New on DVD Jul 08 2008 @ 08:10 am
REVIEW: The Ruins
Directed By: Carter Smith
Written By: Scott Smith
Starring: Jonathan Tucker, Jena Malone, Shawn Ashmore, Laura Ramsey, Joe Anderson
Running Time: 91 minutes
Rated R strong violence and gruesome images, language, some sexuality and nudity
This review was originally published April 8th, 2008.
If the cynics in Hollywood can market Shutter using its executive producers (“From the executive producers of The Ring and The Grudge!” as the poster so eagerly tells us), then it only seems fair that I should be allowed to tell you that The Ruins was executive produced by Ben Stiller. Yes, that Ben Stiller. I’m kind of spoiling the ending here, since you don’t find this out until the final credits roll, but don’t worry—this isn’t quite the funniest part of the film. Thanks to pedestrian script writing, inept directing and some of the worst acting I’ve ever seen, it’s actually quite a challenge to pick the funniest part of The Ruins. But I should at least try.
The Ruins is the film adaptation of the horror novel of the same name by Scott Smith, who adapted his own book, making The Ruins both his second novel and his second screenplay. His first of each was A Simple Plan, which he published as a book in 1993 and adapted into a screenplay for Sam Raimi in 1998. This is all news to me, since I just learned it all from that veritable font of wisdom, Wikipedia—but here’s the real surprise: his script for A Simple Plan actually got nominated for an Academy Award. The upshot is, apparently, that Smith has, in a short decade, gone from being a respected writer to being a purveyor of cheaply made exploitation horror. Now, to be fair: for all I know, the novel version of The Ruins could be fantastic (Stephen King reportedly called it “The best horror novel of the new century”), but if this is the case, then it’s all the more shameful that the movie is so bad.
Jonathan Tucker gets upstaged by a plant
Okay, now I know you’re clamoring to find out just how bad it is. Well, here’s the only thing you really need to know: about ten minutes in, Laura Ramsey (whose film debut was in that celebrated classic, The Real Cancun) gets naked. Why? Who knows? The filmmakers apparently thought it was important that the audience saw her changing clothes, instead of using the screen time to, you know, establish the characters a little bit. And quite honestly, these brief, early scenes are really the closest thing we get to character development in this film. It opens with our four heroes (laughably played by Ramey, Jonathan Tucker, Jena Malone, and Shawn Ashmore) on spring break on the Yucatan peninsula (for some reason, horror films always have to open with disgusting displays of American excess—cf. the suburbia of A Nightmare on Elm Street), and fifteen minutes later they’re all off to discover Scary Things and get mutilated for your viewing pleasure. We know that they’re college students; about halfway through the filmmakers decide (on a whim, I’m sure) that one of them is pre-med; this is about all we ever learn about them. Now ask me if I care whether they live or die. A film that treats its characters like piles of meat (in every possible sense—if you follow me) hardly makes for compelling viewing. (A rule of thumb: gore suggests the filmmakers lack faith in their movie’s substance; nudity proves it.)
I’d clue you in more as to what the story is, but the only real pleasure of the film is watching the horror slowly reveal itself. Smith’s come up with quite a frightening creature here, but I doubt I would have felt the same way if I had known what was coming—which explains why the trailer is so misleading. If you’ve seen it, you might think that The Ruins is something of an action-packed horror epic; you should be warned, though, that it’s really quite a slow, brutal, claustrophobic death march. This is the sort of film you’ll want to see if you think emergency surgery with a hunting knife sounds like a good time.
And...cue the scary thing.
That said, the overall badness of The Ruins takes much of its edge off. I, for one, had enough fun laughing at the characters (who, inexplicably, switch at breakneck pace between making flip, sarcastic comments, starting unnecessary cat fights, and mumbling doomy things while they mutilate themselves—apparently whatever the filmmakers thought would add to the terrifying-ness) that I couldn’t really take much of it seriously. If you’re a fan of painfully bad horror movies (litmus test: Did you enjoy The Last Slumber Party?), you might eat this stuff up. Otherwise, the best thing you can really say about The Ruins is that it’s slightly better than Shutter. Slightly.
(If you really need a horror fix, though, please—please, in the name of all that is good and holy—skip over both of them and go see Diary of the Dead.)
on Apr 08 2008 @ 3:34 pm 1. Evan Derrick said …
That’s too bad. I was kind of looking forward to this one on DVD.
How does it compare to The Descent, which I considered one of the top 10 best horror films of the last decade?
on Apr 08 2008 @ 4:17 pm 2. Phillip Johnston said …
Ooh, good to see more love for The Descent. There was a trailer for this that came out a long time ago … almost a year. It is the worst movie trailer I’ve ever seen. I wish I could find it…
on Apr 08 2008 @ 4:41 pm 3. Luke Harrington said …
To be honest, I still haven’t seen The Descent…shameful I know, given that I pretend to be a horror fan and all. Oh well. Is anyone reading this who’s seen both?
on Apr 09 2008 @ 9:56 am 4. Fox said …
Good review!
I too had to find cheap pleasures to keep my interest up. Besides the lovely looking Laura Ramsay, I found the Doogie Howser via Jonathan Tucker storyline humorous. Sure, he was in med school, but he was rockin’ it like he was the professor on Gilligan’s Island.
on Jun 07 2008 @ 2:38 am 5. Thadd Harrington said …
Well, you asked if anyone was reading this who has seen both this and The Descent, that’s not me, but I did cancel on plans to go see both. Instead of seeing The Descent I saw Pulse (worst mistake of my life) and insted of seeing this I rented some stupid movies with some friends (don’t remember how that turned out).
on Jun 29 2008 @ 12:38 am 6. Mike Dub said …
This is one of the worst if not the worst movie in history. It’s right up there with battlefield earth, and alien Vs Predator. I might as well have smoked 2000 packs of cigs in the time i watched this movie, because it would have, one been better for me, and two, taken less years off my life. Last note, Mr. Stiller this is so bad i should get to bang your hot ass wife for this horrific prostitution of your money. Halla!
on Jun 29 2008 @ 8:53 am 7. Evan Derrick said …
So Mike…tell us how you really feel?
on Jul 08 2008 @ 12:29 pm 8. christian said …
And wasn’t this book a best-seller? My friend said it was utterly terrible as a book.
on Jul 08 2008 @ 12:35 pm 9. Luke Harrington said …
As with movies, quality and financial success don’t always go hand-in-hand in the book market…
on Jul 09 2008 @ 3:49 pm 10. Fox said …
Dude, that is friggin hilarious that you mention the Stiller producing credit at the beginning of this review. When I was in the theater, and that hit the screen, I paused for a long 10 seconds to think if there were any other Ben Stiller’s out there.
I agree with your star rating, but I would probably go a little easier on it since I think Jena Malone is cute. In fact, I maybe could give it a passable-as-an-okay-b-movie nudge up to 2 1/2 stars.
P.S. I second your endorsement on *Diary of the Dead*. Can’t wait to watch that again.
on Jul 09 2008 @ 9:01 pm 11. Luke Harrington said …
Yeah, I had a similar experience. I actually laughed out loud when the movie ended and that title came up on the screen. But then again, I had been laughing at a lot of the movie…
on Jul 09 2008 @ 11:02 pm 12. Nathan said …
This is one that’s on my list just waiting for me to pop it in (this may actually be in an envelope at my house right now).. and although I didn’t have high hopes for this movie, I figured I’d give it a shot. Becoming a somewhat regular reader of moviezeal seems to be constantly reminding me that I have all the wrong movies in my Blockbuster queue.
I really enjoyed The Descent as well — it’s one of those movies I stayed up late to watch by myself, in the dark, thoroughly giving myself the heebies.
Didn’t I read The Descent’s “alternate” ending on the DVD was the real ending for the UK? That one was *much* better.
on Jul 10 2008 @ 12:07 am 13. Nik said …
I didn’t think it was that bad.
When you go to see a movie like this, you have to expect cheese, just like you expect a movie like Alien vs. Predator to be a shit festival.
We all know the character development is going to suck (have there ever been horror movies that excelled at this?), the women are going to be hot, and the guys are going to be douchebags.
And cheesy movie or not, I don’t think you were actually keeping a straight face while pretending a nude Laura Ramsey detracts from the cinematic experience. When Naomi Watts fingers herself and has multiple lesbian scenes in Mullholland Drive, it’s somehow artistic, but when a hot girl in a horror movie shows her breasts it’s an affront to viewers? If this was a message board I’d give ya 10/10 for trolling, Luke!
on Jul 10 2008 @ 7:42 am 14. Luke Harrington said …
Touche Nik, although you seem to have missed the point I was making with my allusion to Ramsey’s nude scene. I’m going to direct you to the last sentence of my third paragraph:
In other words, I’m not saying that the nude sequence detracts from the film, so much as it merely provides evidence of the movie’s overall badness. Simply put, if Stiller et. al. had simply made a good film, they wouldn’t have had to strip Ramsey naked to sell tickets.
I could probably name a number of films where a nude scene is intrinsic to the film’s artistic integrity, but this was a scene that was completetly gratuitous — essentially the producers all saying to the audience, “Okay, we know what you all came to see!” So at least it was honest, but that doesn’t make the movie any better.
As for horror movies that excel at character development, I’m going to direct you to a couple of films titled Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist. Oh, and as for Mullholland Drive…I still haven’t gotten around to seeing that one. (Yeah, yeah, I know…I suck as a film buff.)
on Jul 10 2008 @ 8:11 am 15. Evan Derrick said …
Nathan, The Descent really is fantastic, isn’t it? I’d consider it one of the best horror films of the last decade. And yes, the original ending was much better, much more in keeping with the tone of the film. The whole wake-up-in-your-car-it-was-just-a-nightmare ending has been cliched ever since Friday the 13th pulled it eons ago.
on Jul 10 2008 @ 9:57 am 16. Maurice said …
Scorsese made what is, to me, the greatest statement about movies ever. I put it right up there with “Let my people go”, “Soylent Green is people” and “Would you like the super-uber popcorn tub? It’s only a quarter more.” The latter statement is more of an indictment against the over organization of my movie-goer experience than it is a proclamation about my expanding waistline. Regardless, Martin made this statement and I have debated it in many forums many times. He said: “Movies are our reality.”
I, on average, watch 6 movies a week. I also read 3 books in that time as well as ingest a lot of cereal and sleep about 5 hours a day. Sometimes it’s more but I can say that next to Jesus Christ, Netflix is the best thing that has yet come into my life. What a boon. And such titles! Some of which I have searched years for. So when I say “I know movies”, it’s no exaggeration. I know the difference between what film is the best and what my favorite is. I had a passion for two years to appear on “Beat the Geeks” in order to reduce that sneering Movie Geek guy to a puddle of tears. I’ve also been reduced to tears over the beatings I have taken and proudly bear my scars.
The way I see it, the problem with films today is not so much the films, it is the critics. I have always loved films and have spent happy hours watching “reality” while being blissfully unaware that I was being entertained by a bad film. I was (still am) like Depp’s portrayal of Ed Wood. Things in Wood’s film weren’t perfect but they made sense in real life. I still bump into the door frame and make the whole house shake. The only UFOs I ever expect to see will be tied to a string. Lugosi was really a star in every sense of the word. My dentist can act, boy.
Movies are imperfect. There is something to criticize in all of them and each has a bad segment. But they are movies, the greatest form of entertainment ever devised by mankind. There is no greater pleasure known to man, although I have heard that science states that we will someday be able to have sex with any person we want via a special channel on our TV and that, my friends, would be the end of society, ‘cause the day an unemployed sewer worker can sit in his Laz-ee-boy with a beer in one hand and the channel remote in the other and copulate with a young Ann-Margaret for $19.95 a month, it’s gonna make crack look like Sanka.
Movies are a joy; many are treasured from early youth. I still remember when I fell in love with Dorothy Gale. I loved her passionately, even though I knew it would never work out because of the inbred loonies she lived with on her farm in Kansas. I was never in love with Judy Garland. She wore eye liner that was the natural study for every member of Kiss and smoked. But I would have gladly run to St Louis to meet her, even at that age. I have fallen love with many stars in their roles and still have a huge crush on Ingrid Bergman to this day.
No one should be able to besmirch that in anyone’s mind at any age. I sat through films in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. Try to pick out which had worse films and you’ll end up in a dogfight with werewolves. I am talking stinkers, like “Frankenstein Meets the Space Monster”, “Night of the Lepus” and “Prophecy”, each of these 90 minutes of time I wished I had wasted on a better movie. But, I’ve seen each of these TWICE and relished them. And I want more, because I enjoy movies. And I enjoyed “The Ruins” as well.
It took me back to those old days of Drive-ins and Pick/Pic bug repellent. Days of watching two episodes of “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.” that were strung together and sold as a feature film. The “Batman” film where they introduced a third Catwoman which birthed my ability to focus on a character rather than who was in the role.
Then, when I was about 12, an influx of critics arose. Starting with Rex Reed and Pauline Kael, I was introduced to the movie critic. Whereas before I had only read reviews like “Smash Opening in Cedar Rapids”, I was exposed to vitriolic battery acid from people that wanted their movies to be perfect. These guys began to kill independent film as their stranglehold on Hollywood took on the proportions of a six armed octopus attacking the Golden Gate Bridge. They smothered the low budget film maker’s products like cement gravy on a chicken fried steak. They want to tell you what is wrong with a movie as they see it.
Why should we care about their opinions? Do they really think they are doing me a favor by stopping me from wasting the price of a ticket or rental? Is their taste in the films the same as mine? Does it really matter to them that “The Invasion” is the fourth redo of an original film, because that is why I watched it. I didn’t expect any Oscar-worthy performances. Just the opposite, which is what I got. And while I don’t agree with critics, I do agree the movie had a basic flaw, which was that it was made. But I had no urge to write any critic that panned this film and praise them for being right or to thank them for restoring balance to the universe.
Take this further: How many critics have the respect that they think their words deserve? We have a guy that writes for the Orlando Sentinel that is such a muton, I read his column and go see the movies he pans! He thinks he’s Exeter; I refer to him as the Metaluna Mutant. While we can name critics, do we know their credentials or pedigrees? How did they get hired? What film genre is their favorite? Why would I listen to someone I don’t know anything about other than the sound bytes they record for the local news blurbs? I don’t. I see the movies I want and so should you.
I liked “The Ruins”. I liked the premise of playing King-of-the-Hill with Audrey II. I laughed at the ridiculous plot holes that popped up like Rocky and Bullwinkle after they went through the organic wormhole. I loved the fact that even though the plants were munching on old Matthias like he was an In-n-Out burger, they left him tied up and never moved him away from danger. Cripes, they had a chorus of singing plants and spells out Broadway in a dancing Magnolia blossom corsage. It’s fun and it harkens back to a simpler time of snow cones and Hershel Gordon Lewis.
So rise up! Trounce the critics into silence and take back what is yours. Watch what you want and live with the consequences. See the film that appeals to you and not what they think is best And, tell the guys at the movie counter “No! I don’t want it. I don’t want that much organization in my life. I don’t want 12 extra ounces of watered down cherry Coke for an extra twenty-five cents. I want Junior Mints, fool!”
on Jul 10 2008 @ 12:46 pm 17. G said …
Maurice appears to feel strongly.
Why would you tell anyone to watch Diary of the Dead. I was barely able to sit through it.
http://moviesetal.blogspot.com/2008/02/review-diary-of-dead.html
Land of the Dead - now that’s a keeper. I was thinking it might be a remake of the Searchers, but someone told me it was a remake of Metropolis. I haven’t seen Metropolis yet: is it?
Diary of the Dead though…ugh.
on Jul 10 2008 @ 1:05 pm 18. Evan Derrick said …
Thankyou, G. Everyone around me keeps loving on Diary…I thought I was the only one who thought it was terrible (no offense, Luke
).
on Jul 10 2008 @ 2:25 pm 19. Luke Harrington said …
Aw…don’t feel so bad about being left out of the cool kids’ group, guys. It’s just that some of us will be ready for the looming YouTube Zombie Apocalypse, and others won’t…