The Ruins...

Just got back from seeing it.

'Yup, I'm in Vancouver working and doing my typical 'lets forget that we're alone' go see a movie that wifey would never see thing.

And I realized something.

(and the realization was because I've been wondering why the film didn't do very well at the box office...)

For a film to succeed I wonder if you need to either:

a) Show them something they've never seen before...

Or...

b) Show them something they've seen a million times before and always love seeing...

So, 'a' would be like 'THE MATRIX', the first one, a film that was so special when it came out it became an instant classic.  That film gave us something we'd never seen before (a few things actually but principally...) bullet-time and a kick-ass action movie with a thought-provoking spirituality to it.  Or 'JURASSIC PARK', again the first one, CGI dinosaurs that looked real.  In fact, any great movie probably was great because it did 'a' to you.

Then there's 'b'...

Like 'YOU'VE GOT MAIL' or 'THE DEPARTED' a classic romantic comedy and a classic crime drama.  Genre films.  We know what to expect and we get what we're expecting and we love it for that.

I'm not sure 'THE RUINS' did either.  There wasn't anything really 'new' about it and it didn't really deliver 'classic' horror thrills.  It seemed like the 'torture' scenes didn't register, the audience (in my theater) didn't even really tense up, you couldn't feel the hackles rising on anybody.  There might be some who'd say we're over saturated with that type of thing ('SAW', 'HOSTEL' etc...) and so there's little 'shock' left in it.  It also didn't really deliver the 'skin' you'd expect from a 'college kids on vacation' movie.  

Nothing special, nothing surprising, nothing comfortably familiar.

So a lesson to me and to other would-be storytellers (stage or pulpit)...

If you're going to try and create something memorable make it fresh or make it familiar.

Anything but common or confused.

Point taken.

T