MovieChat Forums > Ghosts of Mars (2001) Discussion > Even worse than I expected

Even worse than I expected

posted 16 years ago by blu-dude
16 replies | jump to latest

I am an enormous fan of John Carpenter's work, but when I heard from reliable sources that "Ghosts of Mars" was lousy, I avoided it. It aired on HDNet Movies recently, so I figured I would give it a shot after all of these years.

That was a mistake.

There are many things wrong with this movie, but here are the biggest problems:

1) Horrible performances by everybody involved.

2) Abyssmal dialogue. I couldn't believe my ears when Pam Grier actually said "Who goes there?". Really? Who goes there? After that, I expected Ice Cube to say "Why, I oughtta pound you!" at some point.

3) Flashbacks within flashbacks within flashbacks. This is a terrible storytelling device that would rob even a good movie of any sort of suspense.

4) Laughable visual effects. Everybody looked like they were walking through miniature sets, and the "Joanna Cassidy in a balloon" sequence was just awful.

I understand now why Carpenter why such a jerk while promoting this movie. (In his interview with FANGORIA, he acted like he just didn't care anymore. Ditto his appearance on "The Daily Show".) He knew he had created an enormous stinkburger.

[–] Spifflock_Holmes 16 years ago

1) I think Clea DuVall could have done a lot better (or the role of Bashira Kincaid could have been better cast in the first place) and there are a handful of lines that could have been better delivered. (Robert Carradine's odd emphasis in just the way you like it, when he's giving Peter Jason a cup of coffee, comes to mind.) In general, though, I like the acting by the main cast well enough -- nothing Oscar-worthy but fine for the film. And most of the supporting players were excellent.

(Incidentally, Jason Statham was Carpenter's original choice for Desolation Williams but the studio made him use Ice Cube. Even at that, Cube did okay overall. Didn't exactly burn up the screen or anything, but hey. And his That's what you get, dumbass is priceless.)

2) "Who goes there?" is a deliberate reference to the title of the novella from which The Thing was adapted.

3) I like the nested-flashback structure. Matter of taste, I guess.

4) I think the red-dyed gypsum mine does a great job of creating a spooky, ethereal Martian atmosphere. Other than that, the sets and visual effects strike me as okay for the movie and they serve their purpose. Again, nothing award-winning, but they do what the film needs them to do. (And in general I don't mind being able to tell that something is a visual effect.)

This movie seems to divide even longtime Carpenter fans for some reason, and I guess you do have to be in the right state of mind to appreciate it. But I always enjoy watching it. For whatever it's worth, it's probably one of my five personal favorite JC films.

----

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

[–] jenniferles1000 16 years ago

I love this movie i know its not a good movie in the conventional sense the acting isnt very good etc but it rocks and is a great way to spend 90 minutes top fun.

[–] aef-6 16 years ago

Yes! This is probably one of the worst films who was on the screen. Totally waste of time. 1/10

Last seen
Antibodies (2005) - 6/10
Images (1972) - 6/10
Unforgettable (1996) - 6/10

[–] JimmyScrote 16 years ago

I have to agree 100% with the original poster. I actually laughed out loud at some parts because they were so ridiculous. I love how all the possessed clearly have little direction other than, "wave things in the air, hit stuff and wait for the main villian to deliver his lines."

The fact that it is a Carpenter film makes it about 300 times worse because we all know that he can make some great movies. He should have taken it a little farther and made it a parody.

Random "awesomeness":
- Train that goes 10 mph
- Bombs that explode like small firecrackers
- Camera angles that show you don't it your opponent
- A villian clearly wearing a fire suit
- Exploding barrels that remain intact after exploding
- YEEEELLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Natasha Henstridge "fighting"
- Black person dies first

[–] oxblood 16 years ago

I finally got around to watching this. I figured it would be some mindless entertaiment but at least look good and have some decent action. Boy, was I disappointed. It was very cheesy. Not even a B movie. A "D" movie. Jeff Imada's decent fight choreography couldn't even make me watch this again.

Like the OP said, horrible performances by EVERYBODY involved. Ice Cube was a poor choice. He's as good an actor as anyone here but he wasn't good at all here. Statham was supposed to be the villain but he didn't have enough clout yet so I guess that's why they used Cube but I think I would have rather seen Jason as the baddie. There would have at least been some more sexual tension.

The dialogue was total garbage. The part where Uno says, "who you calling a scumbag, MF???" was funny. He at least made me laugh intentionally. The rest of the movie was laughable in a different way.

Flashback within flashback was another unintentional comedy. It just got ridiculous. Making the whole movie a flashback is rarely a good idea in my book but that's just my opinion.

For a movie released in the new decade, the visual effects were awful. Looked like a really bad student film. Im actually surprised Carpenter did a commentary on the dvd. I'm might have to listen to it to hear what he has to say for himself. haha

[–] patton98 16 years ago

to me GOM is 100 times much better film than The Thing for sure. Sad when people don't see the genious touch and vision behind this cult film. Their loss.

[–] Spifflock_Holmes 16 years ago

I still think The Thing is better (and is Carpenter's finest film to date in pretty much every respect), but I love GOM and it's one of my five or six personal favorite Carpenter movies.

You definitely have to be in the right frame of mind to appreciate it, but apparently I am.

----

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] oxblood 16 years ago

The Thing is definitely miles ahead of Ghosts. It was ahead of the film industry with special effects at that time and the story was much more interesting. Ghosts is a bad movie all around. Bad story, bad acting and cheesy effects. Not even a fair comparison.

[–] Stink_Face 16 years ago

patton98 - YOU are a dullard. Just get off this board please, GOM is better than The Thing? Not even close sonny, not even close. Some people just shouldn't be entitled to air their opinions, really.

By the way, could you just take a few moments to read my signature . . . Thanks.

[–] patton98 16 years ago

You know, Stink Face - wow what a fitting name.
As Dirty Harry once said: "an opinion is like an a s s h o l e, everyone has one", but personally i think you're just that a s s h o l e, not more than that.

have a nice day.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Suppeelsker 16 years ago

I think that Clea DuVall acted just alright, although not as good as in other movies. Perhaps her role was the problem, and not her acting. The gangstah dude (Williams?) was alright too, quite funny actually.

[–] ededed 16 years ago

1 - agreed.

2 - actually that's the worst thing about the movie.

3 - any kind of story is lost. no tension, no nothing. liniar and stupid.

4 - even the best SE couldn't save this.

And it doesn't even compare to 'the thing'. this is tele-novella quality

[–] Ghombie 16 years ago

What do you mean "the best SE" ?

Edit: Oh you meant special effects. I Always thought it was FX (like the movie). SE means special edition to me. I would be interested in a special edition of this cool movie.