200 years in the future a Martian police unit is dispatched to transport a dangerous prisoner from a mining outpost back to justice. But when the team arrives they find the town deserted and some of the inhabitants possessed by the former inhabitants of the planet. Written by
Natasha Henstridge replaced Courtney Love (the original choice) at the last minute. Love left the project after her boyfriend's ex-wife ran over her foot in her car while she was in training for the picture. Michelle Yeoh, Franka Potente and Famke Janssen were briefly considered. Henstridge was suggested by her then-boyfriend Liam Waite, and was able to join the cast just a week before production began. The actress found the experience to be very harrowing, due to the heavily physical nature of her role and the difficult working conditions. See more »
Skill saw blades can inflict severe lacerations when thrown; however they are not sturdy enough, nor could they be thrown hard enough, to amputate limbs or heads as shown in the film. See more »
Almost a quarter of a century since The Thing, and still people don't get Carpenter.
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.
168 of 243 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this