John Carpenter's The Ward (2010)

The legend himself, John Carpenter, is finally back with a new flick. After a bit of a hiatus—though he probably doesn't count those episodes he did for the Masters of Horror series—following some creative burnout and that rough patch with his last movie Ghosts of Mars, Carpenter is heading right back into the horror lane where he belongs.

SYNOPSIS:

In JOHN CARPENTER'S THE WARD, Kristen, a beautiful but troubled young woman, finds herself bruised, cut, drugged, and held against her will in a remote ward of a Psychiatric Hospital. She is completely disoriented, with no idea why she was brought to this place and no memory of her life before being admitted. All she knows is that she isn't safe.

The other patients in The ward , four equally disturbed Young Women , offer no answers, and Kristen quickly realizes things are not as they seem. The air is heavy with secrets, and at night, when the hospital is dark and foreboding, she hears strange and frightening sounds. It appears they are not alone.

One-by-one The other Girls Begin to disappear and Kristen must find a way out of this hellish place before she, too, becomes a victim. As she struggles to escape, she will uncover a truth far more dangerous and horrifying than anyone could have imagined.

Helpless girls, a creepy psychiatric facility, a bad vibe hanging in the air, and secrets buried deep within the walls... honestly, it's got all the ingredients for a decent horror movie, and if he brings a little of that classic Carpenter magic, this could actually be pretty interesting...

CAST:

Amber Heard (The Informers, Pineapple Express)
Daniella Panabaker (The Crazies, Friday the 13th)
Mamie Gummer (Taking Woodstock, Stop-Loss)

The Ward (2010)

The Ward - Before The Cameras roll - just a quick bit of info about the start of production.

First Footage - the first (and only) look we've got at the footage so far.



Some unofficial fan posters. Since the movie was just wrapped up, it shouldn't be long before the official stuff starts popping up...



A few shots from the set...



Kinda official stuff, I guess.

There’s just no hope left for Carpenter ☕

Wait, wasn't his last one the one with the werewolves? Which, if you ask me, was a total disaster... so I'm definitely not holding my breath for this movie either.

I have to admit, this actually sounds decent. Carpenter is an old pro, but even legends can lose their edge sometimes.😁

Man, I really hope this hits at least 50% of the mark compared to his horror flicks from the eighties Carpenter's era. 🙂

Whether it was by design or just pure luck, those two episodes he filmed for the phenomenal Masters of Horror (especially Cigarette Burns) are easily the best things he's done since in The Mouth of Madness, and that was over 15 years ago...
I’m holding onto a little bit of hope, but...

briskhound2 said:The legend himself, John Carpenter, is finally back with a new flick. After a bit of a hiatus—though he probably doesn't count those episodes he did for the Masters of Horror series—following some creative burnout and that rough patch with his last movie Ghosts of Mars, Carpenter is heading right back into the horror lane where he belongs.

SYNOPSIS:

In JOHN CARPENTER'S THE WARD, Kristen, a beautiful but troubled young woman, finds herself bruised, cut, drugged, and held against her will in a remote ward of a Psychiatric Hospital. She is completely disoriented, with no idea why she was brought to this place and no memory of her life before being admitted. All she knows is that she isn't safe.

The other patients in The ward , four equally disturbed Young Women , offer no answers, and Kristen quickly realizes things are not as they seem. The air is heavy with secrets, and at night, when the hospital is dark and foreboding, she hears strange and frightening sounds. It appears they are not alone.

One-by-one The other Girls Begin to disappear and Kristen must find a way out of this hellish place before she, too, becomes a victim. As she struggles to escape, she will uncover a truth far more dangerous and horrifying than anyone could have imagined.

Helpless girls, a creepy psychiatric facility, a bad vibe hanging in the air, and secrets buried deep within the walls... honestly, it's got all the ingredients for a decent horror movie, and if he brings a little of that classic Carpenter magic, this could actually be pretty interesting...

CAST:

Amber Heard (The Informers, Pineapple Express)
Daniella Panabaker (The Crazies, Friday the 13th)
Mamie Gummer (Taking Woodstock, Stop-Loss)

The Ward (2010)

The Ward - Before The Cameras roll - just a quick bit of info about the start of production.

First Footage - the first (and only) look we've got at the footage so far.



Some unofficial fan posters. Since the movie was just wrapped up, it shouldn't be long before the official stuff starts popping up...



A few shots from the set...



Kinda official stuff, I guess.

Reminds me of Pro-Life..

New poster just dropped...

Two stills from the movie just dropped...

It’s going to be tough for him to recapture that magic from the eighties Carpenter's era... I don't know, the film just doesn't feel particularly promising to me.

Andrew Garcia2 said:It’s going to be tough for him to recapture that magic from the eighties Carpenter's era... I don't know, the film just doesn't feel particularly promising to me.

The eighties weren't really Carpenter's golden era; if anything, his peak was during the seventies.

I mean, aside from "The Thing" and perhaps that cool cult classic "They Live," the list of Carpenter titles from the eighties isn't exactly representative of his best work.

And don't even get me started on the nineties...

wiredbison82 said:The eighties weren't really Carpenter's golden era; if anything, his peak was during the seventies.

I mean, aside from "The Thing" and perhaps that cool cult classic "They Live," the list of Carpenter titles from the eighties isn't exactly representative of his best work.

And don't even get me started on the nineties...

Carpenter is still quite good in the nineties; he just isn't given the credit he deserves. And "They Live" is easily one of his best—it's trashy, sure, but it's that genuine, old-fashioned Marxist-flavored trash reminiscent of the late sixties. It's invaluable. 😁

During the nineties, he directed five films, and honestly, only in The Mouth of Madness does anything feel remotely coherent. Vampires is, to put it mildly, a total disaster—it doesn't even manage to pass for decent trash cinema.

I gave up on Carpenter a long time ago. That man isn't ever going to sign his name to a true masterpiece again. Not him, and frankly, not Hill, Bogdanovich, Friedkin, or Cimino either...

And at this rate, it won't be Scorsese either.☕

wiredbison82 said:During the nineties, he directed five films, and honestly, only in The Mouth of Madness does anything feel remotely coherent. Vampires is, to put it mildly, a total disaster—it doesn't even manage to pass for decent trash cinema.

I gave up on Carpenter a long time ago. That man isn't ever going to sign his name to a true masterpiece again. Not him, and frankly, not Hill, Bogdanovich, Friedkin, or Cimino either...

And at this rate, it won't be Scorsese either.☕

I would argue that "in The Mouth of Madness" is actually his weakest film of the nineties.😁

"Vampires" isn't bad at all, "Escape from L.A." is quite solid (even if it falls short of the original), and "MEMOIRS of an INVISIBLE man" is a charming and fun foray into mainstream production.

However, the standout Carpenter film of the nineties is definitely "Village of the Damned"; it truly hits the level of his best work from the eighties Carpenter's era.

wiredbison82 said:During the nineties, he directed five films, and honestly, only in The Mouth of Madness does anything feel remotely coherent. Vampires is, to put it mildly, a total disaster—it doesn't even manage to pass for decent trash cinema.

I gave up on Carpenter a long time ago. That man isn't ever going to sign his name to a true masterpiece again. Not him, and frankly, not Hill, Bogdanovich, Friedkin, or Cimino either...

And at this rate, it won't be Scorsese either.☕

The issue with Carpenter is that he is undeniably an auteur, but one who chose the populist form of the B-movie for his expression. While those tropes were part of the mainstream in the late seventies and early eighties, that concept worked perfectly. But the climate changed, and at a certain point, Carpenter essentially sank into pure B-movie territory. However, it is no longer about the same singular vision that Carpenter has remained faithful to since the very beginning.

I completely understand why his newer films are so dismissed, but that says less about Carpenter himself—who is perhaps one of the most consistent filmmakers in American cinema—and much more about how much times have changed.

I've been a die-hard Carpenter fan since the seventies; I literally grew up on movies like "Assault on Precinct 13," "Halloween," or "The Fog."

wiredbison82 said:During the nineties, he directed five films, and honestly, only in The Mouth of Madness does anything feel remotely coherent. Vampires is, to put it mildly, a total disaster—it doesn't even manage to pass for decent trash cinema.

I gave up on Carpenter a long time ago. That man isn't ever going to sign his name to a true masterpiece again. Not him, and frankly, not Hill, Bogdanovich, Friedkin, or Cimino either...

And at this rate, it won't be Scorsese either.☕

As for Carpenter, probably not in the sense that his early films were masterpieces, but I still expect good, low-profile genre films.

Regarding the others, most of them aren't particularly active anymore. Except for Scorsese, but he's a whole different conversation for another post...

To me, "Escape from L.A." is a tragic film, strictly in terms of its quality.

It isn't a problem that the marginalized subgenres which defined the golden era of Carpenter, De Palma, and Craven eventually integrated into the mainstream—becoming palatable to a broader audience while leaving their former grit at the margins.

The issue lies in the fact that Carpenter seems unable to deliver even a solid B-movie these days. There is a common misconception that the "B-movie" label serves as a free pass to disregard script logic or abandon any sense of systematic filmmaking, leading people to excuse mediocre efforts as mere genre fare.

While the cultural climate during Carpenter's peak was certainly more receptive to the specific brand of cinema he and his international peers offered, there is a painful truth we have to face: John Carpenter simply doesn't possess the same level of talent today, nor does he command a set with the same mastery he displayed during "Assault on Precinct 13" or "Halloween."

Then again, perhaps I am being overly subjective. As a massive devotee of his early work, my standards have become so high that nothing else quite measures up.🤷

P.S. I have always held a deep respect for Carpenter's unwavering consistency and his devotion to genre filmmaking.

wiredbison82 said:To me, "Escape from L.A." is a tragic film, strictly in terms of its quality.

It isn't a problem that the marginalized subgenres which defined the golden era of Carpenter, De Palma, and Craven eventually integrated into the mainstream—becoming palatable to a broader audience while leaving their former grit at the margins.

The issue lies in the fact that Carpenter seems unable to deliver even a solid B-movie these days. There is a common misconception that the "B-movie" label serves as a free pass to disregard script logic or abandon any sense of systematic filmmaking, leading people to excuse mediocre efforts as mere genre fare.

While the cultural climate during Carpenter's peak was certainly more receptive to the specific brand of cinema he and his international peers offered, there is a painful truth we have to face: John Carpenter simply doesn't possess the same level of talent today, nor does he command a set with the same mastery he displayed during "Assault on Precinct 13" or "Halloween."

Then again, perhaps I am being overly subjective. As a massive devotee of his early work, my standards have become so high that nothing else quite measures up.🤷

P.S. I have always held a deep respect for Carpenter's unwavering consistency and his devotion to genre filmmaking.

Here’s the paradox: I have to admit that I’m being subjective here, simply because I’ve always been a massive fan of his early work. 😁

wiredbison82 said:To me, "Escape from L.A." is a tragic film, strictly in terms of its quality.

It isn't a problem that the marginalized subgenres which defined the golden era of Carpenter, De Palma, and Craven eventually integrated into the mainstream—becoming palatable to a broader audience while leaving their former grit at the margins.

The issue lies in the fact that Carpenter seems unable to deliver even a solid B-movie these days. There is a common misconception that the "B-movie" label serves as a free pass to disregard script logic or abandon any sense of systematic filmmaking, leading people to excuse mediocre efforts as mere genre fare.

While the cultural climate during Carpenter's peak was certainly more receptive to the specific brand of cinema he and his international peers offered, there is a painful truth we have to face: John Carpenter simply doesn't possess the same level of talent today, nor does he command a set with the same mastery he displayed during "Assault on Precinct 13" or "Halloween."

Then again, perhaps I am being overly subjective. As a massive devotee of his early work, my standards have become so high that nothing else quite measures up.🤷

P.S. I have always held a deep respect for Carpenter's unwavering consistency and his devotion to genre filmmaking.

Me too. Compared to the original, it’s just unnecessary—it literally chews over the exact same story, motives, and scenes (just a variation on a theme), and it's honestly just a bad attempt by Russell to mimic old Clint's style. No matter how much of a Carpenter fan I am, watching this movie gives me a bit of a cringe because of how poorly it turned out. It was the exact same deal with Ghosts of Mars. The rest of his stuff is above average, ranging from just okay (The Crazies—definitely his most lifelessly directed film, even if it has some moments) to his really strong auteur works like Vampires, which brought him back to his old form.

It's not that the subgenres that were part of the golden age for Carpenter, De Palma, Craven, and the gang have become mainstream staples and thus acceptable to general audiences, while today they just rot on the fringes.

Craven is still active and relatively interesting to both fans and critics—Red Eye. The fact that the mainstream is pulling him back in is also shown by the fact that he's returning to direct the Scream series, and all the buzz around that puts him far away from the margins.

It's true that the climate during the era when Carpenter was hitting his biggest peaks was more favorable for what he and his international colleagues had to offer in terms of cinematic art, but the truth is—painful as it may be—that John Carpenter simply isn't as talented today and doesn't know how to direct like he did back in the days of Assault on Precinct 13 and Halloween.

He knows how to direct, it's just like he doesn't want to... He picks the easiest route—goes to the absolute extreme and stays there until the movie gets dangerously close to being unwatchable.

wiredbison82 said:During the nineties, he directed five films, and honestly, only in The Mouth of Madness does anything feel remotely coherent. Vampires is, to put it mildly, a total disaster—it doesn't even manage to pass for decent trash cinema.

I gave up on Carpenter a long time ago. That man isn't ever going to sign his name to a true masterpiece again. Not him, and frankly, not Hill, Bogdanovich, Friedkin, or Cimino either...

And at this rate, it won't be Scorsese either.☕

Cut the nonsense... Vampires is a great movie! In an era dominated by the romanticized Dracula (Coppola) and Blade, where vampires basically end up looking like little clay pigeons, Vampires stands out as a pure-blooded vampire flick. The only thing I can say about this movie is:

👍👍👍👍👍

I just watched the trailer for The Ward. It looks interesting. I think there is potential here for a solid Carpenter Flick. The atmosphere seems right. It’s about a girl in a Psychiatric Hospital dealing with some very strange situations. The other patients in The ward , four equally disturbed Young Women , offer no answers. One-by-one The other Girls Begin to disappear and Kristen is left to figure out what is actually happening. It reminds me a bit of some of his older work. I am curious to see how they handle the tension. We will have to wait for the full release to see if it holds up.

amberwalker4 said:Cut the nonsense... Vampires is a great movie! In an era dominated by the romanticized Dracula (Coppola) and Blade, where vampires basically end up looking like little clay pigeons, Vampires stands out as a pure-blooded vampire flick. The only thing I can say about this movie is:

👍👍👍👍👍

I just watched the trailer for The Ward. It looks interesting. I think there is potential here for a solid Carpenter Flick. The atmosphere seems right. It’s about a girl in a Psychiatric Hospital dealing with some very strange situations. The other patients in The ward , four equally disturbed Young Women , offer no answers. One-by-one The other Girls Begin to disappear and Kristen is left to figure out what is actually happening. It reminds me a bit of some of his older work. I am curious to see how they handle the tension. We will have to wait for the full release to see if it holds up.

It seems you're the type who thinks the godfather trilogy "isn't all that"... which probably explains why you find Carpenter's Vampires to be such a standout.😁

wiredbison82 said:It seems you're the type who thinks the godfather trilogy "isn't all that"... which probably explains why you find Carpenter's Vampires to be such a standout.😁

Look, if you like the godfather trilogy so much, just go buy the DVD and watch it all night long. Keep your personal preferences to yourself. Why does it matter if I don't care for the godfather trilogy? Does that make me stupid? Does it mean I have no idea about movies? Am I supposed to stay out of every single film discussion just because the godfather trilogy isn't my everything? Seriously. 🙄Honestly, film "experts" like you are the absolute worst. 😠