Re: THE RUINS (no spoilers)

On Apr 7, 4:41 pm, nick <nickmacpherso...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:53�pm, moviePig <pwall...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



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.) �Anyhow, the movie's a solid
intense gore fix... and that along with curiosity about the book-to-
movie translation held my interest. �But the majority likely hasn't
read the book, of course. �So, my best *guess* for hard-edge horror
fans... mostly recommended.

A followup: �THE RUINS gets a surprisingly good 7.1 - the highest
among wide openers - from enough IMDb users to matter ...and, fwiw,
they're seldom indiscriminate airheads regarding horror. �I still have
my own personal reservations, but the people have spoken...

I haven't read any of the reviews but I did scan the IMDb comments
section for The Ruins.  Nice to know that changes were made from the
book because Scott Smith wanted the movie to hold surprises for those
familiar with the novel.  It might be a rationalization and an excuse
for corporate decisionmaking but the IMDb posters seemed generally
satisfied with the changes.

As a sidenote, I've always been a fan of nihilism and hopelessness and
pessimism in horror movies but lately, it's been over-used.  Maybe
it's because I saw The Ruins the same weekend as the equally bleak
Mulberry Street so I was already exhausted on tragedy.  But the
increasing meanness and brutalization in recent horror movies is
starting to wear me down.  With The Ruins,I wanted them to escape, not
because they were wonderful and charismatic characters (they weren't)
but because I'm burnt out on despair.  Blame it on Bush (if you're Eli
Roth) or Columbine (if you're the Final Destination filmmakers) but as
art, the trend towards brutality and cruelty has had its peak.  I'm
not talking about torture porn because The Ruins wasn't torture porn--
just general "everything is fucked up" malaise.

Re RUIN-ous press reviews, I can't easily detect a consensus even
now... nor, for that matter, any good quotes (as far as I browsed).
But, fwiw, of the 40+ favorable percent, enough are *strongly*
favorable to have made it a must-see for me, even had I not ventured
out on my own. (Doesn't take many such reviews, of course.) I did
note that one guy, who'd read the book, bitched mightily about Amy's
fate... feeling it to be the Achilles's heel that spoiled the whole
and otherwise perfect barrel...

Re MULBERRY STREET, I have on-deck this week the other of the quasi
well-rated Horrorfest flicks, THE DEATHS OF IAN STONE. If it's merely
as entertaining as its companion, I'll be satisfied. (I almost don't
*want* these things to have any budget to work with...)

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

.