapism is well explored.

Jeff J (de) wrote: Awful... just awful... couldn't get through 1/2 of it... poor acting, ridiculous plot... just doesn't work.

June B (ru) wrote: This film was almost on to something.

Greg W (jp) wrote: of the work together this is my least fave uneven and no funny