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.

Popular posts from this blog

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

You have a very angry family, sir.

Eternals (2021) (SPOILERS) It would be overstating the case to suggest Eternals is a pleasant surprise, but given the adverse harbingers surrounding it, it’s a much more serviceable – if bloated – and thematically intriguing picture than I’d expected. The signature motifs of director and honestly-not-billionaire’s-progeny Chloé Zhao are present, mostly amounting to attempts at Malick-lite gauzy natural light and naturalism at odds with the rigidly unnatural material. There’s woke to spare too, since this is something of a Kevin Feige Phase Four flagship, one that rather floundered, showcasing his designs for a nu-MCU. Nevertheless, Eternals manages to maintain interest despite some very variable performances, effects, and the usual retreat into standard tropes, come the final big showdown.