If The Ruins had been made in the
1970s it would have been the second feature at a drive-in double bill
and it would have starred mostly older actors, people in their 30s and
up. Instead of being about a quartet of American college age kids
getting into weird trouble at a pyramid in the jungles of Mexico, it
would have been about a group of archaeologists getting into weird
trouble at a pyramid in the jungles of Mexico. I would have liked that
film better. Which isn’t to say that I didn’t like The Ruins
– I did, and found it effective – but it’s to say that the demands
placed on it by the modern studio system really hamstring the film.
Based on the novel by Scott Smith (who adapted it himself), The Ruins takes
place in essentially one location, atop a Mayan pyramid where a group
of partying kids are trapped by the local Indians. Something is up
there on that pyramid with them, and it’s hungry. Okay, I’ll spoil it –
it’s a man eating vine. Which is both silly and cool – I think the
advertising tries to sell this as Hostel: Viva Mexico when
in fact it’s a monster movie. It’s a weird monster for sure, and it
doesn’t 100% work cinematically (leaves moving of their own accord
isn’t the scariest image you’ll see this year. Or even this night at
the movies if the You Don’t Mess With The Zohan trailer
plays in front of the film), but the monster seems almost secondary.
What director Carter Smith (no relation to Scott) is more interested in
is good old fashioned survival horror. It’s hard to find the relatable scare in a man eating vine, but it’s easier to find the scare in being gravely injured and very far from modern medical care. The Ruins almost
certainly sets a record for squirm-inducing field surgery in a major
motion picture this decade, and that’s where the impact comes in, not
from the creeping foliage. In fact I’ll go on the record as saying that
The Ruins features one of the all-time great amputations ever.
The killer vine also takes a back seat to the deteriorating mental
conditions of the people trapped atop the pyramid; in fact the vine
totes up the lowest kill count of any group in the film. It mostly
waits around for you to bite it before pulling you into the green leafy
mass and doing what it does. The characters breaking down (or finding
unexpected inner strength, depending on their arc) would have carried
more weight if we weren’t watching a bunch of 20-something. Characters
with lives or families to get back to would be easier to get down with
than these kids who are having the worst spring break ever.
The Ruins marks Carter Smith’s
feature directorial debut, and he does a fine job. He builds (and more
importantly sustains) tension very nicely, and he goes for the intense
and bloody scenes with a real visceral gusto. Before the film becomes
stuck in the pyramid location he takes the opportunity to create some
really nice shots, and once the action does become confined he
maintains the sense of geography while finding interesting ways to
shoot the same area. I would nitpick that the end of the first
act/opening of the second act is a little breathless and doesn’t allow
for the proper build up of doom, but he does everything else so well
that it’s hard to complain.
I also have to give the movie credit for staying small; the film
doesn’t spiral out of control into some kind of action extravaganza in
the third act. This, I’m sure, is going to be a problem for a lot of
people as the movie doesn’t have the sort of big bang that we’ve come
to expect from our studio pictures over the last few years, but I think
over time it’s this refusal to shoe horn in big set pieces that will
make folks appreciate The Ruins. Having said that, the film could have used one more bit of oomph in the last act, one extra beat.
The problems I have with The Ruins have
to be laid at the feet of the other Smith, Scott. His characters are
slightly less than archetypes, people who feel just a little bit blank.
The character played by Shawn Ashmore has one defining characteristic:
he likes blow jobs. Thankfully Ashmore is a charismatic actor who brings
the illusion of life to his character, but there’s nothing much in the
script for him to work with. One thing that I will give Smith, though,
is that this is one of the rare horror films where I never felt
exasperated at how people were reacting. Whether people were making
good decisions or bad ones, they were all believable to me within the
context.
It is neat that The Ruins got made at
all. It doesn’t fit any current genre trend, and it certainly has the
most left field villain of a major release in years. It’s also
extraordinarily brutal at times. It’s a good first effort for Carter
Smith, and while it’s no great work it certainly deserves better than
it got this weekend.
23 comments
Gonna Catch this one soon with the gf. Good review devin. Pity, you're douchey asshole of epic proportions.
hey last mayan standing..if u dont like devins writing then make like a tree…you dick. too many guiys bitching about the writers on this feature.. its for feedback (constructive if possible) not personal attacks you gayboy!!!
I read the book and it was pretty dreadful, although it was interesting purely from the standpoint of an allegory about the current American Forces in Iraq. I will probably watch this when it shows in London. Good review as usual Devin.
Better rating than Batman Begins.
Oh, please give the whole Batman Begins thing a rest. As much as I loved Begins I'm going to start hoping The Dark Knight bombs just to spite you people.
whatever, stumblios.
STUMBLIOS GOTTA EAT
The ending of the book is thrilling, why they chose to have a girl survive in the movie is just beyond me. The ending was actually what i loved about the book because it didn't fit the mold.
Devin, I'm a big fan of your writing, seriously. But one thing keeps getting in the way of your voice: Learn about compound adjectives, man. You mean "man-eating" vine, not "man eating vine." The latter means a man is eating vine, when you mean the opposite, a vine eating a man. I kept getting this image of a fearsome dude eating some vines atop the pyramid, which isn't what you meant (but is sort of hilarious).
This is especially vital when you get on your insider-references-used-as-adjectives kicks during otherwise great articles—ten words used to describe a single other word is difficult to follow the first time without those hyphens. Love them. Love them hyphens. Study the way of the compound adjective and your fu will be mighty.
It was entertaining enough. And there was one thing the vines did that gave rise to some genuine creepiness. And Laura Ramsey is purty. Jonathan Tucker is an untterly worthless actor, however.
Good review, Devin. I've been curious about this movie and may actually pay to see it.
This movie gets a 5 from me. Definitely agree with what it could have been if it was released in the 70's.
Make mine Simple Plan.
This is one of the rare times I actually agree with one of Devin's reviews. Overall, not bad, but the end did feel like it was missing something. If you're going to go see it, make it a matinée. This movie is alright but it isn't worth full price.
"It is neat that The Ruins got made at all. It doesn't fit any current genre trend" – uh, right. I can hear the studio execs talking about it now, "well, it's not really torture porn, because they do it to themselves…SELF-INFLICTED torture porn! We've made a new genre! We're so clever!" This movie sucked balls.
Nice review. I never thought the story would work as a film. So color me suprised. However, the changes made to the ending disappoint hard.(It felt like the tacked on American ending to the Descent)
I think the Batman Begins error deserves to be called out in anything Devin does now and in the future. Whenever he's walking down the street people should shy away from him and when they ask why, "He thought Fantastic 4 was better than Batman Begins." Children will cry.
hey matt…thanks for being that douche bag guy on the talkback that spoils the movie!!! can i get ur email so i can tell u how every movie u wanna c ends?! neways still excited to c this based on the good reviews recently
"all-time great amputations ever." I sense another list coming on… I vote for the beartrap in severance as being the funniest amputation ever.
Laura Ramsey's did a superb job portraying a woman going into a psychological tail spin of despair and helplessness. Ashmore's character was OK. The rest of the film sucked. Ooooo….scary plant.
Devin, I do not think the blame should be thrown onto Scott Smith — if you read the book you'll find that the characters are well written (weak, dumb, and desperate, yes, but complicated) and the movie sacrifices their reasoning and discovery for a slim running time. The material was all on the page. My feeling is that the producers just wanted it boiled down to the horrific events to cash in on the audience who would typically pay to see horror (impatient teenagers with gore boners). Ten additional minutes of breathing room to fill in character and pad the big events would have been ideal — and I doubt Scott Smith was the one trying to convince Carter Smith, the producers, and Dreamworks that it would be a good idea to just make the Cliff Notes adaptation.
Once again, Devin reviews a film without ever really stating if he likes it or not. Why are so many online reviewers scared to say they completely love something unless it's Guillermo Del Toro? A typical online or DVD reviews goes like this: "Said film has moments of originality, BUT…" See, there's that BUT again. Seriously Devin, you don't always have to explain yourself or backtrack just so we know you are, in fact, smarter than the movie you're reviewing. Just say you like it. No one will care. You hold Roger Ebert in such high regard, yet when he likes something or gives it a positive review, he doesn't always come back to the BUT…BUT, I guess that's just a sign of the times we're living in. There's thousands of young or even middle-aged online reviewers nowadays, most of whom are either too smart for their own good or former fanboys who don't like to admit it. Really though, when a horror movie comes along that's actually original like The Ruins, it's ok to like it without explaining yourself. We won't judge you. That's the difference between being a critic and being a reviewer. A reviewer feels the need to cram every single thing about the film into a 5 paragraph review, whether they actually believe what they're saying or they're jusy saying what THEY THINK their readers want to hear. A critic is someone who watches a film and tells you how the film affected them: positive, negative, or sometimes both, though as is the case with Ebert, you never know, and even in a two star review, you may not find anything negative in his assessment. What I'm saying doesn't necessarily for every film obviously, (there are some films that are great, but have their problems, like "Sunshine" or say, "Them"). But that's the thing: you have to decided before hand what kind of review you plan to do. A negative one? A positive one? A negative one with some glint of positivity? Or a positive one with some glint of negativity? I don't know for sure, but just because you know what's wrong with a film, doesn't necessarily mean you gotta tell us. There are times when your readers already know these things and don't have to have your 12 line sentences, (sometimes I think I'm reading EW in here). Sorry, but that's just how I feel.
That's because Devin doesn't actually like movies. You see, this is just a job for him that lets him meet some creative people he'll never be and also allows him some minuscule TV time that he inevitably shills on this, a site that's supposed to be for film. Post that other retarded shit on the boards, dickbag Devin! Better yet, shill your ugly mug on your own website.
Man, he rated the movie 7.5/10. Whad do you think? he liked it or not…?
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.