IMDb user comments for
Ghosts of Mars (2001)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 41:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

404 comments in total

---

81 out of 117 people found the following comment useful :-
you're all missing the point, 26 November 2002
Author: cat savage (catsavage2003@yahoo.com)

Carpenter's films tend to age like fine wine. When they're released, they're lamblasted by critics and fans. Ten years later, they're classics; for instance, "The Thing", "Big Trouble in Little China", "They Live", "Prince of Darkness" -- and "Ghost of Mars" is no exception. This is a tremendously entertaining film that shouldn't be viewed as a horror film, but rather, as a tongue-in-cheek western, in the vain of the Spaghetti Westerns. You all have to pull your heads out and watch this film again...in about nine years. I'll bet you'll say, "You know what, that was a hell of a lot of fun." In the meantime, get off Carpenter's ass.

---

74 out of 122 people found the following comment useful :-
Sure to be a classic, 5 July 2002

Author: staceycroft from United States

A fresh new look at the Mars story, this time the aliens are ghosts. Lots of action sequences. Fun, intelligent and very entertaining. John Carpenter has outdone himself on this one and it is my favorite of his movies. I am looking forward to Part 2. I believe this will become a cult classic (bad ratings now, but in years to come that will change, just like The Evil Dead did). If you like sci-fi and/or horror you are sure to love this movie!

---

78 out of 131 people found the following comment useful :-
If you want to know something about John Carpenter go and watch Ghosts Of Mars, 16 May 2004

Author: chambara8112 from Europe

First of all, i have to say that John Carpenter is a brilliant, flawless director because his every shot, every scene, narrative style is perfect, whatever he wants it's on screen. I know, then why his movies are flops at the theatrical release? - 'cause there's a problem with us(people) to understand his films that are really old-fashioned aiming rather at the people in the 60's-70's and that's the only Carpenter's flaw as a director, his bad timing(maybe born out of time). But when his movies at its core are good it's only a matter of time to be fancied. I think we should start appreciate such a director who's devoted to an old genuine film-making and not to these days where everything has to be big, right in your face. I love his subtle style especially in future classic as Ghosts Of Mars. This film is very essential: it represents every directorial aspect what John Carpenter uses in other films(hardy women equal to men, defiance against authority etc..), but it's not just a hotch-potch of his early works it has its own low-key style and Forbidden Planet-like feel, it combines genres Sci-fi, Horror, Western, Action, Comedy, it has a message(perhaps Carpenter's biggest at all) that beautifully reflects us. I know it is a B-Movie, it has a silly dialogue, silly situations but that's exactly what Carpenter wanted and he takes all these elements to encapsulate into its own form and never let it slip out, it never tries to be serious, it never tries to be something what it's not, there's nothing what doesn't fit in (that's what i can't say about for example Kill Bill), something what should these young filmmakers learn from. i've been watching Carpenter films since the early 80's and still like them all so i'm deadly serious when i'm rating Ghosts Of Mars as a masterpiece and one of his best that will certainly stand the test of time especially for its form and uniqueness.

Somewhere i read a review where one guy as if justifying himself likes this movie only because he's a Carpenter fan but on the top of that i have to tell you that's what it's all about, only his fan can recognize his masterful touches, that he's a true author and that's why he has more cult films(which most of them were then supposed to be a failure) than any other director.

---

30 out of 42 people found the following comment useful :-
red west, 2 February 2004
Author: TheFerryman

John Carpenter, together with Brian De Palma, are the only active directors who had created a body of work consisting of the representation of a particular, personal world, forged by the mixture of a number of themes and subjects, reinserted on tracks left by classic directors (Hawks and Hitchcock respectively). They make one single movie over and over again, reaching outstanding levels of accomplishment in style and coherence.

Thus `Ghost of Mars' is full of Carpenter's imaginary. The plot, the characters, the tone, everything can be linked to his previous work, most notably `Assault on Precint 13', that was yet a reworking of Hawks' `Rio Bravo'. And that's a significant point regarding this film: despite the zombies, the gore, the futuristic set-up, the red Martian atmosphere, the heavy metal score, `Ghost of Mars' is essentially a western in the most classic way. There is a train, a lawman (played by an actress), a group of deputies, a gang of bandits, a frontier town surrounded by the desert.

As in Hawks, the individuals work as a group, defined by codes of professional skill in a strictly masculine environment. Interestingly, Capenter portrays the Martian society as a matriarchy, but the elements operate the same way: the good guy and the bad guy differentiate from each other just for the fact that they are in opposite sides of the law, but are nevertheless exchangeable. Also, following Hawks' epic, the vulnerability of the hero is determined by a fault or weakness (Melanie's addiction to drugs is a progression of Dean Martin's alcoholism in Rio Bravo).

Told in a peculiar series of flashbacks from different points of view, and as in `Vampires', with the use of long, continual dissolves, the story introduces some original points, like the ghosts taking possession of human through the ears and Desolation's smart device to save Melanie with the aid of drugs. There are some plot holes, yes, some bad acting and gratuitous -though stylized- violence. But it's Carpenter unpretentious as ever, telling us how dark our future appears, not from a pulpit but from his director's chair. And I'm very grateful for his effort.

---

43 out of 68 people found the following comment useful :-
Great movie! Why does everybody hate it?, 2 October 2003
Author: Anon Amos from United States

I'm not some naive fan who thinks Carpenter can do no wrong. I didn't care much for Vampires or Village of the Damned (they were alright, but the scripts for those two were not up to snuff for a great director like Carpenter). However, I think Ghosts of Mars is one of his greatest movies. If you can't appreciate this movie then you can't really appreciate Carpenter, IMO. From the Lovecraftian story and atmosphere, to the anamorphic photography, to the excellent music, everything here is Carpenter. Hopefully this movie will find its audience, in time, rather than be forgotten. One criticism of Carpenter I've never been able to understand is that people say he isn't subtle, he relies solely on shocks and violence. Yes, his movies have shocks and violence, they are the release mechanisms for all of the terror he slowly builds up, neanderthals! It seems some film critics are just too good for American horror, they can't stoop to its level from their lofty perch.

---

17 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
Almost a quarter of a century since The Thing, and still people don't get Carpenter., 22 October 2005

Author: wierzbowskisteedman from England

Firstly, if I see another review labelling Ghosts of Mars, Vampires or Escape from L.A 'Carpenter attempting to have another hit movie' my head will explode like Snake Plissken's would have done. Hello people: CARPENTER HAS NEVER HAD A HIT MOVIE! Besides maybe Halloween, Starman, Christine and Escape from New York to a lesser extent, Carpenter has made bomb after bomb. Certainly the films that have the biggest following today; The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China, They Live, they all were torn apart on release. So, surprise surprise everyone hates Ghost of Mars like they did The Thing. Now, I am in no way comparing Ghosts to The Thing, which is an vastly superior film. But Ghosts is in the same position; as it will be in fifteen years time when people will look back on it and say 'Maybe it wasn't that bad.' WHICH IT ISN'T. What elements in this film aren't Carpenter? The western atmosphere? The focus on action and story, and not character? Vast hoards of nameless enemies? These were all in Assault on Precinct 13. Oh wait, no one liked that in 1976 because they were so brain dead they had to wait for a cult following to develop before they gave it a second chance. So it must be the structure. Is the structure, with it's flashbacks-within-flashbacks and weird editing any more bizarre than the corkscrew science behind 'Prince of Darkness'? Oh that's right, everyone hated that in 1987. So I'm looking for the faults…. That's it, the action isn't very good. Oh damn, it wasn't very good in 'Big Trouble in Little China' either. Wait, didn't it take people fifteen years to 'get' that film as well? Maybe it's the fact that it has Ice Cube in the lead. Yeah, Carpenter defiantly shouldn't have let a non-actor take the lead…oh wait, Roddy Piper! If 'They Live' was made in 2001 that would be bashed for having an non-actor carrying it, but for some reason because it was made in 1988 (blasted on release) Roddy Piper's performance is the stuff of cult legend.

All said and complained about, if Ghosts of Mars was released in 1987 or something it wouldn't be getting bashed now. Hell, Jason Statham might have been the new Kurt Russell. There's plenty of fun to be had here, and Carpenter certainly hasn't 'lost his vision' as a lot of the so-called fans who are stuck somewhere around 1982 claim. If anything, with Ghosts of Mars and it's OTT structure, Carpenter is developing on it.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't understand how someone can hate Ghost of Mars and have unconditional love for Assault on Precinct 13. Give Ghosts another go, and watch it with an open mind. If you can't at least do that, you are not a fan of John Carpenter.

---

12 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
get that B-movie feeling!, 21 October 2004
Author: roudnevf from Ici, Maintenant

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

It's funny how people try to intellectualize this movie; they scrutinise the details (they don't like the shape of that gun, they don't like this actor's attitude, blah blah...) They should try and stick to the Star Wars universe, or to base-ball, or even their car's performances. No matter how classy the car is, dudes, it's the fun of the ride that matters! I mean, why try to make sense over this : "vampires on mars" (for ***'s sake!) Carpenter always make sure the tension, the pulse of his movie and its soundtrack (he's always doing the same) are just right. No computer-assisted, gratuitous flashy effects will ever be at the center of one's attention while watching his "oeuvre". I feel good after seeing them, because I get what I paid for : good IL' entertainment.

Carpenter is a craftman. He knows what he's doing and he's good at it. If he'd make chairs, you could still sit on them in the next century. And that's why people will keep on watching his movies over and over again, like I do. Plus, his are "B" movies. A B-movie : a movie with a trashy look, that doesn't long to please, sets itself apart, criticize society by reflecting our fears, has an punky-ish attitude. You get a hero that takes drugs not to become a zombie! (Groooooovy! open you mind! This is the sixties again!) You get a feeling of despair, everything is narrated as a flashback, so that we know from the beginning who's gonna live and who's gonna die.

(SPOILER : Everything is solved by destruction.)Remember 'They Live', Snake Plisken... ANARCHY!!!! We know who the real zombies are since Romero. You see, it's all about the heart, feelings... After years of Star Wars re-hash, can you still feel something?

---

24 out of 40 people found the following comment useful :-
The auteur of horror, 17 June 2003

Author: peita collard from australia

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

John Carpenter has once again turned out a thoroughly brilliant film. His soundtrack once again masterfully suits his images. He playfully uses his genre to weild a wonderful action packed beauty. I sometimes wonder if people actually "get" Carpenter. Apparently not! His marrying of Ice Cube (a popular icon of his time) with Big Daddy Mars's very obvious likeness of Marilyn Manson and his own grunge sound track make it a wonder of pop culture. Not to mention his "lock stock and two smoking barrels" Londoner. His only mistake was to kill of the wonderful Pam Grier character. Never dissapointed when i watch the master at work. If you think its a bad movie....lighten up!

---

6 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Great action, excellent horror, 29 February 2004

Author: Grann-Bach (Grann-Bach@jubii.dk) from Denmark

This is how to make a hybrid of action, horror and science fiction. John Carpenter knows exactly how to set a mood, and, as proved by this film, also knows how to direct good action. The plot is not really new, but it's not a story that's been done to death either. The actors all perform pretty well, considering that most of them are B-list actors. The special effects are great. The music is perfect for the film; John Carpenter knows the importance of a good score. The atmosphere is incredible; any fan of Carpenter's earlier work will at the very least enjoy it. The film is exciting and scary at the same time; a thing most other films can't accomplish. The action is well-choreographed and cool. The story is told in a reasonably original fashion, and it works perfectly. The pacing is great. The humor is very dark and cynical, and fits perfectly with the overall mood of the film; very good decision by Carpenter. I'd recommend this to any fan of action, horror, science fiction or John Carpenter. Just keep an open mind about it; it's a bit different from what you might expect from these genres. 8/10

---

20 out of 35 people found the following comment useful :-
original, well made film better than expected...sci/horror fans won't be let down!, 24 April 2002
Author: ROOK TAMURA (Literaryshootist)

GHOSTS OF MARS conjures up several words and phrases, well made, well acted, well produced, action packed, fun. The film reminds me of a legend of what happenend to a town during the GREAT AWAKENING along the GRAND RIVER in MICHIGAN circa 1800-1935. This film was not based on those events but a tale of spiritualism gone awry on the hostile alien world of mars named aptly after the roman god of war. The film, is one of the best films JOHN CARPENTER has done and is action packed with plenty of excitement and chases and scares and gore for most fans. In addition to all of this fans get a workable tried and true formula from the grand master days of science fiction..yet is it formula..perhaps far from it. GHOSTS OF MARS raises religious questions as well on fallen angelisma nd satan...does satan; the ultimate space alien transcend time and space? Is he known on many worlds? Mankind it would seem by the telling of this tale of violence, exploration and posession is caught up between two interglactic spiritua;l races..one who sent a emissary to die for our sins and one who fell after losing a war with his army. yet another explanation is givcen in this tale..are the posessions apartof a mars alien life force which hosts in humans. No matter what the interpretation, this is a fine film. There was some thought that went intothe script. granted, there is thought that goes into any script because a person sat at a wpord processor and thought it up. What I mean was the story was anything but canned crap. I have seen this twice and enjoyed it each time. GHOSTS FROM MARS was more than I expected. Much more. Granted many will say it was just a story we have seen before, I find that nothing new is under the sun in hollywood and that the best stories are sometimes the ones that seem familiar but are not. The first cut I saw had differences in it from the released version now on video yet, GHOSTS OF MARS provides science fiction/action fans with a interesting premise and a fast paced delivery. The production values on this film are in the tradition of some of the better produced hollywood films.

---

---

Page 1 of 41:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history