Day 277: The Ruins

The Ruins

That's right. Let it alllll out.

“Stupid People Take A Trip” should be a subgenre in horror it happens so much. Whether the movie is like “Hostel” and “Turistas” or “An American Werewolf In London” and “The Hills Have Eyes”, it seems that leaving your couch is just a bad idea. A lot of these movies do require the main characters to make poor decisions which can range from a simple mistake to “Jesus, no one in the history of anywhere ever could be this stupid!” Regardless, it's once they make their mistake where the movie can either shine or come down with a case of visual amoebic dysentery. And yes, I keep thinking the poster says "The Runs".

The Ruins is a 2008 horror movie starring Jonathan Tucker (100 Girls, Hostage) as Jeff McIntire and Jena Malone (Sucker Punch, Donnie Darko) as his girlfriend Amy. Jeff and Amy, along with their friends Eric (Shawn Ashmore, X-Men, Frozen) and Stacy (Laura Ramsey, The Covenant, She's The Man) are on vacation in Mexico when they meet a German tourist named Mathias (Joe Anderson, The Grey, The Crazies). Mathias tells them that his brother Heinrich went with a female archaeologist to find a hidden Mayan ruin in the jungle. Heinrich has not returned and Mathias asks the group for help. Initially hesitant, they decide to go along, joined by Mathias's friend Dimitri. The group starts climbing the ruins, which is covered in vines, when a group of native villages surround them. Weapons drawn, the villages start screaming at the group and kill Dimitri when he gets too close. They escape to the top of the ruins where they find the remains of camp site. They hear a phone ringing at the bottom of a shaft and Mathias recognizes it as his brother's phone. They lower him down, but the rope breaks, sending Mathias crashing to the ground below. Jeff and Amy descend the ruins, but again the villagers won't let them leave. In anger, Amy throws a bunch of vines which hits a young boy. Terrified, the villagers kill the boy. Amy and Jeff flee back to the top and realize that everyone in the group touched the vines. They lower Stacy down to get Mathias and in the process she cuts her leg. The next morning, Stacy discovers a vine growing out of her wound. Mathias's injured legs are also covered in vines. Amy and Stacy travel down the shaft to retrieve the phone only to discover that it is the vines making the ringing sound. After amputating Mathias's legs, the group begins to unravel from stress, lack of food and water, and loss of hope. The vines continue to creep up on the group, mimicking their words. How will they be able to survive with their sanity dwindling and the vines getting closer and closer?

It's like an Abercrombie & Fitch ad come to life

I like the general idea behind The Ruins because you really don't see many “killer plant” horror movies nowadays. It's the execution that is hit and miss. The movie is slow for the first 40 minutes. Yes, there's some action, but it's not particularly interesting or thrilling. Up until that point, we have to suffer through the usual “annoying young people in a foreign land” routine with a dash of relationship issues. Most of the characters are pretty annoying up until the action starts, but they could have been worse. The acting is fine and the direction is good. I'm sure she's heard it before, but Jena Malone does look similar to Kristen Stewart. Thankfully she's not as bland and emotionless as Ms. Stewart. The killer vines look pretty good and I really enjoyed that they made mimicking sounds. It was a nice twist and was not overdone. There are a few good scenes of blood and gore which may make people with a weaker stomach ill.

My biggest issue with The Ruins is that it's not sure what type of horror movie it wants to be. It has flashes of good ideas and some good scenes, but it doesn't quite bring things together. I think the problem is that the movie wants to hit on too many passable notes instead of focusing on one good note. The story has the potential to be a great psychological horror movie with the group's isolation and the creeping knowledge that they are going to die. There is no escape, no one is coming to help, and they are exposed to the elements. Just when the movie seems to be going in that direction, we get action and violence with the vines. Then we get gruesome blood and gore from amputations. True all these things fit together, but none of them have time to shine. We get lots of little good things instead of one or two great things. Sometimes less can be way more.

Feed me, Seymour!

The Ruins has lots of good little ideas, but is unable to come together to make for one great watch. The lack of focus on what the movie wants to be hurts the overall watching experience. If it wanted to be psychological, it should have went that route. If it wanted to be a monster for, it should have been a monster movie. It's a slow first 40 minutes, but things do eventually pick up. There is a decent amount of action and a few unexpected scenes of gore. The acting is mediocre, but the direction is good. The Ruins does have a few good scenes, so it's worth a watch if you're looking for something new. You won't be blown away, but you'll appreciate the effort.

6.5/10

Day 226: Monsters

Monsters

Looks like a fun horror movie, right? WRONG!

Political commentary is an important part of horror. Most movies have it, even the classics, though you may not notice it. This commentary can range from social issues such as women's rights and racial equality to political issues like healthcare and immigration. Most movies use this commentary as an undercurrent for the story itself, helping, but not overshadowing the horror itself. Dawn Of The Dead is a prime example of making many social points while still putting on an entertaining and fun zombie movie. Other movies, though, put the commentary front and center with less focus on horror.

Monsters is a 2010 science fiction horror movies starring Whitney Able (Remarkable Power, All the Boys Love Mandy Lane) as Samantha Wynden and Scoot McNairy (Bones, My Name Is Earl) as Andrew Kaulder. A few years ago, a NASA deep-space probe crash landed in Mexico, exposing the area to alien life forms. These life forms, which look like a giant octopus with insect legs, spread throughout the area, leading the United States to build a giant wall and quarantining the northern half of Mexico. Andrew is a photographer taking pictures in Mexico of the monster's devastation when he is hired by his wealthy employer to help his daughter Samantha escape Mexico. At first Andrew resists, but is pressured into taking the journey by Samantha's father. Samantha is engaged to be married, but has serious reservations about the man who is to be her husband. Andrew has a young son whom he loves, but rarely gets to see. Samantha plans to take a ferry back to the United States, but after forking over $5,000, they realize that their passports have been stolen. She gives her engagement ring in exchange for help crossing the border. Samantha and Andrew have to take various illegal means to get close to the border while dodging dangerous terrain and the monsters. As their journey continues, they grow close together, confiding in each other. When they reach the border, they find it deserted. As the cross into the States, they find an empty town that appears to have been hit by an air raid. Have the monsters made it across the wall and what will happen to Andrew and Samantha.

Smile! Your life has been ruined!

Monsters is probably more closely associated with science-fiction than horror, but there are just enough horror themes and tropes for it to make the cut. As I said before, it's important for a horror movie to have social commentary. Monsters decides to take that social commentary, shove entertainment out of the way, and bash the audience over the head with it. Believe me, I like social commentary. I studied political science and have worked in politics. I get it and appreciate it when it is done properly. The commentary in the movie is smart and well-thought out, but presented in such a way that made it difficult to sit through. I know what Writer/Director Gareth Edwards was going for, remarking on such things as immigration, the Drug War, Homeland Security, and the U.S. Government, but it's in such a heavy-handed way that professional wrestler Ronnie “Hands of Stone” Garvin should have gotten a production credit.

All of this commentary takes away from most of the scares in the film. The movie was made incredibly cheap which may explain why we rarely see the monsters. They look good, but we really should have seen them a lot more. I mean, the movie is called “Monsters”. Beyond the clever little commentary via the title, I want to see some fucking monsters, not skinny white people talking about their feelings. Most of the movie is just Samantha and Andrew wandering around, almost like a road/buddy movie without the humor. The scenery is pretty fantastic allowing the audience to at least look at something pretty while they're waiting for something to happen. It doesn't really occur as there is very little in the way of action. I found the characters of Samantha and Andrew fairly unpleasant, but not too annoying. Their blossoming love was far too convenient and not particularly believably. On the acting side, both Whitney Able and Scoot McNairy were fine. Not great, but fine.

Hey, put 'Jersey Shore' on!

Monsters is the type of movie other filmmakers love; All talk and very little action. I wish the budget had been bigger for this movie with more scenes of the monsters. It lacked the proper amount of action necessary for it to be entertaining. There are a few scary scenes and some suspense, but not nearly enough. The social commentary is smart, but there is just way too much of it. You are constantly slammed on all sides at all times by the messages. If you're not politically active, you may miss some of the references and ideas, but I don't have that luxury. As far as the story itself goes, it's nothing special and should have had more action. If you're a film school student, you'll probably appreciate it, but if you're looking for good horror and science fiction, look elsewhere.

4.5/10

Day 114: From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money

From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money

The blood money comes from the paying audience

Sequels are a complicated thing. Sometimes there is clearly a need for future movies, such as with comic book characters or a series. Other times, it's a cash grab after some unexpected success from the first movie. And something more common in today's crowded market is the direct-to-video, almost completely unrelated sequel. Welcome to From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money.

From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money is a direct-to-video vampire moving starring Robert Patrick (Terminator 2: Judgement Day, The Sopranos) as criminal Buck. Buck finds out that his old partner, Luther (Duane Whitaker, Tales From The Hood, Feast) has escaped from prison. He is being pursued by Texas ranger Otis Lawson (Bo Hopkins, American Graffiti, Radioland Murders) who pays a visit to Buck to see if he knows Luther's whereabouts. Luther gets in touch with Buck and they bring together their old gang for one last bank robbery south of the border. The group gets a motel room while Luther goes to scout out the place they are planning on robbing. While driving, Luther accidentally hits and kills bat that flies in front of his car. His car won't start, so he heads to a local bar, The Titty Twister, where calls to tell Buck he's getting a ride from the bartender, Razor Eddie (Danny Trejo, From Dusk Till Dawn, Machete). Razor Eddie finds the dead bat, which turns out to be his vampire friend, and Eddie bites Luther in revenge. The gang heads to the bank with the now undead Luther, who slowly turns each member of the gang into vampires. The break into the vault when Otis finally catches up to them and has the place surrounded. Will Buck, the only gang member still human, be able to fight the vampires with Otis and avoid being arrested?

Machete don't text

This movie has very little to do with the first From Dusk Till Dawn. With the exception of Danny Trejo, the Titty Twister, Mexico, and vampires, Texas Blood Money has nothing to do with it's predecessor. At least they made a half-assed effort with the inclusion of Danny Trejo, but why not have him be a bigger part of the movie? You can tell that it was written as a separate vampire movie that just happened to get “From Dusk Till Dawn” tacked on to the name, similar to the Steven Seagal movie, Under Siege 2: Dark Territory. Everything about the movie is half-hearted. The acting is phoned-in, the humor from the first movie is seriously lacking, and the plot is far too simplistic. The violence is decent, particularly the final scenes of the movie with a good amount of blood.

Another thing that seriously bothered me is that the movie was advertised as starring Bruce Campbell and Tiffani-Amber Thiessen. Don't worry, they are actually in the movie...for about the first 5 minutes. It's wrong of the movie to lure in people thinking Bruce Campbell is going to be a big part of this movie when he is barely in it. It's not false advertising, but its definitely deceptive. It just acts as a reminder that the movie could have been fun, but comes off as a mediocre B-movie with a weak connection to the original movie. There's also a third movie, which acts as a prequel to the first movie and rumors of a fourth movie being made. Maybe those will have a stronger connection than this one.

Taken from the DVD's perspective in the $5 bin

From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money isn't deserving of the moniker. It's name and mention of Bruce Campbell lure horror fans into purchasing or watching the movie in hopes of seeing something great. While the movie is ok with some good violence, it just doesn't live up to the hype. If you don't have high hopes and want to watch some vampires in the desert, this movie isn't half bad. If you loved the first From Dusk Till Dawn, you're going to be severely disappointed. Especially because there is no Salma Hayek.

5/10