Skip to main content

This is about one thing: dominion. It’s not their planet any more.

Ghosts of Mars
(2001)

(SPOILERS) I might have more sympathy for John Carpenter’s protests that Ghosts of Mars was misunderstood if the content did more to support the idea that it was intentionally over-the-top and tongue-in-cheek. Such as silly/amusing plotting and characters and campiness instead of scares. It does rather come across, as per his defence of Escape from L.A. as better than the original, as trying to cover the ineptitude of the production with the old “It was meant to be ‘so bad it was good’; it was self-consciously, post-modernly bad” excuse.

To be fair to JC, I’m going by the Wikipedia quote, which is not unexpurgated, and he may have said additional things about his take that clarified matters. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s smarting exactly as much as he sounds like he is there; it led to a nine-year (feature) directing hiatus, and it’s been the same time again since then (The Ward wasn’t received a whole lot better). But when you see stylistic reference to such diverse (by intent) fare as Rambo: First Blood Part II, Commando and Predator. Well, yeah, there’s self-consciousness in the latter two, but Predator for one is also incredibly well made. Rambo: First Blood Part II has none of the qualities Carpenter is alluding to, so… Yes, if he wanted Ghosts of Mars to be interpreted as “intended”, he really should have made it more obviously comedic and “in on the joke”.

As it stands, though, Ghosts of Mars doesn’t work on any level, and certainly not on the one he says he intended. He’s made movies before that carry a strong comedic or parodic element – Dark Star, Big Trouble in Little China, They Live – and they’re among his best pictures, but he also made Escape from L.A. which stumbles in its humour and execution as often, or more often, than it lands. And this is very much of that similar late period “can’t be bothered, would rather play video games”, giving-a-shrug approach.

If Carpenter had seriously intended to pull off the picture as stated, he needed to pull his finger out and surround himself with the necessary cast and crew. It’s been suggested – Wikipedia again but noting the source is unsubstantiated – that Ghosts of Mars was originally Escape from Mars, a third outing for Snake Plissken. That’s entirely believable based on a premise revolving around – before getting side tracked by the titular ghosts – Ice Cube’s convict Desolation Williams, at very least a Plissken clone.

But this is exactly it. Kurt Russell brought a self-aware Clint-esque swagger to Plissken (as he did a John Wayne-wannabe quality to Jack Burton). Ice Cube has presence, but he isn’t much of an actor. He glowers with the best of them, but the role needed deadpan. Which the Stath, originally cast, can provide in abundance (see Spy for the best example). The Stath is no Olivier either, but he is good at deadpan. Yet he has to make do with a supporting role as a sexually over-compensating sergeant (this was only his fourth movie role, but he’s still more engaging than most of the performers here, with the possible exception of Joanna Cassidy).

There are elements that might lead one to think Carpenter’s professed intent is plausible – I don’t think there’s any way you can have a flashback within a flashback within a flashback and not be purposefully taking the piss – but the entire production reeks of “don’t care”. Top of the list, as ever, is cinematographer Gary B Kibbe, who makes the movie utterly flat and lifeless. If there isn’t a shred of atmosphere or depth to Ghosts of Mars, it most certainly isn’t because Carpenter was self-consciously trying to make it look that way; it’s because that’s how Village of the Damned and Escape to L.A. and Vampires look (ironically, his first couple of low-budget team-upss with Kibbe don’t fare quite as badly, perhaps because the actual scrappiness there works to their advantage).

I don’t know, though; if Carpenter equates campy with dramatically inert and utterly stilted in performance and staging, then Ghosts of Mars is campy. But campy for me usually requires a bit of flair somewhere in the mix, even if one or other element falls down elsewhere; either stylistically or in terms of performance, it should furnish something extra. Ghosts of Mars’ only real flourish is the look of main villain Big Daddy Mars, but the very fact of dressing a stuntman (Richard Cetrone) as a member of KISS with a piercing fetish tells you all you need to know about how much fun that part of it is.

There’s also Natasha Henstridge as the lead, who epitomises the production’s vanilla lack of energy; she’s certainly not aware of the camp side. Cassidy’s good as the doctor who unleashed the beast, but possibly too much so for the limitations of the production. No doubt intended to reflect his self-mutilating antagonists’ frenzied fervour, Carpenter teamed with a number of heavy-metal bands on the soundtrack, which really only serves to underline the sense of amateurishness (or in-on-the-joke campery?) pervading the movie; if you set up incredibly lethargic action sequences and flood them with wall-to-wall metal, you can only really be interpreted as trying to make up for a lack. Or, alternatively, revelling in a really shoddy production.

The thing of it is, for all that I’ve spent half-a-dozen paragraphs doing Ghosts of Mars down, it’s still more watchable than something like Village of the Damned or Vampires. The skeleton of Carpenter’s siege movie format – Assault on Precinct 13, The Thing, Prince of Darkness – does a lot of heavy lifting, and while this one is never remotely good, it doesn’t make me want to entirely give up the ghost (of Mars). I’ll caveat that by saying the first (and only) time I’d watched it previously, I found the movie utterly tedious, so perhaps I was in a relatively receptive mood this time. But there are more than enough ingredients on paper for Ghosts of Mars to have made a decent little B-movie. Which means it’s probably for the best that it didn’t end up as the third Snake Plissken pic, as no level of inflated budget would have encouraged Carpenter to care sufficiently about what he was making by this point.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979)
Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

The protocol actually says that most Tersies will say this has to be a dream.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)
(SPOILERS) The Wachowski siblings’ wildly patchy career continues apace. They bespoiled a great thing with The Matrix sequels (I liked the first, not the second), misfired with Speed Racer (bubble-gum visuals aside, hijinks and comedy ain’t their forte) and recently delivered the Marmite Sense8 for Netflix (I was somewhere in between on it). Their only slam-dunk since The Matrix put them on the movie map is Cloud Atlas, and even that’s a case of rising above its limitations (mostly prosthetic-based). Jupiter Ascending, their latest cinema outing and first stab at space opera, elevates their lesser works by default, however. It manages to be tone deaf in all the areas that count, and sadly fetches up at the bottom of their filmography pile.

This is a case where the roundly damning verdicts have sadly been largely on the ball. What’s most baffling about the picture is that, after a reasonably engaging set-up, it determinedly bores the pants off you. I haven’t enco…

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991)
(SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…