GHOSTS OF MARS (2001)
No one knew, when it first hit theaters in 2001, that Ghosts of Mars would effectively kill John Carpenter's career. The almost universally negative reaction to the film, from both fans and critics alike, seemed to take the wind out of the prolific filmmaker's sails, and barely a peep has been heard from him since. Although he surfaced a few years ago to direct two well-received episodes of Showtime's Masters of Horror TV series, Carpenter has kept an uncharacteristically low profile in the first decade of the new millennium.
Fortunately, the horror icon is back on the big screen with The Ward, a psychological thriller that's been generating a fair bit of excitement on the film festival circuit, with a theatrical run planned in the upcoming months. While we wait for opening day, I thought it would be interesting to revisit the movie that drove Carpenter from the public eye and see how it holds up. Although I freely admit to being something of a Carpenter apologist, I didn't particularly enjoy the film in its original theatrical run. Has time allowed it to age like a fine wine, or rendered it even more sour?
In the year 2176 AD, the face of technology marches ever onward. The planet Mars has been a wellspring of change for the past 200 years, and thanks to the miracle of terraforming, the red planet now has the ability to sustain life. 640,000 colonists call the dusty ball home, fighting to tame the harsh frontier.
In the outpost of Chryse City, a badly damaged commuter train returns on auto-pilot. Investigators soon discover that the vehicle is deserted, save for a Martian police officer named Lt. Melanie Ballard (Natasha Henstridge), who has been severely wounded and chained to a bed railing. Demanding an immediate report, the Martian rulers hold an exploratory hearing. This is the setting for most of the story, which is (rather needlessly) told in flashback as Ballard narrates the events that preceded her strange arrival in Chryse City.
Ballard spins quite a tale, one which the committee has a great deal of trouble swallowing. Melanie had been sent, along with her commander Helena (Pam Grier), to Shining Canyon Station (a place rather like Mos Eisley in Star Wars, but without the pulse) to supervise the transfer of prisoner James "Desolation" Williams (Ice Cube) to a more secure locale. Williams, a fiendishly intelligent criminal, is suspected of murdering six people, and requires close supervision.
Once inside the jail, however, Ballard and her companions find several anomalies, including the complete absence of all the guards -- the inmates, literally, have taken over the asylum. Even more bizarre is the discovery of Whitlock (Joanna Cassidy), a woman who voluntarily committed herself to the Martian prison system because, she said, jail was "the last safe place" for her. When prompted for an explanation, she reveals that a strange force has been unleashed on the surface of the planet, something with the ability to possess a person's mind and body, converting them into a helpless puppet controlled by an unseen force. A so-called ghost of Mars.
Is Williams behind the disappearances of the prison staff, or do Whitlock's claims have any basis in fact? This is what Ballard and her friends must find out. (Hint: Take another look at the movie's title to find out which theory is the correct one.)
Although brimming with expensive-looking costumes and sets, Ghosts of Mars has a darker, grittier feel than much of Carpenter's later work; in terms of tone, it has far more in common with the sparse Assault on Precinct 13 than, say, In the Mouth of Madness. The film is part ghost story and part war flick, and contains a great deal of suspense and action. Or, more correctly, it contains a great deal of suspense, followed by a great deal of action. If you've seen Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Til Dawn, you'll understand what I mean. As with that film, the first half of Ghosts is primarily concerned with establishing a dark, brooding, atmosphere full of intrigue and mystery, even as the movie's second half is more concerned with blood, death, quick editing, and lots of running and jumping. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but the mindless (and at times overwhelming) amount of action can catch viewers off-guard if they aren't prepared for it.
As always, John Carpenter is confident and sure behind the camera, giving us a film that looks consistently terrific, if a bit simplistic. He's the consummate cinematic craftsman, known to spend insane amounts of time on any given shot in order to get it photographed in exact accordance to his wishes. I'm not sure where the film ranks in Carpenter's canon, however: Ghosts of Mars is not Halloween or The Thing -- heck, it's not even Vampires -- but one gets the sense that the director wasn't trying to best his other films. Indeed, you'll find none of the usual Carpenter trademarks that die-hard fans such as myself have come to expect: no highly stylistic camera movements and long, unbroken takes. Ghosts, in many ways, feels more like homage to the movies of his childhood, including the western picture (Carpenter's acknowledged favorite genre), mixed with the zombie flicks of George Romero (Night of the Living Dead).
I cannot gush enough about the film's excellent art and production design, which paint the dusty plains of Mars in a strikingly beautiful way. In a story set almost entirely during the Martian night, the movie's set design emphasizes the stark loneliness and isolation of the titular locale, with red-tinged dust clinging to every conceivable surface. And yet even amongst the blood and carnage of the final act, the planet is never anything less than hauntingly beautiful. The sense of Mars as a real place came through quite clearly here -- no small feat.
John Carpenter is a fan of abrupt, ambiguous endings, and Ghosts of Mars continues his tradition of crafting a conclusion that raises more questions than it answers. Although this lack of closure is often unsatisfying on the first viewing, it does give Carpenter's best work a tenacity that far surpasses other filmmakers' more prosaic offerings. But Ghosts of Mars is a little disappointing because it spends so much of its time implying closure and resolution via its use of flashbacks, and then not following up, or even explaining the origins of the things we see. I can't decide if the film's final scene is left ambiguous for dramatic effect, or merely because Carpenter and Screen Gems were hoping to spin the story off into a sequel. It seems like the wrong choice to me, but it's a small flaw in an otherwise enjoyable, if disposable, action-adventure-horror-sci-fi romp.
Be warned, however: there is rather a lot of blood and gore here (including a number of graphic decapitation sequences) that could potentially upset more sensitive viewers. Factor this into your viewing decision.
Do I, in fact, recommend Ghosts of Mars? I suppose... but only in the mildest sense. It's worth a look if you've seen the director's better works, but it belongs pretty far down any list of must-see horror/sci-fi films.
RATING: C
-----
Follow me on Twitter!
Follow me on Twitter!
Comments
I'm in the same boat you are...I enjoyed the concept and thought of it, but then it just never seemed to really do it for me. Middle of the line.
I hope he does well.
Wow...a blast from the past. John Carpenter's Ghost of Mars was interesting to watch, however I still think his best was The Thing.
good article
But is it better than Memoirs of an Invisible Man? Surely it must be...
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!