New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Ruins

post #1 of 16
3/27/08 at 11:57am
Thread Starter 
Viral video- http://www.creature-corner.com/?type=news&id=3312

Still not sure what to make of this flick, but I really dug the book, so...
Reply
post #2 of 16
3/27/08 at 12:02pm
Rather than do what they did with the book, which was to just play up the spook factor without giving away the big reveal, the film is all about it.

Killer vines might come across as a letdown if they hide it in advertising. People expecting some kind of Cloverfield monster might end up walking away pissed.
Reply
post #3 of 16
3/27/08 at 12:07pm
Thread Starter 
Eh. I was hoping they wouldn't go the monster movie route with this one, actually. The book was much more of an internal, being eaten away from inside kinda thing.
Reply
post #4 of 16
3/27/08 at 12:10pm
I really should check out this book soon. I liked the trailer for this one quite a bit, and I'm definitely curious about checking it out when it gets released. I'm always up for a good monster movie.
Reply
post #5 of 16
3/27/08 at 12:12pm
I really didn't like the book, but I have hopes for the flick. I'm hoping that they cut back one the worthless character-building flashbacks and just focus on the ficus. I liked the trailer, at least.
Reply
post #6 of 16
3/27/08 at 12:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Olson View Post
I really should check out this book soon. I liked the trailer for this one quite a bit, and I'm definitely curious about checking it out when it gets released. I'm always up for a good monster movie.
I read several reviews on the book that stated the characters are very poorly put together and that the story could have been better told as a novella or short story.

I haven't read the book nor do I have a desire to read it any time soon, so I can't say for certain if that's a valid argument.
Reply
post #7 of 16
3/27/08 at 12:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Riviello View Post
Eh. I was hoping they wouldn't go the monster movie route with this one, actually. The book was much more of an internal, being eaten away from inside kinda thing.
I really don't know how a movie could avoid the monster movie route because so much of the book relies on internal motivations.
I'll say this much- When we were discussing the book awhile back it was agreed that it was unadaptable. But this film looks better than I had anticipated. Based on the big changes Smith made to his Simple Plan adaptation I assume there will be some alterations here.
Reply
post #8 of 16
3/27/08 at 12:22pm
Crap, he adapted it himself, eh?
Reply
post #9 of 16
3/27/08 at 12:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by billylove View Post
I read several reviews on the book that stated the characters are very poorly put together and that the story could have been better told as a novella or short story.
Reply
post #10 of 16
3/27/08 at 12:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Matchstick View Post
Crap, he adapted it himself, eh?
Yep. He diluted A Simple Plan and changed a lot of the second half of the plot to make the characters a bit more sympathetic. So we know he's not adverse to retinkering things for film audiences.
Reply
post #11 of 16
3/27/08 at 12:29pm
I'd have to agree about the characters. They are an unlikable group, which is fine and intentional. But the flashbacks they get are just a chore to read. So poorly written. I read it a long time ago, but there's a scene with a ring or a piece of jewelry that made me want to punch paper. The action, however is fine. So, if they stick to the horror and don't stray too far from it, it could be a good movie.
Reply
post #12 of 16
3/27/08 at 12:29pm
Enjoyed the book. The killer vines conceit was definitely jokey, and I'm sure Scott Smith knew this. For me, the vines were more of an estranging metaphor for being forcibly "returned to the soil-" the book's real terror came from the slowly dawning realization that the victims were in an [spoilish]unsurvivable situation[/]. The same story could have been told using other narrative devices (terrorist/hostage, desolate mountain plane crash, marooned on a raft with sharks circling, etc), but most of them come with pre-existing baggage that the vines don't.

I still can't see this working really well on film, though. One of the novel's biggest strengths was its depiction of the slow deterioration of the group, and I can't see that working in 90 minutes.
Reply
post #13 of 16
3/27/08 at 12:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark View Post
Yep. He diluted A Simple Plan and changed a lot of the second half of the plot to make the characters a bit more sympathetic. So we know he's not adverse to retinkering things for film audiences.
Well, he did do a great job on A Simple Plan. But he had a better novel to work from.
Reply
post #14 of 16
3/27/08 at 12:37pm
Given that the filmmakers are obviously playing up the monster movie aspects of the story, I find it interesting that they seem to be siding with the more Cronenbergian body horror elements of the vines. The alternative, of course, would be, to turn The Ruins into a seriouser version of Little Shop of Horrors... so that's where Audrey II came from!
Reply
post #15 of 16
3/27/08 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minsky View Post
Enjoyed the book. The killer vines conceit was definitely jokey, and I'm sure Scott Smith knew this.
I also thought he did a nice job of implying the Kafkaesque absurdity of the entire situation. Which just made things all the more baffling and infuriating for the characters.
And maybe it's just in the marketing, but I'm getting a kind of Hostel torture porn vibe from the movie.
Reply
post #16 of 16
3/27/08 at 9:11pm
I think I read somewhere that the flick doesn't shy away from all that nudity, gore and gross scenes that were in the book. There was some heavy stuff.

Good decision of exluding the talking vines though. That wouldn't work on the big screen.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Creature Corner Main