The Ward (2010) User Reviews

Nicely done

[lisakeenan72 · 6/10 · 6 July 2011]

Nicely shot, if slightly claustrophobic, thriller set in the 60's, that was better than I expected.

After a young woman is found setting fire to an abandoned house she is taken to the local asylum. There she meets 5 other young women, all patients because of various mental 'illnesses'.

What follows is a ghost story which, at times, had me quite spooked.It seems that the girls have upset someone who is unwilling to forgive them. Various escape attempts, therapy sessions and red herrings follow. OK, it's no classic, but it had a genuinely interesting story that kept me hooked until the end.

Well worth a watch

Cloning Carpenter

[murnank · 6/10 · 22 January 2011]

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.

directing from another era

[nuclear_division · 7/10 · 16 June 2011]

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.

Not terrible, but you've seen it all before

[Wizard-8 · 4 October 2011]

Returning to the director's chair after a ten year absence, you might think that during all that time, director John Carpenter would have gone through a lot of proposed projects and picked the best one of all for a comeback. I have absolutely no idea why Carpenter picked "The Ward" for his comeback. It isn't a terrible movie - for a somewhat low budget movie, it looks fairly professional, and it isn't boring at any moment. But throughout the movie, I kept telling myself, "You've seen this all before." This includes the "surprise" twist towards the end the movie - most likely you'll have some idea of what will be revealed before it actually happens. And when you think about the twist after the movie has ended, you will realize that some other parts of the movie don't make much sense with the knowledge of this twist. The confusing twist, along with the unsurprising makeup of the rest of the movie probably explain why this movie didn't get a theatrical release in North America.

Hasn't all this been done before...many times?

[bmrao1980 · 3/10 · 31 May 2011]

I saw this movie because I came across the reviews of some raving fan-boys calling this one a return to form for Carpenter. Frankly, that would not have been enough, but then it had Amber Heard and Lindsay Fonseca in it. So I went.

It started slow and steady and I thought that was a good thing because then the tension would gradually mount towards the end and that the filmmaker is taking his time to get to an awesome climax. But the pace never picked up. In fact, when the big reveal happened, I groaned along with many others present with me. **SPOILER** Multiple-personality disorder? That's it? Seriously? **SPOILER** There are a lot of things going against the movie. One, the acting is bland at best. Second, all the patients are too cute and too SANE to be in a special ward. It was like watching Sucker Punch with 60s clothing and no action. The premise of the movie was also too similar to Sucker Punch except, compared to this, SP did it better and had a lot of skin and action to boot, IMHO. Third, there was no sense of urgency or suspense. All characters had resigned themselves to their fate, so what is the point in fighting. **SPOILER** All except Heard's character, who is at a loss as to why she is being targeted by the ghost. We the audience are left wondering the same even after the movie ends. Why did Alice create the new personality in the first place? **SPOILER** Fourth, for movies with such kind of a reveal, the events leading up to it should feel realistic. Here it did not feel that way at all.

To sum up, the movie is Shutter Island, Identity (which used the multiple-personality disorder more effectively than this one) and Sucker Punch, all mixed together and then diluted to nothing but jump shots of Alice's ghost.

Hardly scary and hardly original.

Not quite the return to form John Carpenter fans are hoping for

[Woodyanders · 6/10 · 25 July 2013]

1966. Troubled young Kristen (a solid and sympathetic performance by the gorgeous Amber Heard) gets sent to the North Bend Psychiatric Hospital, where she winds up being terrorized by the angry ghost of a patient who vanished under mysterious circumstances. Veteran horror director John Carpenter begins the movie well, with a steady pace, a good deal of spooky atmosphere, and a vivid sense of the claustrophobic location. Alas, the rot-faced ghost just isn't scary, the tension eventually dissipates, the generic jump-out-at-you jolts don't pack the jarring punch that they should, and the unfortunate inevitable resorting to explicit gore smacks of desperation. While Carpenter's work is certainly competent and the visuals are stylish, one simply doesn't get the feeling that it's a true Carpenter movie because of his journeyman-like approach to the lackluster script by Michael and Shawn Rasmussen. Speaking of said screenplay, the flimsy plot doesn't possess the necessary substance to be effectively sustained by a feature length and the lamely obvious "it's all just in her head" twist ending comes across as both trite and predictable. Fortunately, the sound acting by the sturdy cast keeps the film watchable: Mamie Gummer as the mean Emily, Danielle Panabaker as the brash and abrasive Sarah, Laura-Leigh as the fragile and timid Zoey, Lyndsy Fonseca as the sweet Iris, Mika Boorem as the malevolent Alice, and Jared Harris as sincere psychiatrist Dr. Gerald Stringer. Yaron Orbach's glossy widescreen cinematography provides a sumptuous look. Mark Kilian's moody score does the pulsating ooga-booga trick. Not half bad, but one expects something much better from someone of Carpenter's sterling reputation.

Looks like a ghost story; is a psychological drama.

[suite92 · 5/10 · 22 November 2013]

After burning down a farmhouse in 1966, Kristen is institutionalised at North Bend Psychiatric Hospital. She gets to know Emily, Sarah, Zoey, and Iris. A few days in, she gets attacked by a rotting corpse. At least that is what she sees.

They give her electroshock therapy to 'just fry the crazy out of her.'

Iris seems to be doing well, but she disappears from Dr Stringer's office.

Kristen organises an escape, but it does not succeed.

Sarah thinks she's doing well, then she disappears. After this, Kristen gets Emily and Zoey to tell her about Alice, and how they killed her some time back. That more or less explains the ghost.

Will either of Zoey or Kristen make it out alive?

------Scores-------

Cinematography: 10/10 Excellent.

Sound: 10/10 Fine.

Acting: 5/10 Jared Harris was well cast. Mamie Gummer sure needs to get a day job; she was horrible. Laura Leigh was in-character timid, but that did not show much acting. Danielle Panabaker was fairly convincing as a manipulative young person. Amber Heard was fairly good.

Screenplay: 5/10 Why did Kristen land in the hospital in the first place? There was not much exposition of that until the very end. How does a 100 pound anti-athletic female physically overpower older, taller, and much, much stronger staff who are trained to put down inmates? Answer: she does not. Of course, that is more or less explained at the end, and the end really was off-putting.

Old school thriller

[georgi_lindsey · 7/10 · 4 April 2013]

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.

A Step Back-Ward

[andyprendy1 · 2/10 · 30 May 2011]

Oh dear, I rented this film with high hopes of a return to form from John Carpenter - the director who brought us Halloween (the 1978 version not the turgid Rob Zombie re-hash) and The Thing (1980). Unfortunately, whilst being nowhere near as excruciating as 2001's Ghosts of Mars and the frankly ridiculous bilge that was Escape From LA, his latest offering 'The Ward' still falls considerably short of the benchmark of his earlier films. The film borrows heavily from other genre thrillers such as Shutter Island and Identity whilst failing to capture the creepy, dread-laden atmosphere that made these films a relative success at the box office. At times 'The Ward' is reminiscent of an unusually long live-action episode of Scooby Doo (albeit one with a little more blood, no dog and less snacks.....) The acting and script leave a lot to be desired and there is an over-reliance on cheap 'jump' scares in place of genuine frights. For some reason the film appears to have been released in the UK way before it's debut in American theatres which makes me wonder if the producer is struggling to find a distributor on it's home turf.

Better luck next time Mr Carpenter.

Enjoyable enough, but not a Carpenter masterpiece.

[Chickensmoke · 6/10 · 21 January 2011]

As a big fan of horror and also of John Carpenter, I was very much looking forward to 'The Ward'. The first half of the film is a typical set up for a creepy 'ghost in the hospital' film, but is made less enjoyable by all the mental hospital clichés. There's the stubborn old nurse (always with her pills and syringe), the electric shock treatment and multiple lines like "I'm not crazy" (which, of course, nobody believes). It's nothing we haven't seen before. Also, the trouble with having a slow first half is that the second half seems to address the failure to create any real tension or mystery and therefore turns to more action-filled slasher territory. This is when the film became more enjoyable. It feels like Carpenter has returned to the big screen with some fun traditional horror, as characters sneak through air vents, get murdered one by one in brutal (yet still too mild for real gore hounds) and creative ways and the story of the ghost is finally revealed. On top of that, the ghost is incredibly creepy and remains frightening throughout the whole film. Some scenes are very tense, the film is filled with 'jump!' moments and many shots of that darkened corridor (with rain, thunder and lightning outside too, obviously). The acting is okay, the score is fairly creepy (though it's no 'Halloween') and the script's only big let down is it's desperate twist ending, which is more silly than it is clever. However, it all adds up to make a neat little horror flick that isn't perfect -nor the scariest or most imaginative film ever- but is a nice change from the ton of remakes that are spilling into our cinemas at the moment. Overall, an average horror film, but enjoyable none the less. Don't take it too seriously, don't expect to be petrified or vomit at the gore, but expect an entertaining bit of easy old-school horror from a master of the genre.

Big Disappointment

[stickman4242 · 3/10 · 8 June 2011]

This movie was a big disappointment, was hoping for it to be so much more, and it was just a remake of "Identity" anyone who has seen that movie, this is a spoiler, if you haven't, watch that one, the actors and direction are much better. Upsides on this one, its a fairly clean horror flick, no nudity, and mild on the bad language, the death scenes are not overly bloody or graphic, this is more geared to scaring young teens than adults. The Acting is also more on par for a teen horror flick than an adult thriller, which makes the R Rating a little out of place, 10 more minutes in the editing room, and this could have been pg-13 easily, even as it stands, I don't know that I would have given it an R. Final thoughts, this movie is just a less than moderately done remake of Identity, cheep scares, and minor thrills, with a predictable ending.

Should have a higher rating..

[skullhead739 · 8/10 · 9 August 2020]

Why this has a poor average review i have no clue. Keep reading to find out why this is actually way better than its rating.

Acting: The cast and performances are great. Amber heard does awesome in her role, is easy to root for and has a fun leadership charisma to her. All the other girls are different and unique in their own way. The doctor is very mysterious and you can't tell whether he's a good guy or not.

Story: I have no clue why people are saying "this story has been done before". Well ive never seen it before and even if I did I couldnt imagine a similar plot better done than this. The story is interesting, mysterious and has a good cast to keep you intrigued. There is a tense nature to it and you feel like the clock is ticking the whole time not knowing when "the ghost" will strike next. Its mysterious and exciting the whole time, the jump scares and ghost is actually really creepy. The end was really awesome and something I didn't see coming. The lasting impression of the film is still very much haunting with the children singing in the credits.

Summary: A absolutely great and underrated film. Dont believe the other reviewers, i thoroughly enjoyed this and would highly reccomend it.

Carpenter's Comeback

[usherontheaisle · 7/10 · 20 September 2010]

Yet another summing up project from Master of Horror John Carpenter. This time he's revisiting the hospital killing ground of Halloween 2, without the much missed Donald Pleasence to anchor the story. Confidently directed by Carpenter, after nearly a decade away from feature films, and well-acted by its young cast, the film is nevertheless most enjoyable for its small pleasures, especially the use of 1966 as a period setting. The cruder approach to psychology during this era infects the film at every level, from the memorable credits sequence, to the primitive yet threatening art direction of the mental ward where most of the action takes place. Keeping the gore up to his usual standards, and employing his standard bag of "cheap tricks" to make the audience jump, Carpenter delivers an efficient slasher film whose unpretentious approach to its core issues of sanity vs. insanity prove much more satisfying than the dead end resolution of the recently similar mental hospital thriller, SHUTTER ISLAND.

A tired format has been done better

[perkypops · 5/10 · 22 March 2012]

There has been a lot of "mental health" stuff in the cinema recently, and in almost all cases the storyline has played a trick on the audience in the manner of the brilliant "Sixth Sense". There is history in this too with the Three Faces of Eve standing out as the way to entertain, enlighten and educate film goers.

Although "The Ward" is reasonably well done it just isn't disturbing enough at the personality level to convince. Perhaps that is down to the acting but I would question a screenplay which is more about shocks than about insight. Yes there are signposts along the way just as there were in the Sixth Sense, but they are not as carefully constructed nor as lovingly lingered with as they could and should have been. It seemed to me director Carpenter wasn't too convinced of the robustness of the story told in a different, more true to life, way and instead took the route most likely to shock people with it's "twisted" end.

Most of all I felt this film lacked claustrophobia, the shackles and chains that surround mentally disturbed people both in their minds and in the places where they are secured.

There was a lot of wasted talent here and that is a great shame.

JC did not develop anything new in decades...

[usommer64 · 5/10 · 21 February 2012]

...but the main disappointment for me in the film was Amber Heard, who is such a hard-working, hard-trying young actress but she does not get anywhere. She staggers through this movie with no clue what to add to her role. I don't know, maybe she needs more directing. I still love her in "All the boys love Many Lane". Watch her peers like Kirstin Steward (only not as a vampire bride) or Jennifer Lawrence who have such a band-with of expression. What a difference. She seems much to aware of her looks. Maybe she should try the Charlize Theron thing and play someone really ugly and horrible. Everything that is left of her skills after that is worth pursuing.

Mr. Carpenter still knows how to pull of a few scares but this is it. While having to admit that the idea of showing the fight of a patient against his multiple personalities - from the viewpoint of one of the multiple personalities is somewhat original, the execution is laughably basic, uninspired and old-schoolish. I bet the slasher DID get laughs on the big screen.

Not superb, but enjoyable and a genuine return to form.

[ldoig · 7/10 · 21 January 2011]

Probably like many who grew up with Halloween, The Fog, The Thing, Starman etc there has been a real sad sense of "What happened to John Carpenter?" considering the horrors (bad pun) of later films.

I'm glad to say while this isn't perfect, perhaps the 1st act is too long, this was really enjoyable and was much more reminiscent of early days. It's nice to leave the cinema with the feeling you've not been ripped off and genuinely entertained in that wonderful B-movie way. Without risking spoilers, while it may seem to some clichéd, and yes the ending is fairly predictable, in some ways I'm not so sure; there's a cleverness present that meant the twist was far more satisfying than the excruciatingly predictable Shutter Island. It also meant the very last shot was not as "silly" as some feel.

Considering the generally poor quality of many horror films these days, there's an opportunity for Carpenter to really make a resurgence, which for those of us remembering his golden period can hardly be a bad thing.

Is it as bad as everyone makes out?...

[ajs-10 · 5/10 · 9 January 2012]

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).

Mediocre film from an otherwise great director

[EitoMan · 6/10 · 5 October 2011]

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.

Not very original.

[virindra · 5/10 · 28 May 2012]

I rent this movie and I did not know what to expect. I heard that this movie should be a movie with a complex story and a twist somewhere in the movie. Yes it was, but not very original. The whole idea was based on the movie Identity (2003) and Shutter Island (2010). Because it looked like a mixture of these movies, it wasn't very hard to figure out what is was all about.

Acting wasn't very good. The movie was exciting from time to time. The ending... please come on. What was the ending all about? Open endings like Species (1995) were great in the nineties. Nowadays endings like this are not very original or exciting.

I like to watch movies that aren't very popular, sometimes there is one movie that can really amaze you. The Ward is just a thirteen in a dozen.

Bad Things Happen in the Dark

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 21 July 2011]

In 1966, in North Bend, Oregon, the runaway Kristen (Amber Heard) is captured by the police after burning down a farmhouse and is locked in the North Bend Psychiatric Hospital. Kristen is introduced to Dr. Gerald Stringer (Jared Harris), who uses experimental therapy. Then she meets the inmates Emily (Mamie Gummer), Sarah (Danielle Panabaker), Zoey (Laura-Leigh) and Iris (Lyndsy Fonseca) and the tough nurse Lundt (Susanna Burney). During the night and in the shower later, Kristen sees the ghost of a woman and she learns that she is Alice Leigh Hudson (Jillian Kramer), a mysterious wicked intern that has disappeared.

When Iris is ready to go home, she is attacked by the ghost of Alice in the basement and murdered. She vanishes and the inmates decide to seek Iris out. Then Sarah is abducted by the Alice and also killed; the next one is Emily. Meanwhile Kristen escapes from her room and meets Zoey, expecting to protect her. However, Zoey is kidnapped by Alice and Kristen runs to Dr. Stringer's office. She snoops his desk and finds a report with the truth about Alice.

I am a big fan of John Carpenter and "The Ward" is a good film that uses the idea of "Identity" in a mysterious story. This is not his best film, but it is entertaining. I did not guess what was happening until the very end and I liked the idea of multiple personalities of a traumatized teenager. I was startled by the last scene and then I laughed a lot. John Carpenter is still the master of horror. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Aterrorizada" ("Terrorized")

Note: On 16 Aug 2020, I saw this film again.

The good, the bad and the generic.

[Fenris Fil · 4/10 · 17 June 2011]

John Carpenters return to directing a feature length movie after such a long break is, to be honest a little disappointing. It's still relatively good, but after he made such strong steps back towards the genre with his two "Masters of Horror" episodes I can't help but feel this is a step backwards.

Of course you have to consider that his involvement with this is solely as director. He didn't write the script or the score and isn't listed as a producer. The writers themselves aren't greatly experienced having penned only one previous horror film (at least only one that made it to production anyway) so it's not a huge surprise that we see a good number of clichés. The basic story itself isn't the most original either (I could name at least one other well known film with almost the same premise).

Now the directing itself is as solid as you'd expect from the horror veteran and I think I can safely say that he's raised the quality of the film considerably with his involvement. Mark Kilian has also provided a fairly solid score and made a good attempt to make it sound like a Carpenter one. We also get a strong performance from Amber Heard in the lead role. Overall it is quite a mixed bag, with a good number of quality moments. Unfortunately these don't last quite long enough and you quickly find yourself dragged back down to the level of an early 80s slasher flick.

what a let down

[Ryan_allsop60 · 4 June 2011]

I looked forward to watching John Carpenter come back and win his title of the horror movie Mystro that he was some time ago i.e The FOG, They Live and Halloween..But good god this movie plays out like a cheaper version of Shutter Island but with good looking girls and a terrible looking Supernatural Killer. The setting being 1960 dose not suit the plot or Amber Heard dose not convince that she is from that era, the dialogue is something from a Uwe Boll film. I'm sorry for being so negative towards this but as i said i had such high hopes. Its no wonder it went straight to DVD if anyone had wasted there time and money going to see this crap at a theater they wouldn't have walked out but RAN.

I enjoyed it

[Award0120 · 8/10 · 31 August 2021]

This was a good movie. Definitely worth watching if you like thrillers. No, its not Halloween and it isnt an infamous classic as that, few movies are. But it was still really well done, the acting was great and the story was interesting and keeps your attention.

Good movie with a pretty good ending that helps save the flaws

[boondocksaint20 · 7/10 · 30 June 2012]

The Good: The movie is well acted by all. All of the actors did a great and realistic job of conveying the situation of being locked up in a 'new age', yet old-school insane asylum. The twist at the end helped tremendously. Though it wasn't entirely inspired by originality, it justified the past 100 minute viewing experience with a pretty good 'Gotcha' ending. Pretty good mind you, not great.

The Bad: Thought there are a few effective shock moments, the suspense or feeling of dread just isn't there. The competency of the story and actors are all there, but I'm sorry, the movie just isn't scary. Even the main 'villain' doesn't come close to mustering internal fear like they should. The direction, acting and script were all very good, but the execution of fear and horror were just not there.

Overall, a pretty good movie. John Carpenter still isn't what he was back in the late 70's or early 80's, but this was a nice entry into his portfolio (hopefully, Comeback). The ending does save this movie for the most part as it adds an interesting way of looking at everything that just unfolded. However, as a 'Master of Horror', this movie just doesn't deliver enough of the goods for it to be a classic, or be worthy of the person whose name precedes the title.

I give it 7 stars. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

The Ward: The bored

[helaumur · 1/10 · 22 January 2011]

Predictable, slow, open ended, the patients look more like models, when the ending is revealed it makes no sense. I would have preferred electro shock therapy instead of this nonsense. I love Carpenter, The Fog, Halloween, Big Trouble In Little China, This was Shutter Island but with girls and as bad, just the worse load of tripe, so slow and predictable, should be called The Bored not The Ward.

There is no correlation with the cut aways to the actual goings on, the script is stretched out to make the film go over two hours, if you've seen Identity, its pretty much the same film but with terrible acting and too much lippy.