comment #1

btwnproductions says ...

Didn't read the book, but Smith's novel A SIMPLE PLAN and Sam Raimi's subsequent adaptation are excellent. Worth a gander. The "blood spatter" and "skeleton" is the icing on the cake.

comment #2

Joel says ...

The book was a pretty effective thriller, if about 200 pages too long. It did a good job of making the type of idiots who usually populate horror movies sort of sympathetic. It also read like a screenplay.

comment #3

Abbey Normal says ...

The book had a core malevolence about it that hopefully will be duplicated on film. It's also got supernatural elements in the script that might elevate the movie above the usual horror cliches. We'll see.

comment #4

Dr. Smith says ...

The book is a great page-turner, reads like a movie, could be a really terrific flick. Whole book is brutal, especially the ending. It's a variation on the classic Trapped In A Room, How Do We Escape? scenario.

comment #5

Rich S. says ...

The novel would have made a great short story, but, yeah, it was way too long.

The problem I had with the novel was the way they pitched the "threat." Like it's the core concept of the novel. But it's not. Like A Simple Plan, the novel is really about the way the characters interact in the face of the threat. That's where the malevolence comes in. The threat, when it's revealed, is kind of silly.

With that in mind, I'm really afraid that the special effects, if done wrong, could render this movie laughable. This is the kind of thing that Val Lewton and Jacques Tourneur could have turned into a low-budget masterpiece sixty years ago, precisely because they would have been forced to focus on the character interaction. But knowing today's horror directors, they'll focus on the threat and people will leave the theater laughing.

comment #6

wayne76 says ...

I also loved this book. Glad to see Smith did the adaptation, but I'm skeptical about this working as a film, even though it reads like one on the page.

comment #7

MickTravis says ...

Once you start the book, it is damned hard to stop. And, during the last quarter when things get really icky, I wanted to.

The tone of the trailer is all wrong. It should be quieter and colder. And it would help if it didn't appear to give away EVERY DETAIL of the plot. Marketing.

Fortunately, the "villain" no longer "speaks." As cool as it was on the page, it wouldn't have worked onscreen. Not that I really expect the other parts to work onscreen, either.

comment #8

bmcintire says ...

Cieply's article, at least, explains in part why there has been no movement on Spielberg's LINCOLN project.
As for THE RUINS, I was disheartened to learn that the voice of "the threat" had been removed from the screenplay. I found that to be one of the most interesting parts of the book, and it went a long way in escalting the tension between the characters. Still looking forward to seeing it, though.

comment #9

rgmax99 says ...

This won't be a "standard" young kids in peril flick like most of the studio dreck pushed out there. The book is riveting in places and extremely eerie, but the other posters are correct in noting skepticism about how the menace will be presented onscreen. If done right, it could be brilliant. If not, the film will be sarcastically compared to a comic horror flick of the mid-60s -- the name of which I shall not mention in the event of spoilage.

comment #10

MickTravis says ...

It was interesting in the book, yes, but I think they made the right decision. Unless it was done just right, it would probably seem a little Audrey II.

comment #11

Richardson says ...

To add to the chorus - if they adapt this book right, it will be The Critical Horror Movie of the year.

Which is to say, every year, there's one horror movie which is selected by critics to be the one that they use as an example, "Hey, I like horror movies when they're good, like ____."

In some years, this leads to some awful movies getting critical acclaim, because there aren't any good horror movies that year.

This year, 'The Ruins' *should* be that movie. The book is really, really effective, and there's no reason that a movie can't do what the book did.

comment #12

Geoff says ...

I really liked the book.

It's all about characters in the worst possible situation imaginable and no, they are not necessarily likeable.

Alot of the book was filled with what the characters were going through in their head, which I couldn't imagine doing in a film.

I also hear they are taking away some of the more "outlandish" aspects of the threat. I'm really curious to see how this pans out. Overall it was a horrifying tale that just gets worse and worse and worse.

comment #13

CinemaPhreek says ...

The fact that Jena Malone is in this tells me not to expect the usual crappy horror film. She's one of those actors who make very few uninteresting choices of films to appear in.

comment #14

corey3rd says ...

The trailer looks like crap. all its missing is "special cameo from Paris Hilton" to completely turn me off.

a few year back someone in Scott's circle contacted me to figure out ways to attract a movie studio to make the film. For a guy who made a buttload of money on Simple Plan, if I'd given him the golden ticket, he wasn't going to offer any cash or a favor other than his lameass gratitude. Cheapass bastard.

comment #15

rgmax99 says ...

Uhh, Mr. Travis just revealed what I was trying not to...

Oh, well...

comment #16

Mumbleboy says ...

I like how everyone is tiptoeing around who the "villain" is. I won't be the one to stomp on it, but anyone seeing the trailer won't be taken by surprise by the movie the same way the book took the readers by surprise.

comment #17

CinemaPhreek says ...

I'm I the only one who finds the idea that A Simple Plan made "a buttload of money" to be pretty laughable?

comment #18

corey3rd says ...

A Simple Plan didn't make a buttload of money - Scott made million on the book advance and the film rights. Scott made a buttload of money off it. I don't think anyone else has.

comment #19

Josh Massey says ...

Loved, loved, loved the book, and one of the best parts was finding out who the true "villain" was. Smith did a classic bait-and-switch, and it worked extremely well.

When I heard they were making the movie, I just knew they were going to blow it in the trailer - and lo and behold. My interest in the flick went from 100% to right about 10.

They probably changed the damn ending too.

comment #20

MickTravis says ...

So I guess that means Cinemaphreek is the only one who found it laughable.

Thanks, Mumbleboy, I agree about spoilers on this one. The trailers not only give away the heavy, but also the creepier turns of the screw, too.

But I admire Rgmax's discretion. I think we posted within seconds of each other, but of course by the time I'd seen how he handled it, I'd already dropped the fatal name ....

comment #21

actionman says ...

A Simple Plan is a masterpiece, both in book and film form.

The Ruins...haven't read it/seen it...but something tells me it's not a masterpiece...just a hunch...

comment #22

Richardson says ...

the book 'The Ruins' is absolutely better than the book 'A Simple Plan'.

However, you could also easily say that the book 'The Great Gatsby' is better than the book 'The Godfather', but which one made for the better movie?

comment #23

Richardson says ...

"Scott made million on the book advance and the film rights."

Okay, he made a million dollars. And then he spent ten years living off of that before his next book came out. $100,000 a year is hardly a "buttload of money", especially for somebody who (like Scott Smith) lives in New York City.

comment #24

Richardson says ...

Actually, come to think of it, that number is very inflated; factor in taxes, the cut for the agent, the cut for the manager, the cut for the WGA -- I can't imagine it was more than 50k a year.

comment #25

MickTravis says ...

I have pretty low standards, but I think a million 1993 dollars still qualifies as a buttload of money. Especially for a book that's basically a chilled-out Jim Thompson thriller.

And, again with my low standards but I think "The Godfather" is a better book than "Gatsby." Fitzgerald would've included more technical details about female anatomy if he'd known Puzo was on the way.

comment #26

Richardson says ...

It depends where you live. I'm sure that in a lot of country, you could survive quite comfortably on less than 50,000 a year. But living in New York City, it is extremely difficult to do so.

"Especially for a book that's basically a chilled-out Jim Thompson thriller."

Oh, so if he had made a million dollars for writing great literature, it wouldn't be a buttload of money?

If you don't like the guy, or his writings, or whatever, that's cool, but that isn't a valid explanation of how a pre-tax salary of one million dollars spread out over 13 years (I was going by when the movie was made, but you're right, he likely got that million dollars when he sold the film rights in '93) is a lot of money.

comment #27

corey3rd says ...

he made a million off the book and more from the film rights. I really don't care how much he made after taxes and everyone got their taste. The problem was that Scott's people wanted me to figure out how to market the book to be appealing to film producers and he wasn't even going to pay up a fee if somehow one of my ideas was the bait. I wasn't demanding cash up front.

comment #28

MickTravis says ...

Richardson, I liked the book fine, and the writer, too. But by your rationale all the money anybody ever makes is worthless because we will eventually spend it.

My point was: A million dollars can safely be called a buttload of money for a book that -- like it or not -- ain't exactly re-inventing the wheel. "The effect of found money on the finder" is one of the oldest chestnuts there is. The majority of print authors working today never approach that much.

Smith also wrote the screenplay. I'm sure he got paid for that as well.

comment #29

thatmovieguy says ...

As of right now, in my part of the country THE RUINS is only being screened at 10 p.m. the night before opening, a la SHUTTER and THE GRUDGE 2. So if that helps you determine what kind of quality you should expect going in...