BB on The Devil and DJ

This is my second time watching this film. I had heard of Daniel Johnston, but didn't know how. Then I heard a Bright Eyes cover of Devil Town and I thought it was amazing. So I went and watched the movie. Since this was my second time watching the film, I was able to take a step back. The film making is engaging and dynamic, perfectly blending home video, stories, art, audio and recreations to tell about Daniel's life. I think watching it a second time allowed me to think my way through it a bit more than to just engage with it emotionally.

First off, I, like many of you, am excited by the odd, the offbeat, and the romance of a life lived on one's own accord. Many however, are not.

And for them, I'm sure they wonder if they're the butt of an elaborate joke when presented with Daniel Johnston and his pinched vocals and sloppy guitar. And to a certain degree I must agree. Just like some abstract art seems self indulgent and absurd (the bad kind), it feels at times like Daniel Johnston was someone who was cool to get into. To sport a "Hi, How are you" T-Shirt like Kurt Cobain and scoff at the commoners who just don't get it. In fact, there are many times when the interviewees make comments about Daniel's self indulgence, about his desire to be famous, about self fulfilled unrequited love and first and foremost Daniel's opinion of himself as an important artist. Is this earnestness, egoism, naivety, a symptom of his illness, or truth?

For me this question is best represented by his cassette tapes. Not the DIY albums but the letters on tape played throughout the movie. Are these a sort of diary, if so, why were they shared? Was it because he felt his story was so important? Was it important because he was a great artist or because he was a human being? Maybe it was just a way to communicate, after all, there were no cell phones then. The enigma that is these recordings to me describes Daniel Johnston. Equal parts self indulgence, honesty, creativity and sickness. At least I'd like to think that they all share an equal role. I guess I'm still left with the question that seems impossible to answer.

This combination of traits really does feel a lot like Salinger's Glass family. And a comment made earl in the film about the Johnston's being a right wing Christian version of the Glass family certainly felt more and more true by the end of the film. The fact that as Daniel became more and more sick the more convicted he became in his religious upbringing was fascinating, but what was more fascinating was the love the family showed for each other after all the headaches and heartaches of Daniel's life.

The music. The fact that Daniel's disease has left him in many ways an intellectual adolescent has allowed him to pine for a girl he hardly knows, just the way I did when I was 15 and started writing music. I've often wondered if a lot of musicians never really get past this phase. They see something, they want it, they're upset they can't have it. How else can Simple Plan write songs that sound like they're for 13 year olds when the artists are pushing 30? It doesn't seem far fetched to proposed arrested development. While for many this would be that shallow, for Daniel it's far more honest and his brain far more creative. Part of that is because he is sick and part of that is because he has a unique perspective of the world. There are some Daniel Johnston songs that I cannot get into, and there are others that make me stop what I am doing and just soak in the beauty.

Daniel's music and Daniel's art (which I think I like even more than his music) both could be classified as folk art, which brings up a new series of questions and thoughts. Daniel started creating from a young age and was obviously influenced by bands like the Beatles and Bob Dylan and comic book art. He then went on to be trained in art at school. Is that folk art? Art is never created in a vacuum and it seems more honest to just create than to try to create something different, but where does "real" art stop and folk art begin? Is the fact that his music breaks the mold warrant it folk art? Is it possible that it just breaks the mold because he couldn't do it any other way? The conversation now moves away from folk art to modern art. Many people could paint like Rothko or Pollack but that wasn't the point. Most of those artists were talented even in a more traditional sense. Those artists were intentional in their actions, Daniel seems unintentional in his. I did notice that the torso in his drawings looks much more life like than his other cartoons, showing that he might very well be a talented traditional artist. It seems like he found his style and has stuck to it. Additionally he has created his pantheon of characters to explore his feelings and thoughts. Again, this whole conversation leaves me with no real answers, but plenty to think about.

Perhaps the most interesting parallel drawn in the film is between Daniel and Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys. I'd be interested to know how my fellow reviewers feel about this parallel. Are they that similar? If so, how does their art compare? It would seem to be pretty hard to mess with the Beach Boys but maybe that's not the end of the discussion. I'd really like you all to weigh in. In light of the similarities between Brian Wilson and Daniel Johnston, what can we say about Daniel Johnston's art?

Finally, I'm left with one thought that was actually part of a pretty crappy ad campaign. Smart Critiques, Stupid Creates. Daniel is prolific. He picks something up and creates. I've spent all this time wondering about its artistic merit and just created a diarrhea of words for my poor movie clubbers to sift through. Kinda makes you think, huh? Dang it! I mean, kinda makes you want to create, huh?

Dspang's thoughts on The Devil and Daniel Johnston

Wow. This was a draining watch for me. I think that was the point though. I had never heard of this Daniel Johnston fellow until I saw this movie. I must say he exemplifies everything that has to do with the diy spirit of underground, music, art, etc. Let me elaborate. I'm a big fan of underground music. Normally the more extreme varieties such as powerviolence, grindcore, hardcore punk, alternative. I love a lot of this type of stuff. The reason that I love a lot of this style of music and art is the fact that it is written and portrayed with 100 percent more heart than most anything mainstream can provide. Daniel Johnston definitely is a strong embodiment of what art can be. Here we have a man. Stricken with a very terrible malady in manic depression. He draws, he makes music, he does all of these things. His art is him. He becomes very famous and rises above everything despite his illness with the help of all of his loved ones around him. Also like a lot of famous art and artists in history, his art and he are challenging. His singing maybe off key. His pictures and drawings may not be polished. That's the idea. It challenges one to sit there and look at it from the left, then maybe the right and then step in the middle and just start thinking about it. It leaves an impression. Yet everything that is put out into the world is done solely by him and him alone. No brickwalled and glamorous studio productions. No sheens of gloss or glitz. Nothing. Just a tormented artist turning to the only relief he knows.

Daniel's true medication is his art. Despite his ups and downs, his true therapy is his art. To me that's what makes his art and him awesome. Is the fact that everything he draws, writes, sings, plays just emanates the genuine and honest emotion this man feels on a daily basis. No matter what you get from him. You know that it is the real thing. This is what I admire most about this movie.

At times this movie was definitely uncomfortable for me to watch. The awkwardness of mental illness is a very difficult thing to deal with. I feel as though if Daniel did not have his art that he definitely would have imploded for sure. Then the world would not have such an inspirational figure. At the same time I feel that this movie raises awareness about mental illness too, without being overly preachey. It gives you a real portrait of someone suffering from a severe mental problem. No bullshit.

I'm with Brian on this one. This movie inspires me too. I definitely want to do something also. It makes me want to mess with Fruityloops and make my goofy techno music like I used to all the time. Makes me want to paint. Just something to that avail. Whether people like it or not its creativity. When it comes to art that seems to matter the most.

Jessie's Thoughts

This was an endless barrage of pictures, recordings, drawings, home movies and songs featuring the incredible yet desperately sad life of Daniel Johnston. As the movie progressed, I had the sinking feeling it would fall in the category of othe films i've seen with unusual subject material where I would have an uncomfortable feeling in my stomach, but I actually didn't. To say Daniel's life is inspiring depends on your perspective; it seems he was a Manic Depressive, but they never make clear if he was ever positively diagnosed, he saw things, feared evil and Satan everywhere he went, could only hold a job wiping down tables in a fast food joint and even now still is taken care of by his extremely elderly parents with tender care. But the things Daniel took to create ever since his brain could fathom and express the thoughts that poured from it is something to be proud of. Even at his mental state, he still earns money through his unique and numerous musical recordings and artistry, not just here in the US, but also prominently in Europe as well.

One thing I thought was neat about the film was the recreated stages of his life by the director, obviously staged they accompained the audio tape playbacks very well. It was a very original portrait of a one of a kind person, and the movie makes you realize, if nothing else, that we are not all the same, but all have an equal opportunity to do something that matters because it's shown over and over again, from his eager new bandmates, to old friends and acquantices, and even to his former manager who has become a seemingly harmless version of Daniel himself, they all look up to him and have found something in his body of work that means something to them. Sadly, it doesn't seem that Daniel can enjoy, or is even aware of his effect on people or be able to reflect on his own achievements. The film really plays up the double edged sword to Daniel's unlikely success very well.

A movie I def. would not have found myself so thanks for this very interesting pick Brian, overall I enjoyed the experience of placing myself into this world for an hour and 50 minutes but you can't help but feel a deep pain in your heart watching that final scene and hearing the dialogue.

Adam's Thoughts on The Devil and Daniel Johnston

When I first popped this DVD into my player, I was utterly caught off guard. Unlike anything I've ever seen before, The Devil and Daniel Johnston covers the life of a genius music writer who is manic depressant. The film itself was eye-opening. How much heart break, yet triumph someone can go through simultaneously is astounding.

The entire energy of the film was unique. Mixing audio, home video, and current video, this piece of cinema gives the film an authentic feel and the viewer almost gets a firsthand experience of the life of Daniel Johnston.

There was a point in the film where Daniel says a line that really struck me, something to the accord of, "I'm on memory lane with a flat tire." Such a genius lyric.

It's amazing the solace that someone with such a terrible disorder can be such a genius musically. It makes me think about the times I've heard about kids with autism being musically gifted, and then makes me think of how marvelous and mysterious the human brain is.

This film was an eye-opening experience into the life of a manic depressant. Heartbreaking and triumphant, The Devil and Daniel Johnston is a film that is both unique and astonishing. Thanks for the film selection, Brian, it certainly has opened my eyes to the touching, poignant, and staggering life and own world of Daniel Johnston.

Brian Hammons' thoughts on The Devil and Daniel Johnston

A complex story about art and the creative process, mental illness, and family. This is a documentary about Daniel Johnston. From a young age, Daniel was extremely creative, constantly doodling and coloring, playing piano and singing, making movies with his parents' camera, etc. Daniel became a prolific songwriter, writing and recording song after song, creating his own full-length albums he'd record on cheap cassette tapes and pass around town. While working at McDonald's he became somewhat of a local legend, his music to most would sound like the unrefined wailings of a timid kid, but many saw the beauty in it, so raw and genuine, that he started garnering attention in underground music circles.

Daniel is also very sick. Throughout his life, whenever things were starting to look up, he'd self-destruct, suffering from severe manic depression he'd alienate his family and friends, disappear altogether, lash out, proselytize and preach, and so on. He spent a lot of time in several mental institutions. All the while, his legend grew.

I thought this documentary was extremely compelling. I was fascinated by Daniel and his story. I couldn't help but think back to my own youth, as a young kid I'd also record music in my parents' basement, but never with such earnestness nor amassing such a staggeringly prolific output as Johnston did. Daniel's borderline craziness and its impact on his aging mother and father is also a very crucial part to this story and film. At one point his dad, while retelling the story of Daniel taking the keys out of a small airplane they were in and tossing them out the window, sending the plane into a violent tailspin and subsequent crash, starts crying. It's the type of real, genuine human emotion that great movies, even at their highest points, can't hope to convey. You're actually watching a man, who has spent the better years of his life constantly worrying and carrying for a handicapped son, temporarily lose control of his nerve and cry. Even though Daniel caused them such grief and trouble, many times over, the relationship between Johnston and his parents as depicted in the documentary is deeply moving.

Daniel is an enigmatic force, it's no wonder why those that came across him developed such a fondness for him. Whether it was his drawings of Captain America, or songs of unrequited love, Daniel was in every sense an artist. While the story itself is so captivating, it must also be said that the documentary, and those who put so much effort into it, is also tremendously done. It seamlessly blends in archival footage, interviews, narrative, etc. and is never dull or needlessly explanatory. It's a challenging film, just as Daniel himself is a challenging person, sometimes it brings us awfully close to a level of genius and also a level of mental unbalance that is almost uncomfortable to confront. I think one of the biggest compliments I can give it is that it inspired me. I wanted to pick up a pen, camera, paintbrush, guitar, anything and just create from within myself.

Film #4: The Devil and Daniel Johnston (2005)

The Devil and Daniel Johnston is a 2006 documentary film about the noted American eccentric artist Daniel Johnston. It chronicles Johnston's life from childhood up to the present, with an emphasis on his mental illness, and how it manifested itself in demonic self-obsession. The film was directed by Jeff Feuerzeig and produced by Henry S. Rosenthal

Jared's Take on The Ruins

First, my apologies for being this late to the game, and for missing the last discussion entirely. No excuses. I just ran out of time.

Second. The movie film.

I wish I had liked it more. I think, even before it started, that I was going to be disconnected from the film because I'm just not a fan of horror movies - or the overtly, or oddly violent ones. I think the only one I've even remotely enjoyed was Cabin Fever, and even that was fleeting...

There were some interesting ideas on display throughout the film that I think could have been explored more at the necessary sacrifice of bloodletting, but that's just my opinion. I know that the violence, or acts of violence, in horror films are supposed to serve the story in some way, and that much I can appreciate because I don't feel like any of it was gratuitous or unwarranted - it's just simply not my taste, I suppose.

The story itself was actually all sorts of rad. But, starting from the beginning when the group met the German, I had to remind myself that they apparently don't live in the same universe that we do - the universe where there are movies about the crazy, horrible, violent things that happen to tourists when they traipse off in to the jungle with complete and total strangers. Especially Germans.

Just kidding.

I suppose the fact that they also live in a universe where a plant can kill them in various ways, and said plants can mimic different noises, should have been some indication that "reality" was just an odd concept within the context of the film. Or it was the "reality" of the film. But I found it at odd with the violence on display, which was very graphic and straightforward, and real - but set against the backdrop of these unreal things happening... I don't know. It was just an odd mix for me.

Technically, though, the film looks great. I was rather impressed with the visuals, far more than anything else. The acting was decent enough - being asked to commit to a role that asks you to be so afraid of something like vines would be a challenge for anyone, I'm sure.

I wish I could add more to the discussion, but I just couldn't dig in to this film on any more than a base level, and I really wanted to. Maybe, watching it again later down the line, with perhaps lowered expectations, I might enjoy it more. Thanks for the pick, though, Jessie. I'm always open to new experiences. This one just didn't capture my attention so much.

Erin's take on The Ruins

First off, I have to say that I'm a horror movie buff. As much as I like a good romantic comedy, musical, or even action film, I'd usually give it all up for a horror movie. Somehow I had missed The Ruins when it was out in theatres and on dvd, so I went in with fresh eyes.

I was intrigued from the first moment. Who is this girl? Where is she? What's happening? An interesting technique to open the film, and one that had me hooked. I didn't love this movie, but I certainly didn't hate it.

I thought the movie had many of the markers of a standard horror movie. Right off the bat, I actually snickered, because while discussing going to the ruins, one of the characters says, "as long as I'm back for make your own taco night!" Anyone who has seen a horror movie knows this sort of "I'll be back" declaration is as good as signing your own death certificate. The film also has a standard sort of plot at the core: a group of co-eds goes off on vacation, goes missing, has to fight to survive. We've seen it done time and time again, but never quite like this.

I had to admit that they got themselves into a pretty demented situation. As soon as the Greek guy was killed, I don't see how they thought they had ANY chance whatsoever of survival. I kept asking myself, "what would I do in this situation?" and I honestly had no clue. At every turn, with every choice they made (sending Mathias down the hole, sending the girls down to get him, sending the girls down for the "cell phone", etc) I still could not see how they might fathom getting out of there alive. Unrelated to survival, but I also didn't understand why Stacey chose to give her boyfriend that handjob... nothing whips me into a sexual frenzy like a day on some cursed ruins?

I thought the whole living plant business was extremely cool, but made me feel a little bit ill. I hate when you see things moving under the skin, or in people's eyes (X-Files used to do that on occasion). I did like that it presented the group with choices they would NEVER have to make in the real world, and it caused them to confront some scary demons. That leg amputation would be a HUGE undertaking for someone who is just a med student, and I couldn't believe Dr. Jeff went through with it, and that they were so graphic with the visuals. Then, when they wake up in the morning and Stacey isn't in the tent, and they go out to find that she's been up cutting plant out of herself, I found myself again horrified and fascinated -- the markings of a good horror movie.

In the end, I was really impressed with the plan that Dr. Jeff and Amy concocted. I was, however, disappointed by the ending. There was so much build up to Mathias' death as well as Stacey's, and how they related to the survival of the group, but then the deaths of the other three came quite quickly, without giving the viewer time to really think. Throughout the film I thought the whole "connection" was that if the plant came in contact with your blood, it took over your body, but I don't remember Amy bleeding. Am I wrong? Did I miss something? In any event, I was proud of Dr. Jeff for sacrificing himself for his love, but found it quite disheartening that she didn't live even 5 minutes longer to justify the sacrifice.

Jessie's thoughts on the Ruins

So my reason for picking this was I had just read the novel which is a deceptively sick psychological thriller. The film was adapated by the author, Scott Smith, which kind of surprised me that he would stick in different pieces of the story that made it so great and kept me on the edge of my seat reading it, with the film they seemed kind of slapped together just to have them happen on screen. Still that being said, for a horror type film, i liked it's pace (which kind of drags in the book) and it reveals things nicely to kind of build up to the end, which in the film was all about the vines, while in the book it's all about the realization that they were never leaving that place, it was their tomb.

One example of what I was referring to earlier with plot points thrown in for no apparent reason, there's a scene on their first night where Stacy jerks off her boyfriend for a comforting sense of normalcy, well in the book, it is the example of the first salvo from the vines, as they find his secretion and ingest it, for lack of better word, but also creep inside his dickhole; in the film, she jerks him off just for the hell of it. Matthias was such a strong, mysterious character in the novel and here he's relegated to empty victim with barely any characterization.

It's so cliched but the book is always better than the film because of length issues but I think film has a unique way of being able to take the same stories and mold them into different versions of the same tale, with perhaps a unique viewpoint. This realy didn't fit the mold. The characters all were slightly altered from the book, and what happens to who, but one of the most telling parts from the book is when Eric and the girls get drunk and start discussing if they survive this, who would play who in a film, and what archetypes would fit what; well they followed it to a tee here which was even more cliched. Still, the movie's strengths were it's constant action with the vines and the eeriness and originality of the vines themselves which I was hoping they would show all the tricks and whistles of but they pretty much got them all in.

Dspang's Thoughts on "The Ruins."

Well. We have ourselves a gorefest here. I'm a sucker for a good gorefest but, there was an overwhelming sense of dread present in this movie was a nice touch though. When I first sat down to watch this I started to think of the movie "Turistas," then I immediately forgot that crapfest. Unnaturally beautiful people, check. Vacation in a scenic location, check. Booze, check. Then Mathias comes along. The party truly starts then in my opinion. When watching this I for some reason was reminded of the 70's nature gone amok films that came out left and right back in the day. Frogs, slugs, worms, spiders, even rabbits were killing off people. Now we have a killer plant that indulges in mental sadism before feeding on it's prey.

I actually thought this movie was a pretty good one. I know the ultimate dumb move of following a stranger to an abandoned ruin not on the map was crappy but sometimes you need this boneheadedeness to make a horror movie. This movie felt like a 70's exploitation flick too. I was nostalgic all over with it. Cannibal Ferox comes to mind. Among other grindhouse style movies. The over the top gore was mostly not inflicted by the plants. It was the people trying to save themselves from the plants through surgery and such. Boy was it nasty. I winced a few times. I haven't winced in a long time but the effects were pretty well done. That scene when the girl is cutting herself to get the vines out, damn. Its that sort of dysfunction in a horror scenario that I love.

All the leads were pretty good in their respective roles. The only one I really recognized was Jenna Malone. She wasn't bad but wasn't great either. They all did a good job of conveying the dread and terror present in this movie.

Dread and terror, this movie had it in spades. When the plants start to mimic the behavior of the human cast things got interesting. I love how it messed with their minds. Made it very eerie at points. I kind of wished there had been a little bit more back story to the plants. Even a little. I was kind of wondering whether this was a large mass of different vines that all work together or whether it was a single living entity that had several parts attached to a main.

At points I also was thinking of John Carpenter's remake of The Thing. The villagers and everyone involved treated this plant as if it were a disease. It was neat how it started growing inside of the two female leads. It inspired a bit of paranoia in the cast like in "The Thing." I was digging that.

On the downside I thought killing of one of the children was a bit excessive and unneeded. Once again I really would have loved a little more story on this ruin. I could have used more usage of practical effects as opposed to cgi. Some of it was kind of obvious. Cgi should only be used to slightly enhance when it comes to certain things.

All in all I think this was better than what most horror coming out these days is like. It has a neat idea and manages to take its subject matter with seriousness. Also take place in broad daylight most of the time too. It kicked in with a serious bout of meanness and dread in the atmosphere that it had.

Adam's Thoughts on The Ruins

This was my first time viewing "The Ruins." I have to admit, though, that when I first started watching the film, I thought to myself, "Great, another bunch of typical, hormonal 20-somethings who are going to get killed by the end of the movie.” While I was right and they were certainly hormonal, I began to think to myself that there might be some hope for Jeff to make it out of this predicament alive.

I enjoyed how this film wasn't the typical stabby-stabby, “let's blatantly have sex so the killer can kill us in the middle of intercourse” type of film. I liked how the film took a more unique route to horror and used nature, of all things, to be the killer.

The premise itself is very cool. When was the last time you looked at a vine and went “Holy crap that thing could kill me”? I think it took a stroke of brilliance upon the author of the book to come up with such an idea for a killer as a simple vine. You could probably read into this and say that the film was conveying the message that man tries to control nature, yet nature is a powerful force to be reckoned with.

There was a subtle moment in the film about an hour and 22 minutes in, where Jeff was embracing Amy after rubbing blood on her face. Looking closely, you can see that the blood stain kind of resembles a heart. It took heart for Jeff to sacrifice himself to save Amy, and it showed how much he loved her.

Overall, it was a fun flick. Thanks for the unique horror recommendation, Jess. I know that I'll regard this film as one of the most original horror movies I've seen.

Brian Hammons' thoughts on The Ruins

I first saw this movie when it originally was released on DVD a few years ago and at the time found it to be an amusing ride. I liked the premise, sort of Twilight Zone-esque, not an everyday, average story, something you could ponder about and the more time you spent unraveling it in your head the more insane it all seemed. I need to state right off the bat, though, watching it for a second time I was much less caught up in the story and found myself more finding flaws and things I disliked about it. That being said, as a whole, I think it's still worth an initial watch, but I don't know that it's a film that'll get quantitatively better on repeat viewings.

I'm going to recall all the stuff that my brain grasped onto, both good and bad, and just share it all in a stream of consciousness way. The opening: who was that girl screaming alone within the ruins? I assume that it was the once living woman who reappeared later as any number of corpses we saw rotted within its walls. I'd forgotten Jena Malone was in it, I've liked her since The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys (2002) but this isn't her finest hour (or hour and thirty-three minutes if you've got the unrated cut). Woah -- here comes a guy with a beard, he must be bad! Then there was that beach party, now Jessie is the club member who's read the novel, so I imagine he can shed some light here, but I can imagine the book's development of the story here was less crass and on the nose than a drunken beach party with requisite Tiki lights.

When the group seeks for a ride to what inevitably ends up being the ruins we get a real goofy moment with the guy and his truck. First, there's a dog and we get that cliched "jump" moment made popular in teen fare like Scream (1996). Then, the man plays up the trope all too well, with his, "No, no, this place no good" line of foreboding. Ugh.

To the ruins and I came up with this little rhyme: Arrow through the heart? A good way to start! I won't go through all the plot development at the ruins itself, save for saying, that what transpired was much more effective when I initially saw this with no prior knowledge of its proceedings. Its established early we have at least one rational member with a functioning brain, worried about logistics like water supply, etc. and he also goes on to be a sacrificial savior of sorts later. The plant can replicate sounds, from the cell phone, to confusing Stacy, deluding her into thinking her boyfriend Eric and best friend Amy were fucking. Where can I buy one of these plants? The possibilities are endless.

You know when the natives shoot their own kid that things are pretty much screwed up beyond repair. Stacy waking up with the plant in her open leg wound was a good visual moment, only outdone later when they find her alone, covered in blood, pleading, "It's okay! I just had to get a little more out." Another visual I quite liked, albeit much more of a smaller note, was the one shot (around 73 min. into the film) of them all four, dirty, sleeping beside each other in the tent. My favorite scene, in so far as something relatable to the human condition and myself as a viewer, was Amy and Eric's late night chat sitting atop the ruins. Amy: "Do you think they're going to find us?" Eric: "Honestly, I think making a run for it is our only chance." Amy: "I know."

There's lots of goofball errors and just bad filmmaking noticeable. The continuity errors are abundant, including Amy's sunglasses, in proceeding scenes becoming glasses, then mysteriously going back to being sunglasses; and Jeff's scar on his chin, going from a fresh wound to old scar in varying degrees in no direct correlation to the frame of time existing within the film.

In conclusion, a fun, fairly innocuous watch if you're game for some bizarre horror, but on repeat viewings doesn't hold up as much more than a film with a fairly intriguing gimmick but riddled with bad, heavy handed and solemn direction and uneven performances.

Film #3: The Ruins (2008)

The Ruins is a 2008 horror film directed by Carter Smith and starring Jonathan Tucker, Shawn Ashmore, Jena Malone, Laura Ramsey and Joe Anderson. The film is based on the novel of the same name by Scott Smith, who also wrote the screenplay. This is also the first non-comedy related movie that Ben Stiller executive produced.