Badmovies.org Forum

I just got this in a VHS bargain bin. It got a lot of flak when it came out, but I find it good, solid Carpenter. True, not one of his best, and the mass attack on the Martians is a strong candidate for the Stupid Movie Tactics Award, but as a whole, the movie is effectively done. Not too much soppy sentimental scenes and everyone acts convincingly tough. Pity that Pam Griers gets killed early on. Also, I never realised that Kiss was that popular on Mars.

To me it was Carpenter going through the motions of yet another "siege/Howard Hawks tribute" picture. Was really disappointed with it, he wasn't doing anything I hadn't seen in plenty of his other pictures. Better than "Escape from LA", which was just a lazy rehash with some personal politics thrown in, but worse than "Vampires" which wasn't perfect but made good use of James Woods as the hero. I wish they'd work together again. He was almost as good a fit with the Carpenter style as Kurt Russell has been over the years.

Didn't he semi-retire after this one? I hope he's just recharging his batteries, and will return with more horror films or a different take on the kind of action films he's been doing for so long.

I enjoyed this one.  Pretty basic plot, etc...but had energy and was a lot of fun so...

I don't hate it, can't hate any Carpenter movie (well, maybe "Christine", but that's another story) ,but I was quite disappointed with this one when I saw it at the theatre. Another viewing on DVD hasn't improved my opinion on it. It's a just a formulaic, silly action movie, almost devoid of any atmosphere or subtext. Carpenter's movies are often formulaic, true, but he always manages to make them shine through his camerawork. Not here.

At least Carpenter seems to be again on track: he's got two movies on pre-production, "The 13th Apostle" and "Psychopath", which I think are both psycho-thrillers, and also is one of the many 80s horror directors and writers to participate on the TV series "Masters of horror".

I remember enjoying it for what it was, but not much else beyond that.

The thing that stuck out for me was the bizarre use of flashbacks.  The entire story is told in flashback.  Okay, no problem.  But almost every character who comes along then tells another story, also in flashback.  Were there third degree flashbacks?  A flashback within a flashback within a flashback?  I don't remember.  Seems a bit excessive.

I remember a review of this film that mentioned that the complexity of the flashback structure was deliberate, as a subtle way of undermining the credibility of Natasha Henstridge's statement. According to the author, all the movie happens inside her head, and since we know she's a junkie, she is not to be trusted.

Hence, following the theory of this reviewer, the whole movie is nothing but a sort of bizarre phantasy from a mentally unstable person. I tried to watch it this way the second time, but I really couldn't force myself to adapt to this point of view. Interesting idea, though.

GHOST OF MARS is a film that  I give a thumbs up for entertainment value. Yes, I was hoping it would be better, but it is very good in it's own way.

I wouldn't go af far as viewing it twice, and certainly not THINKING about it. Yes, there is a complete absence of subtext (and indeed of content as such), but then, neither did Big Trouble in Little China have much of that. It is just good clean fun.

My God, if we have to start thinking about most of the films on this forum, where will it end?

Enjoyable in a one-dimensional way, I suppose.  I'm not too impressed with all the clever cast, who appear not to realise that to defeat the Flying Martian Moo-Moos you need nothing more sophisticated than a hoover*.

There is a very amusing scene in one of the "making of" extras, where the intrusive video team of documentary makers encroach on Mr Carpenter whilst he's directing.  He only *looks* at them, but his look conveys the thought "Why Don't You F****** Morons Disappear Before I Pound Your Ass With A Shovel?"
Actually it might be a spade, but the viewer gets the gist.



* What we Brits call a Vacuum Cleaner