- Twilight's First Official Photo and Why I'm Passing
- Rumor: Matthew McConaughey Possibly Captain America - Blasphemy!
- Sound Off: Iron Man - What Did You Think?
- First Twilight Teaser Trailer - Freaky?
- Rumor: Brad Pitt in the Running for Thor? (May 11, 2008)
- New Photos From Charlie Kaufman's Synecdoche, New York (May 11, 2008)
- Will Smith's Hancock Doing Late Reshoots (May 11, 2008)
- Kevin Smith Updates Zack and Miri Make a Porno Details (May 10, 2008)
| Speed Racer | 8/10 |
| The Fall | 8/10 |
| Then She Found Me | 7/10 |
| Speed Racer | 8/10 |
Kevin's Review: The Ruins
April 5, 2008
by Kevin Powers
- US Release Date: April 4, 2008
- Genre: Horror, Thriller
- MPAA: Rated R (for strong violence and gruesome images, language, some sexuality and nudity)
- Running Time: 91 minutes
- Directed by: Carter Smith
- The Ruins on IMDb









5/10
Despite naggings to read Scott Smith's best selling novel, "The Ruins", I refused, being granted a reprieve when the film adaptation was announced. "I'll just see the movie," became my go-to defense. As you might imagine, such a shortcut resulted in only a taste of the enjoyment I might have garnered from actually reading the original story. The Ruins movie, while retaining about 20% of true intrigue and thrills, reminds us of two very important albeit cliché conventions: 1) always bet on the book being better than the movie, and 2) naïve American tourists make for great bait.
On its surface, The Ruins presents a wonderfully frightening quandary that is possibly the most compelling reason to see the movie. Four American tourists vacationing in Mexico naturally accept an opportunity to encroach on the local culture by venturing off to Mayan ruins with two newfound friends. The fact that the ruins can't be found on any map makes the trek all the more tantalizing. Once they arrive, however, the locals surround the ancient temple and won't let the tourists leave, quickly killing off one of the group just to show how serious they are. In short order, the white, wide-eyed group discovers there's something amiss with the old, vine-covered ruins. It's a fitting twist on the 'rock and a hard place' adage - try to escape and get killed by the natives, or stay and get killed by whatever is skulking around inside the temple.
The four American tourists who venture too far into the unknown in The Ruins.
Thankfully, this means the film gets major points in the beginning; all of which, sadly, are exhausted by the end. As the group begins to untangle the mystery of the ruins, they themselves begin to unravel. The story plods along as the group is faced with physical injuries to various members of the party - well-done gruesomeness by director Carter Smith - and the psychological battle that emerges as they try to stay alive. The ruins, smartly, isn't the only nefarious force at play. As you might imagine, this scenario plays out really well in the printed form; however, when translated into the visual, the artfulness is often muddied by other variables.
For instance, the cast is pretty lame, both in person and in character. Smith's source material apparently provides little focus on the group being a bunch of typical, aloof twenty-somethings out for thrill. However, this is made very evident in the film what with the group looking like an American Eagle ad. Not to mention, the casting choices could have been better. Jonathan Tucker is pretty decent as defacto team-lead, Jeff, given his previous genre experience (Pulse, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)). Jena Malone (Into the Wild, Donnie Darko), on the other hand, is far too stiff and cherub; you never get the sense that she truly cracks.
The ancient Mayan temple that will soon become their graveyard in The Ruins.
Additionally, quiet creepiness gives way to cheaper, seat-turning gore. This is often the Hollywood formula, so it's not surprising. Why try to be indirect with a scare, when you can smack audiences across the face with it? I, like most horror fans, enjoy this to some extent. But while I don't want to give too much away, suffice it say this approach feels a bit contrived and overtakes too much of the scare spectrum of the film.
This and other visual noise drowns out the more subtle and intricate fear that seems to exist in the book, elevating The Ruins to a much shallower scare and solid C-grade territory. Not to mention the utterly dissatisfying ending - a departure from the book I can't believe Scott Smith allowed. Even at just 91 minutes, the film seems to abruptly end, wrapping up in the most frustratingly tidy of ways. Although, it leaves us with an ironically fitting impression: ruined.

Related Articles
- » New Red Band Trailer for The Ruins
- » Worth Watching - Dec 20: The Ruins Trailer
- » New Posters for The Ruins and Funny Games
- » Sunday Discussion: The Decline of the Horror Genre?
- » New Photos: Iron Man, Cloverfield, The Ruins and Revolutionary Road!
- » One More Time - Pathology Internet Trailer
Reader Feedback - 8 Comments »
1
I cant totally agree Kevin. I thought it was a 6 or 7 for this type of movie.
The characters generally were smart about what they did and there was a logic to it.
I thought the creepiness was always there even though they did go with some nasty gore as well.
I'm curious what the book ending was.
Heckle on Apr 5, 2008
2
As far as your comment about Hollywood's formula for cheaper seat-turning gore: Read the book and you'll see why they focused on those grisly images and didn't turn the camera away.
Stabmaster Arson on Apr 5, 2008
3
"This and other visual noise drowns out the more subtle and intricate fear that is in the book, elevating The Ruins to a much shallower scare"
How would you know? You didn't read the fucking book.
Denise on Apr 5, 2008
4
5
While I don't agree with Denise's tone, I do think you shouldn't reference the book when you didn't read it. Also makes for a confusing read when you admittedly didn't read it but reference it. No offense just a couple basic observations.
3volution on Apr 6, 2008
6
When will directors learn the following simple yet important formula.
GORE DOES NOT EQUAL HORROR!
And while I haven't SEEN the movie yet, the ending to the book was NOT at all a happy ending (which makes for an amazing book) and i can only imagine how deflated the ending of the film felt.
Birdwatching From Mars on Apr 7, 2008
7
I liked it. But some parts i did not get like the singing flowers
Michael on Apr 19, 2008
8
I haven't read the book but from all the comments I've read, not just from here, I'd like to. I did enjoy this movie, although it made me chuckle at times it was still a jacked up situation to be in. I enjoyed the gruesome visuals as well as shirtless Jonathan Tucker.
tzarinna on Apr 19, 2008



















