ArtsEtc.

Movie’s attempt at horror ‘Ruin’ed by hollow plot

Neurotic killers, exorcism and the supernatural have all proven to dish out scares in horror films. One subject that has yet to convince audiences it can send chills up their spines is archaeology, and “The Ruins” is a great example of why it most likely never will. This new horror flick from rookie director Carter Smith is a lifeless gore-fest that produces far more yawns than screams.

What is most disappointing is the fact that this film had so much promise. In an article for “Entertainment Weekly,” Stephen King claims Scott Smith’s novel of the same name, on which the movie is based, is “the best horror novel of the new century.” So when word came out that Smith, who received an Academy Award nomination for the screenplay of his previous novel, “A Simple Plan,” would also be writing the screenplay for the movie, there was a lot of buzz surrounding this film.

So what went wrong? The fact that this movie is debuting less than two years after the novel was released gives good insight into just how little effort was involved in the film’s creation. The makers put little care into creating a coherent story, developing characters or even including an occasional thrill to keep the audience awake.

In “The Ruins,” Smith takes his audience to the sunny beaches of Mexico, where a group of four friends are on vacation. Deciding that they want to do more than get plastered and tan by the poolside, the four embark into the jungle with a fellow tourist to a hidden archaeological dig site atop ancient Mayan ruins. Little do they know that among these ruins lurks grave danger.

Clearly Smith must have cut out a hefty portion of his novel when writing this screenplay, because the plot has absolutely no substance. No time is put into explaining just how these ruins ended up getting cursed in the first place or the existence of the evil that resides there. The audience is forced to simply accept that deathtraps are there, and that is that.

At the same time, the plotline is written in such a contrived way that the resulting story could not be any more convenient. For instance, someone gets hurt, but it’s okay because one of the four teenagers just happens to be a med student. But there isn’t any antiseptic to cleanse the wounds — no problem, they’re in Mexico and have huge bottles of tequila with them to use instead. 

Because this is a horror film and the chief concern is terrifying the audience, it may have been possible to look past details like this, but considering the lack of effort put into making this film scary, one can only wonder where all the production time was spent. Evidently this film was absentmindedly thrown together over a very short span.

Perhaps the only thing this film’s creators found to fill in the hollowness of the plot was lots and lots of gore. Heaps of blood and guts can be both creepy and tasteful in horror films when fittingly used, but recently more movies use gore solely as a gross-out element rather than a fear factor. “The Ruins” jumps right on this bandwagon, as its overuse of blood does not enhance the plot or even scare the audience.

Trivial plot aside, the film does not do any better when it comes to creating likeable characters the audience can relate to. It is sad that actors like Jonathan Tucker (“In the Valley of Elah”), Jena Malone (“Into the Wild”) and Joe Anderson (“Across the Universe”), who have been in critically acclaimed films, wasted their time in such frivolous roles.   

In what has become stereotypical for horror movies, all four of the characters are unbelievably dumb — they act and make decisions in ways no living, breathing human would. They just sit on top of the ruins whining and yelling emotionless dialogue like, “Four Americans do not just go off into jungles and get killed without people knowing.” At times like these, one almost feels like rooting for that mysterious evil to just finish them off.

In the end, “The Ruins” does not even amount to a trashy, slasher flick worth sitting through for a few thrills. The creators’ loose attention to detail, plot development or characters results in an inability to scare or even entertain an audience. It just comes to show that some things, like this film, really are best left undiscovered.

4 Comments | Leave a comment

user-pic

Is hallow a pun or a misprint? Please tell me pun.

user-pic

You obviously haven’t read the book. Every aspect of the movie you criticize is drawn almost directly from the book—and made the critically-acclaimed book all the more excellent for it. The nature of the horror at the ruins, for instance, is never fully explicated, because filling in gaps better left to a terrified imagination makes for mundane and facile horror. Explanations are comforting, while the absurdity of good horror is part of what makes fundamentally disturbing. Lovecraft, King, Ligotti, Campbell, and a host of the greatest authors in the genre would agree.

The so-called contrivances sound rather legitimate to me—do medical students never go on vacation? Is it unusual for vacationing students on a day-trip in Mexico to bring along alcohol, or to have knowledge of its sterilizing properties? You’re not even attempting to be sympathetic to the film. Criticism that stems from a total inability to suspend disbelief in reaction to a fantastic genre is not valid criticism.

Finally, the characters aren’t supposed to be likable; they’re supposed to be realistic. They have prejudices and antagonistic tendencies that expose themselves in a high-pressure life-or-death situation; they act sometimes rationally, sometimes irrationally in what would seem to them an impossible situation. It’s like you went in to a horror movie expecting that the only legitimate reactions were those that you yourself would have in that situation. That’s just silly.

In conclusion, I can only assume this is the only horror movie you have ever seen.

user-pic

In reading the previous comment I cannot quite tell if they have seen the movie or just really enjoyed the book.

While I have not read the book I almost always believe the film is worse than the book. Remember that he is not reviewing Smith’s novel but rather the film based on the novel.

Having seen the movie I entirely agree with the review seeing as other audience members were either laughing at what were supposed to be horrifying parts or walking out in the middle of the movie.

I don’t recall that happening in any other horror movie I have seen in my lifetime.

user-pic

I read the book. The characters are placed in an evil place and that is that. What actually is this evil and how it got there is not explained and the author could not seem to care less. Smith seems to be purely interested in blood and gore as he dispenses one by one each of his victims, ending the book as the last of them dies. End of story. Any “writer” can describe a place, a person and develop a character to the level Smith does. It seems then that all that a writer has to do is to be able to describe a good torture scene and he/she is immediately elevated to a great horror/fiction writer and the “Hollywood” that follows as sure as night follows days. What drives the minds of all those who enjoy reading or watching (or playing video games for that matter) scenes of pure blood, gore and hacking of human parts off their bodies is pure mystery and subject of PhD research. But if they are enough of them out there willing to pay stupid money for such mindless time wasting then why not. Well done to Smith to grab their money (including, sadly, my 10 Euro for a silly book that I wished I never bought) and laugh all the way to the bank.

Leave a comment

To comment anonymously or if signed in, leave name and e-mail blank.

Donate