What makes it different from others?

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

I thought that, once the medium contacted her the first time, "Finally this thing is going to move forward". But, nope, she runs out of the room and the annoying, repeatable scenes start over. Yeh, I know that there were subtle differences in each scene, but who cares?And what is up with the SUDDEN LOUD NOISES/SOUNDS? They weren't scary, just annoying.I fast forwarded about 20 minutes and not much happened. I watched until the end and there was no resolution? What a crock.

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...

I'm sorry but I just didn't get this film at all. Its low budget yes but repeating the same film footage over and over for 45 mins was awful and I watched the whole film but still not sure what the ending was about.Good points : The acting of the one girl in all of the film was good, the sound effects give you the idea that something was going to happen which was good but sadly thats all the positives I can say.Bad points : Nothing happened, slow, no ending that i could figure out and just not a horror.To summarize the idea was good but maybe i'm not "arty" to get this. I've seen some rubbish in my time but this is hard to beat.

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.