Re: THE RUINS (no spoilers)
- From: nick <nickmacpherson05@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 04:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 5, 3:56 pm, moviePig <pwall...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 5, 1:39 pm, nick <nickmacpherso...@xxxxxxx> wrote:Open Water, another movie with an even more gratuitous nude shot of a
On Apr 4, 4:55�pm, moviePig <pwall...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My noble aim here remains commentary that's useful while leaving a
reader's viewing experience (should he pursue one) pristine ...and in
that light, the horror flick THE RUINS is a bit tricky. �So, merely
some oblique facts: �I read the book back when, and judged it full of
good prose within my favorite genre, but still coudn't recommend it
(...and moreover, would've passed on the movie if the alternative
Clooney-toons had shown any spark). �I can't be sure, but I *think*
the movie may be better. �In print, both it and, e.g., THE MIST
should've been short stories - MIST nearly was - and this 90-minute
quick march, though not in MIST's league (nor even the 'PG-13'
CLOVERFIELD's) is still an improvement. �New director Carter Smith
covers his ground - RUINS looks great - and manages his young cast
well enough, but not his viewers' gut, afaics. �Where RUINS might've
been a horror clinic, it's often merely clinical. �(Btw, I'd like to
think that *any* more empowered director would've ditched RUINS's
early and wholly gratuitous titty-shot ...but maybe an 'R'-rating
implicitly promises certain goods.) �
A gratuitous titty shot immediately followed by a shot of a hot dude
drying off his naked body with a towel. Carter Smith covered his
bases and covered them quick.
Yeah, I forgot the hero's towel dance. But, although I realize I'm
not the target hormone configuration, I remember watching that scene
and thinking not 'testosterone', as intended, but rather 'steroids'...
I liked The Ruins. It's effective and there's not a dull minute. But
it was maybe too relentlessly downbeat and oppressive, definitely the
third movie in an unintended trilogy that includes Cloverfield and The
Mist. I wish I'd seen it in a crowded theater instead of the
abandoned mall theater because I bet it plays well with a full
audience.
Well, here's a rare moment where I'd suggest people take your opinion
over mine, because the book was for me a rather memorable
disappointment... a very well written yet hopelessly plumb-lined
story... like hearing Paderewski play 'chopsticks'. Fwiw, my sparse
audience also was deathly quiet... reminding me a bit of seeing OPEN
WATER (which I liked for its plausibility), though neither's a date
movie afaics...
female lead.
And going back to comparisons with Cloverfield and The Mist, one thing
the three all have in common (to their credit) is none of them attempt
to *explain* what's happening. None of the expositionary scenes from
people who know what they're talking about to clue the audience in.
In the case of The Ruins, it would have been some scene of the college
students finding tell-all heiroglyphs, little pictures of primitive
peoples getting eaten up by plants or something.
But in the can of The Mist, you can claim artistic design for its
inexplicability. In the case of Cloverfield and The Ruins, I get the
impression the people who made them really want franchises. I doubt a
theaterical Ruins sequel after this weekend's underperformance but
there's bound to be a straight-to-DVD spin-off a year or so down the
line.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: THE RUINS (no spoilers)
- From: moviePig
- Re: THE RUINS (no spoilers)
- References:
- THE RUINS (no spoilers)
- From: moviePig
- Re: THE RUINS (no spoilers)
- From: nick
- Re: THE RUINS (no spoilers)
- From: moviePig
- THE RUINS (no spoilers)
- Prev by Date: Re: So Long Charlton
- Next by Date: Re: So Long Charlton
- Previous by thread: Re: THE RUINS (no spoilers)
- Next by thread: Re: THE RUINS (no spoilers)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
