Ruby (1977)

Now available in a new digital film transfer from the original 35mm negative and in the restored, director's theatrical cut. She's sweet sixteen and her mama (Piper Laurie - the mother in the horror classic Carrie) wants to send her away. The deaf-mute daughter retaliates by calling up the spirit of her murdered father and in one terrifying night of horror, he exacts his revenge. Bonus Features: Contains the original theatrical trailer| Motion Menu| Scene Selection (18 chapters) Commentary with Director Curtis Harrington & Actress Piper Laurie| Interview with Curtis Harrington by Film Critic David Del Valle| Photo Gallery| Director's Theatrical Cut. Specs: DVD9; Dolby Digital Mono; 85 minutes; 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio; MPAA - R; Year - 1977; SRP - $14.99.

Despite Its R Rating, "Ruby" Targeted the Late 70s Kiddie Crowd

"Ruby," even in its original uncut theatrical version, contains no more violence, gore, sexuality, or profanity than any 1960s Hammer film. The majority of the ten to thirteen parents on the 1977 MPAA Ratings Board obviously never saw one of those Hammer films, broadcast uncut on slews of commercial independent television stations during the period of "Ruby"; they slapped poor "Ruby" with an R. The producers (and maybe even director Curtis Harrington) found a way to target the Kiddie Crowd anyway, exclaiming in all-caps red font on posters and newspaper ads: "WARNING: CERTAIN SCENES COULD BE TOO SHOCKING FOR THOSE UNDER SEVENTEEN." Their ploy sure the hell worked on me: I was 10 years old at the time; when I first laid eyes on the ad in the San Jose Mercury with that disclaimer, I didn't stop begging my parents to let me see that movie for weeks. Not only was "Ruby" a forbidden R movie, but the ad warned that it will shock me . . . maybe even to death. I just had to see that movie! My Merciless Begging My Parents ploy (even risking punishment if I didn't stop it) worked like a charm. My parents, deciding to be their own ratings board, left me with a sitter (my sinister older sister) on a Friday night to view the film. They deemed it no more shocking than any 1960s Hammer I watched uncut on Bob Wilkins' Creature Features. Saturday night, they took me to Capitol Drive-in and I had a blast with "Ruby." I was afraid to go to sleep for a few nights after seeing it, part of the fun for a 10 year old in the 1970s, but I got to see a movie that could have killed me with shock. (Hell, I remember seeing the original Steve McQueen "Blob" on TV when I was ten, and even that deprived me of sleep.) My parents also deemed the R-rated "Exorcist II: The Heretic" no worse than "Ruby" or any 1960s Hammer film; that happened to be the movie playing after "Ruby." That turkey involves another review later. Those two films make a perfect double feature, however. I highly recommend "Ruby," the original theatrical DVD version -- NOT the weird, truncated version that's been available on VHS for years. It will be worth every penny if you adore So Bad It's Good flicks. Perceive it with the eyes and ears of a 10 year old from the 1970s. You'll have a blast. December 15, 2008

Very good 70s horror film

Less well known horror film of the mid 1970s featuring a capable cast. The core setting of the film is at an old drive-in. Apt setting & atmosphere selected for this film.

Piper Laurie is the title character, Stuart Whitman turns in a decent performance as a pivotal character, as does Roger Davis as a medium of the occult, & Janit Baldwin as Ruby's daughter who's possessed by her late father, a gunned-down gangster.

Employees of the drive-in are murdered one by one, & the suspense builds & continues to mount. I am proud to have this in my collection. April 30, 2008

DO YOU LOVE ME RUBY?

ASHEEEE-BA-BA-BEE! It still gives me the WHILLIES!
I am speaking of my title caption spoken from the
Paul McCartney eyed Janit Baldwin. You see I saw this
on a WED. in 1977(I do not know how I knew it was a
Wed. But I do.) it was a double bill of The Hills
have Eyes and Ruby. Piper(where is the Oscar for Carrie)
Laurie plays Ruby a former gun moll who is haunted by
her slain lover who possesses their autistic teen daughter
(Baldwin)while murdering former gangsters now working at the
drive-in. Curtis Harrington drenches everything in his usual
soft-focus photography. Some best scenes for me were the
soda machine hooked up to a person,so when you put in your
dime? You got a cup that filled with blood! And of course
the possession of Baldwin where her voice is lower than James
Earl Jones of Darth Vader fame...Do you love me Ruby?
Ashheee Ba-Ba-Bee! Still CREEPS me out! Though nothing like
Deodato's THE CAUST (1980) But than nothing is like
cannibal holo CAUST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! September 19, 2007

Bad movie...but in a good way

Ok...this movie was never going to win any awards. And it's not even good. But for a b-movie film buff like myself...it's a great film! It is certainly a film with character. The only thing that the film has going for it is Piper Laurie. She's awesome as Ruby! The movie itself is trying to be like the movie "the Exorcist," but is unsuccessful at it. This version is the good version. There was a badly edited version with a lot of cuts and most of the violence taken out. You won't like this film if you are not into b-movies. but if you are...it's a treat! April 2, 2007

COOL THO NEGLECTED HORROR CLASSIC

What makes a horror film a classic? What ingredients does one need to include to make such a film to deserve a praise word as 'classic'? In 'Ruby', a highly ignored film from the 70's is called a classic for it's sheer nerve in being one of the earliest 'body count' films that actually had a story to tell without giving the audience a handful of meaningless murders to people we didn't care for.
At the time of the film's release, it was relegated to the Drive-In circuit, and a few lesser 'hard top' theaters. I do remember a few critics trying to mention that 'Ruby' was an 'Exorcist' rip-off, but if that was the case, why didn't the film succeed? Since the 'Exorcist' was such a big hit, why didn't a copy cat film make money?
Sadly, it's been 30 years since this film's release, and finally making it's appearance on DVD, i can understand why at times the film did not succeed.
Here's why.
Following Curtis Harrington's career since 'What's The Matter With Helen?", Harrington's output was not as consistant as other capable directors, who did quite well in presenting good-taste horror films that didn't insult our intelligence.
Harrington, a man who was very detail-oriented wanted to present a legitimate story of a woman, who has a child who's soul is suddenly 'taken-over' by a former b/f that was killed while the woman was pregnant. The child seems 'possessed', but is never fully explained.
The film is at times very lavishly photographed, but there are a few scenes that look as if were filmed quickly, and is not fluid.
The ending of course was NOT directed by Harrington. The ending was a 'tack on' by the producers of the film, who wanted a different ending that included a skeleton and a woman who doubled for Laurie. The actual ending was for Laurie's character to live in torment for her previous actions, but will have a daughter who is no longer possessed, and will live a normal life. A happy ending actually.
What makes this film a classic? The acting.
Piper Laurie, an actress who has not been fully utilized throughout her career, but has made a mark on every film she appears in.
Her role in 'Carrie' is one of marvel, and is just a small slice of how powerful she is as an actress.
Stuart Whitman, somewhat of a tv-movie/tv-show actor is another fine performance.
Overall, the set pieces to the killings of each person in the film was rather unique, in an 'Omen' kind of way, where they perished in different ways, or, called the 'creative death'.
Harrington always seemed to get the best performance out of his actors, be it James Caan, Debbie Reynolds, the late Shelley Winters, Dennis Hopper, or Piper Laurie.
I never thought of this film as an 'Exocist' rip off. This film has redeeming qualities all on it's own without any excess to the former hit. With great regret, this film did not receive a large distribution on it's initial run, and did not make it's production costs back until later when it was tagged second bill with other horror films at drive-in's.
It is a good film, with good acting, and very imaginative set pieces. For the most part it is well photographed, but at times will see a difference in quality that is not the fault of the trasfer from celluloid to DVD, it is just the way it was presented.

January 9, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...