Fantasmas de Marte

I can see why people hate Ghost of Mars cause the whole movie look like it could be directed by Paul W. Anderson and not John Carpenter but you gotta know that the man is not a flipping God when he direct the unholy sequel to his 1981 steath action classic Escape From New York so watching the movie today I can cut him some slack and enjoy it.The plot of Ghosts of Mars feel like the Hollywood first attempt at a Doom live action movie when it take place on Mars where space cop vs not demon but human possessed by evil Martian spirit that make them going on a killing spree while dress up as a MetalHead and I kid you not they also sound like a Death Metal song and Metal music will kick in everytime they appears on screen.It B-movie glorious which mean it campy,cheesy and alot of fun plus you can see Ice Cube and Jason Statham played the opposite role of what are they usually doing nowadays

The wild-west inspiration is obvious.

It could just as easily have been made as a "regular" horror-western, and perhaps a remake/reimaging will make it so.

The sets are OK, the CGI is so-so.

The actors are doing a decent job and all in all, the film accomplishes what it sets out to do: A two-fisted action-romp with a splash of horror and gore.

It's not high art but it is silly fun and good enough for an evening along with popcorn and soda.

John Carpenter, together with Brian De Palma, are the only active directors who had created a body of work consisting of the representation of a particular, personal world, forged by the mixture of a number of themes and subjects, reinserted on tracks left by classic directors (Hawks and Hitchcock respectively). They make one single movie over and over again, reaching outstanding levels of accomplishment in style and coherence.

Thus `Ghost of Mars' is full of Carpenter's imaginary. The plot, the characters, the tone, everything can be linked to his previous work, most notably `Assault on Precint 13', that was yet a reworking of Hawks' `Rio Bravo'. And that's a significant point regarding this film: despite the zombies, the gore, the futuristic set-up, the red Martian atmosphere, the heavy metal score, `Ghost of Mars' is essentially a western in the most classic way. There is a train, a lawman (played by an actress), a group of deputies, a gang of bandits, a frontier town surrounded by the desert.

As in Hawks, the individuals work as a group, defined by codes of professional skill in a strictly masculine environment. Interestingly, Capenter portrays the Martian society as a matriarchy, but the elements operate the same way: the good guy and the bad guy differentiate from each other just for the fact that they are in opposite sides of the law, but are nevertheless exchangeable. Also, following Hawks' epic, the vulnerability of the hero is determined by a fault or weakness (Melanie's addiction to drugs is a progression of Dean Martin's alcoholism in Rio Bravo).

Told in a peculiar series of flashbacks from different points of view, and as in `Vampires', with the use of long, continual dissolves, the story introduces some original points, like the ghosts taking possession of human through the ears and Desolation's smart device to save Melanie with the aid of drugs. There are some plot holes, yes, some bad acting and gratuitous -though stylized- violence. But it's Carpenter unpretentious as ever, telling us how dark our future appears, not from a pulpit but from his director's chair. And I'm very grateful for his effort.

I'm not some naive fan who thinks Carpenter can do no wrong. I didn't care much for Vampires or Village of the Damned (they were alright, but the scripts for those two were not up to snuff for a great director like Carpenter). However, I think Ghosts of Mars is one of his greatest movies. If you can't appreciate this movie then you can't really appreciate Carpenter, IMO. From the Lovecraftian story and atmosphere, to the anamorphic photography, to the excellent music, everything here is Carpenter. Hopefully this movie will find its audience, in time, rather than be forgotten. One criticism of Carpenter I've never been able to understand is that people say he isn't subtle, he relies solely on shocks and violence. Yes, his movies have shocks and violence, they are the release mechanisms for all of the terror he slowly builds up, neanderthals! It seems some film critics are just too good for American horror, they can't stoop to its level from their lofty perch.

Apparently GOM was originally intended to be a 3rd entry of the Escape franchise, with character Snake Plissken (Oh my god, I wish they did that instead, because Ice Cube always was, and still is terrible at acting). Anyways, that info in mind, it made so much more sense. John Carpenter's Escape visual style was right there all along, and I never noticed. The costumes, the train, the future technology, and all the visual effects are exactly the same as the Kurt Russel Escape films, just transported to the Mars location. I think part of the issue with fans is that people didn't understand what this was. It was an old fashioned future (if that makes sense). The story takes place in the future, but using visual techniques and story elements that feel dated in the past. It's actually fun that way, if you don't treat it like the Matrix, or something that actually was progressive at the time.

That's it, no deep dives. This film is Ice Cube playing a dangerous prisoner that was meant to be transferred, when things go amok for all the human survivors. It's Escape from NY/L.A. mixed with Assault on Precinct 13 set on Mars. The bad guys causing all the trouble are the "ghosts"/ weird creepy monsters that self mutilate, and are more or less what happens to people from the Mad Max movies when they have a supply of meth. Oh, I forgot the ghost spirit can travel into people's bodies.

It is fun if you let it be. It's a low budget nothing action. You get a young Jason Statham as a perv, Clea DuVall, Pam Grier in a weird pushy lesbian commander role, and Ice Cube if you are into his wide range of abilities (gangster with a Cali accent on Mars, go figure).

This is the definition of a 4-5 star flick. It is fun, and has people I like long enough to keep watching. I give 5 stars, just because it's been given an unfair wrap over the years. If you treat it like it was made in the 80's you might actually like it a lot!