Ghosts of Mars

I can not help the feeling that John Carpenter simply gave up during the making of this movie. This strangely structured horror, whose concept seems to be stuck in the 1980s and stars an attractive blonde and gangsta rapper, whom you probably just have to believe are "rugged cosmic desperados". This really has nothing to do with the classic good movies Carpenter used to make. In addition, the wannabe cool buddy ending was just a total slap in the face. (23/05/2019)

Terrible actors, crappy script, catastrophic sets, idiotic action, incredibly goofy editing... it's everything I expect from a Carpenter action movie. And from a director who made a name for himself partly by making action movies, despite never knowing how to shoot an action movie. In a way, Ghosts of Mars is a bit of a retread of both his Escape franchise (it was also originally intended to be the third installment of The Tales of Snake Plisskin, which was rewritten after the disastrous Escape from L.A.) and Assault on Precinct 13 taken to the extreme. I mean, B-grade like all get-out, a label everyone proudly swears by today, but back then you’d be very dignified and affronted. (24/10/2020)

Carpenter is no longer at the top of his game, but this film doesn’t deserve to be called garbage, it’s not that bad, it’s an average B-movie that shouldn’t piss-off anyone (unless you’re expecting another The Thing). The story is fast-paced, the actors are alright, so are the make-up effects, but Ghosts of Mars won’t leave any lasting impression; if that is what you want, better watch The Thing again. (15/08/2007)

Ghost of Mars is a B-movie that takes itself way too seriously, thinking it’s super cool, while viewers just shake their heads in disbelief. It is artificial and has no charm as it woodenly strives for bold genre anarchy (“action metal sci-fi horror with Ice Cube on Mars”!!!). Ghosts of Mars is the kind of film that everyone involved in it – the ranks of whom include a lot of rising stars as well as cult actors – wants to delete from their filmography. (08/09/2011)

Undoubtedly the weakest of John Carpenter's films that I've had the chance to see. Frankly, I don't understand how the director of The Thing or In the Mouth of Madness could have been involved in this creation at all... That one star is basically for his previous merits. The acting performances are, to put it diplomatically, uneven, the direction uninspired, but the crown jewel of it all is the screenplay, for which the author should probably roast in hell. Similar botched films are occasionally saved by grand production design, but that's not the case here either. So, all in all: a complete waste of time. Overall impression: 20%. (05/01/2007)