230 reviews
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
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
- lisakeenan72
- Jul 5, 2011
- Permalink
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.
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.
- nuclear_division
- Jun 15, 2011
- Permalink
- Woodyanders
- Jul 24, 2013
- Permalink
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.
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.
- georgi_lindsey
- Apr 3, 2013
- Permalink
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.
Better luck next time Mr Carpenter.
- andyprendy1
- May 29, 2011
- Permalink
- Chickensmoke
- Jan 20, 2011
- Permalink
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.
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.
- skullhead739
- Aug 8, 2020
- Permalink
Kristen is taken into a ward for those with mental illness, she's desperate to escape, but she's haunted by a ghostly figure.
Horror fans will of course be drawn to the name John Carpenter, but if it's horror you're after, you'll be pretty disappointed, if class The Ward as more of a psychological thriller, more towards Shutter Island than Halloween.
It's a little disappointing, Carpenter is a fantastic Director, but something about this film is a little off, maybe it's the pacing, or maybe it's the lack of out and out scares, it never really sparks into life.
It definitely has some degree of atmosphere, and the ideas are pretty good, the final revelation did come as a surprise to me.
Jared Harris is pretty good as The Doctor, and I'd rate this as one of my favourite performances of Amber Heard, she manages to make Kristen interesting.
It's not a bad film, I'd just hoped for so much more.
6/10.
Horror fans will of course be drawn to the name John Carpenter, but if it's horror you're after, you'll be pretty disappointed, if class The Ward as more of a psychological thriller, more towards Shutter Island than Halloween.
It's a little disappointing, Carpenter is a fantastic Director, but something about this film is a little off, maybe it's the pacing, or maybe it's the lack of out and out scares, it never really sparks into life.
It definitely has some degree of atmosphere, and the ideas are pretty good, the final revelation did come as a surprise to me.
Jared Harris is pretty good as The Doctor, and I'd rate this as one of my favourite performances of Amber Heard, she manages to make Kristen interesting.
It's not a bad film, I'd just hoped for so much more.
6/10.
- Sleepin_Dragon
- May 30, 2023
- Permalink
- stickman4242
- Jun 7, 2011
- Permalink
"The Ward" was assertively unembellished. The reasoning behind the story is very far-fetched, once explained, in the last few minutes of the third act.
And the ghost? Well, it looked nothing like anyone would expect a ghost to look, even if it had the capabilities and strength to manifest itself over and over again. It looked more like the creature from the black lagoon ... all wet and slimy. NEWSFLASH: Ghosts aren't wet and slimy and fully formed without a smidgen of transparency to their corpse-like bodies.
The actresses? Well, Amber Heard looked like a stick figure here. I don't know what kind of diet she was on, but it must have been closely related to the one Christian Bale partook in for his role in "The Machinist." She looked terribly sick and gaunt. She definitely needed a sandwich or two. However, the always-strikingly gorgeous Danielle Panabaker made up for it.
I think John Carpenter was phoning it in on this one. You can give "The Ward" a wide pass and you won't be missing anything important or noteworthy.
One star + and extra one specifically for Danielle.
And the ghost? Well, it looked nothing like anyone would expect a ghost to look, even if it had the capabilities and strength to manifest itself over and over again. It looked more like the creature from the black lagoon ... all wet and slimy. NEWSFLASH: Ghosts aren't wet and slimy and fully formed without a smidgen of transparency to their corpse-like bodies.
The actresses? Well, Amber Heard looked like a stick figure here. I don't know what kind of diet she was on, but it must have been closely related to the one Christian Bale partook in for his role in "The Machinist." She looked terribly sick and gaunt. She definitely needed a sandwich or two. However, the always-strikingly gorgeous Danielle Panabaker made up for it.
I think John Carpenter was phoning it in on this one. You can give "The Ward" a wide pass and you won't be missing anything important or noteworthy.
One star + and extra one specifically for Danielle.
- troytheisen
- Feb 9, 2022
- Permalink
I love Carpenters voice but this movie is hollow in many aspects. Amber Heard is a terrible actress and way too pretty in every scene to be taken seriously. Perfect make-up and never a real sense of being a real person. Specially not a person in a mental hospital.
The horror is very very mild and there is no drive in the story.
I wish John got paid well for this sad movie.
The horror is very very mild and there is no drive in the story.
I wish John got paid well for this sad movie.
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.
- usherontheaisle
- Sep 19, 2010
- Permalink
- stephanie-06
- Jun 1, 2013
- Permalink
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.
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.
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.
- Fenris Fil
- Jun 16, 2011
- Permalink
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.
- Ryan_allsop60
- Jun 3, 2011
- Permalink
I just finished this movie right now and I must say... This is another fantastic job done by John Carpenter. This movie was very interesting and entertaining at the same time which I don't find much. This is a movie that you really have to pay a lot of attention while watching to understand the full story. I thought I knew what was coming in the movie but after a while I realized I had no idea whatsoever which I also enjoyed. This wasn't exactly scary but it was very good nonetheless. I would recommend watching this but you need to pay attention. I did like this movie and would possibly purchase it. I give The Ward a 8 out of 10.
~Joe
~Joe
- XxBabyKillerxX
- Jul 25, 2012
- Permalink
- claudio_carvalho
- Jul 20, 2011
- Permalink
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).