CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
5.5/10
46 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Una mujer en una institución psiquiátrica es aterrorizada por un fantasma.Una mujer en una institución psiquiátrica es aterrorizada por un fantasma.Una mujer en una institución psiquiátrica es aterrorizada por un fantasma.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
D.R. Anderson
- Roy
- (as Dan Anderson)
Andrea Petty
- Mrs. Hudson
- (as Andrea L. Petty)
Tracy Schornick
- Cop #1
- (as Tracey Schornick)
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
I felt it was very drawn out. Tiny little pieces were given along the way and it built to a huge, twist finish. The characters were believable and there left enough unclosed at the end to make your own decision, without any confusion - it ended without ending.
It is very riveting despite the drab surroundings, the acting does grip you, the baddies frustrate, the goodies you want to cuddle and there's one mysterious character. The doctor, it's impossible to determine which side he is on.
Very good film by a great man. Not a John Carpenter classic but worth a watch.
It is very riveting despite the drab surroundings, the acting does grip you, the baddies frustrate, the goodies you want to cuddle and there's one mysterious character. The doctor, it's impossible to determine which side he is on.
Very good film by a great man. Not a John Carpenter classic but worth a watch.
I'm 36 years old and in 1981 the first horror movie I saw was John Carpenters "Halloween". I was 6 year old and subsequently I became an úber fan of the Director. I've worshiped the great ones (Assault on precinct 13, Halloween, The Fog, Escape from New York, The Thing, Prince of Darkness) enjoyed the good (Christine, Star Man, Big Trouble in little China, They Live, In the mouth of madness, Vampires) and stomached the bad (Escape from L.A, Village of the damned, Memoirs
, Ghosts of Mars). "The Ward" seems to fall into all of these categories. Sometimes it's great, more often than not it's good but regrettably when it's bad it's really bad. Perhaps it was the lack of a traditional Carpenter score (although the score by Mark Kilian is suitably haunting, memorable and atmospheric) or maybe it was the somewhat derivative "jump" scares or could it have been the inconsistent overall tone because to me it felt like I was watching a movie made by someone trying to emulate Carpenter rather than a movie by "The Master" himself. Don't get me wrong, technically it's excellent and it contains a few moments of genuine tension but there was something missing from the ingredients that make a great Carpenter movie and I think that something is called suspense. It's a shame really because with its eerie location, its linear, albeit uninspired storyline and its quirky characters this had the potential to bring the Director back to the top where he truthfully belongs but throughout I couldn't help feel that Carpenter's become jaded within the genre. His techniques that were groundbreaking during his prime have been exploited by every other Horror Director of the last 20 years. So instead of evolving above this and carving a revolutionary way forward as he once did so gracefully, Carpenters now imitating his old self and his techniques just don't seem to cut it anymore. To be fair it's an enjoyable and fast moving 88 minutes but from an old Pro like John Carpenter I was expecting something a lot more terrifying. When Carpenter reviewed his initial cut of "The Fog" back in 79 he found it plodding and just not scary enough so he went back and re-shot scenes then re-cut it into the classic it is today. I think if Carpenter had taken the same approach with this movie it could've been up there with the best of the best but something tells me that he's become indifferent, lost his passion and dare I say "only in it for the money". Over time I may grow to love this like I grew to love "Prince of Darkness" but as of right now it's left me feeling somewhat dis-satisfied.
John Carpenter has made some of my favourite films, however, his more recent efforts have been a little wide of the mark. So it was with much trepidation that I hit the play button for this one; the reports I'd read had not been encouraging. Sorry to say the reports were right to some extent, although I don't think it deserved some of the vitriolic bile aimed at it. I'll tell you what I mean by that after this brief summary.
When the young Kristen is sent to a psychiatric ward in 1966, she finds herself with a group of young women who all have different problems. On her first night someone steals her blanket and yet she is locked alone in her room. The others, Emily, Sarah, Zoey and Iris are all adamant that there is no way out, but Kristen wants to leave. Things come to a head when she is attacked in the shower; not by one of the other girls, but by a ghost! Investigating, she finds the name, Alice Hudson and, as her fellow inmates begin to disappear one by one she gets more desperate to escape! But there's a problem and her physician, Dr. Stringer, holds the key. I won't say any more or the Spoiler Police will be locking me up (again).
It's all quite well shot, but (to me) it has the feel of quite a low-budget picture. I felt some of the acting was quite forced, if not poor, in places (particularly at the beginning). Since nobody really stood out I will give honourable mentions to; Amber Heard as Kristen, Mamie Gummer as Emily, Danielle Panabaker as Sarah, Laura-Leigh as Zoey, Lyndsy Fonseca as Iris and Jared Harris as Dr. Stringer.
Some of the reviews I've read about this film have been really venomous in their criticism of it. To some extent I agree, John Carpenter is capable of making much better films than this. But on the other hand; what he has produced, if not entirely original, is still quite watchable (after a while) and there are some genuinely frightening moments in it. In conclusion I guess what I'm trying to say is yes, it's not all that good, but at the same time it's not all that bad either. There are some good ideas here but the execution didn't quite work this time As far as recommendation goes, I'll leave that entirely up to you.
My score: 4.9/10.
IMDb Score: 5.6/10 (based on 10,186 votes at the time of going to press).
Rotten Tomatoes 'Tomatometer' Score: 32/100 (based on 65 reviews counted at the time of going to press).
Rotten Tomatoes 'Audience' Score: 27/100 (based on 9,057 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).
When the young Kristen is sent to a psychiatric ward in 1966, she finds herself with a group of young women who all have different problems. On her first night someone steals her blanket and yet she is locked alone in her room. The others, Emily, Sarah, Zoey and Iris are all adamant that there is no way out, but Kristen wants to leave. Things come to a head when she is attacked in the shower; not by one of the other girls, but by a ghost! Investigating, she finds the name, Alice Hudson and, as her fellow inmates begin to disappear one by one she gets more desperate to escape! But there's a problem and her physician, Dr. Stringer, holds the key. I won't say any more or the Spoiler Police will be locking me up (again).
It's all quite well shot, but (to me) it has the feel of quite a low-budget picture. I felt some of the acting was quite forced, if not poor, in places (particularly at the beginning). Since nobody really stood out I will give honourable mentions to; Amber Heard as Kristen, Mamie Gummer as Emily, Danielle Panabaker as Sarah, Laura-Leigh as Zoey, Lyndsy Fonseca as Iris and Jared Harris as Dr. Stringer.
Some of the reviews I've read about this film have been really venomous in their criticism of it. To some extent I agree, John Carpenter is capable of making much better films than this. But on the other hand; what he has produced, if not entirely original, is still quite watchable (after a while) and there are some genuinely frightening moments in it. In conclusion I guess what I'm trying to say is yes, it's not all that good, but at the same time it's not all that bad either. There are some good ideas here but the execution didn't quite work this time As far as recommendation goes, I'll leave that entirely up to you.
My score: 4.9/10.
IMDb Score: 5.6/10 (based on 10,186 votes at the time of going to press).
Rotten Tomatoes 'Tomatometer' Score: 32/100 (based on 65 reviews counted at the time of going to press).
Rotten Tomatoes 'Audience' Score: 27/100 (based on 9,057 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).
The Ward is an adequate horror film but could have been directed by anyone; after such a long hiatus one would expect John Carpenter to produce something much, much better.
The film suffers from a fairly weak script (not penned by Carpenter) and the big "surprise" ending is easily deduced very early in the film. As other reviewers here have noted, the "horror" elements are basically comprised of things jumping out variety; if you expect mood and atmosphere (e.g. Escape from NY, The Thing, Prince of Darkness)--THINK AGAIN.
It would appear the film was made on an extremely low budget; 95% of the movie takes place indoors; most of it in just a few rooms. The set design adequately portrays 1966 (the film's setting), however the wardrobe, makeup and hairstyles of the primary actresses are anachronistic and undermine suspension of disbelief.
Let me expand on that last point as it betrays an artistic compromise I was surprised to see JC make; every one of the main actresses is dolled up--in a modern way. Their hair is cut, dyed, streaked, and styled in a completely modern manner. And although they're supposedly in a mental ward, they apparently put copious amounts of makeup on each and every day. And it's not old-style makeup; in one scene, a female lead character is clearly wearing lip gloss. One woman wears Ronsir Shuron (geek) glasses, however her look is much more "hipster" than it is authentic. Oh, the clothes the "patients" wear--let's just say they're colorful and fabulous...not what I'd expect to find in a mid-60s mental ward. One more thing in this area; all the primary women actresses are beautiful. This is a common element in modern "horror" films where style trumps substance; unfortunately I expected JC to make more of an effort to set an atmosphere where I'm less likely to ogle the actresses than I am to be sucked into the nightmare he's trying to portray.
Having seen every Carpenter film (in the theatre) over the past 30 years, I am disappointed that I was forced to watch the master release this nearly direct-to-DVD title. If you're a JC fan, by all means watch this, but don't expect more than a slightly above-average horror film. The biggest disappointment is that the film was directed by Carpenter and I'm left wondering if this is the best he can do, or if he was hemmed in by a small budget and producers who demanded he make a more cookie-cutter type film.
The film suffers from a fairly weak script (not penned by Carpenter) and the big "surprise" ending is easily deduced very early in the film. As other reviewers here have noted, the "horror" elements are basically comprised of things jumping out variety; if you expect mood and atmosphere (e.g. Escape from NY, The Thing, Prince of Darkness)--THINK AGAIN.
It would appear the film was made on an extremely low budget; 95% of the movie takes place indoors; most of it in just a few rooms. The set design adequately portrays 1966 (the film's setting), however the wardrobe, makeup and hairstyles of the primary actresses are anachronistic and undermine suspension of disbelief.
Let me expand on that last point as it betrays an artistic compromise I was surprised to see JC make; every one of the main actresses is dolled up--in a modern way. Their hair is cut, dyed, streaked, and styled in a completely modern manner. And although they're supposedly in a mental ward, they apparently put copious amounts of makeup on each and every day. And it's not old-style makeup; in one scene, a female lead character is clearly wearing lip gloss. One woman wears Ronsir Shuron (geek) glasses, however her look is much more "hipster" than it is authentic. Oh, the clothes the "patients" wear--let's just say they're colorful and fabulous...not what I'd expect to find in a mid-60s mental ward. One more thing in this area; all the primary women actresses are beautiful. This is a common element in modern "horror" films where style trumps substance; unfortunately I expected JC to make more of an effort to set an atmosphere where I'm less likely to ogle the actresses than I am to be sucked into the nightmare he's trying to portray.
Having seen every Carpenter film (in the theatre) over the past 30 years, I am disappointed that I was forced to watch the master release this nearly direct-to-DVD title. If you're a JC fan, by all means watch this, but don't expect more than a slightly above-average horror film. The biggest disappointment is that the film was directed by Carpenter and I'm left wondering if this is the best he can do, or if he was hemmed in by a small budget and producers who demanded he make a more cookie-cutter type film.
For the people who didn't enjoy this I can understand this somewhat, it does have some weak aspects but overall I enjoyed the film. It has a kind of classic, low budget sense about it. I liked the premise of this film, an amnesiac in a psychiatric institution is being terrorized by a ghost that is stalking and killing the other patients, it is definitely watchable from the start to end. But on a whole this film is well directed by Carpenter. Someone else mentioned the soundtrack which plays in the opening credits, it has a haunting child-like voice. it did have another song also Run Baby Run - The Newbeats. I have seen all of Carpenters films and this was pretty good, it has a more dignified sense about it than some of his others.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaOn the audio commentary, Jared Harris asks John Carpenter why he did not compose the soundtrack. John replies "Quite frankly, I'm just too old". Carpenter would go on to compose the music for the short film The Noise (2013), and eventually returned as composer for the Halloween (2018) reboot assisted by Cody Carpenter and Daniel A. Davies.
- ErroresThe story takes place in 1966, but the ambulance is a 1968 Cadillac.
- ConexionesFeatured in Projector: John Carpenter's The Ward (2011)
- Bandas sonorasRun Baby Run (Back Into My Arms)
Written by Don Grant and Joe Melson
Performed By The Newbeats
Courtesy of Hickory Records
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is The Ward?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 10,000,000 (estimado)
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 5,343,820
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 29 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
What is the Japanese language plot outline for Presas del diablo (2010)?
Responda