User Reviews

The title of this film and Piper Laurie's presence clearly derive from CARRIE (1976) – though I was misled into thinking that Ruby was the possessed child rather than the mother. While I'm not sure the EXORCIST trappings were really necessary, these actually extend to only a couple of scenes…and one has to understand that the notorious 'spider walk' from the 1973 classic – depicted here (but more on this later) – wasn't officially a part of the film until its 2000 re-edit! Incidentally, the irate-father-speaking/murdering-through-his-child angle was also seen in Mario Bava's contemporaneous SHOCK (1977).

RUBY, therefore, is silly but quite effective scene-by-scene and, anyway, it certainly provides a unique mixture of supernatural horror with the typical gangland milieu. The drive-in theater element (showing ATTACK OF THE 50-FOOT WOMAN [1958] years before it was actually made; the story is ostensibly set in 1951!), then, renders the proceedings even trashier (especially with the participation of a sluttish habitué) – while, at the same time, serving as a comment on the genre itself.

The swamp (and period) setting supply the requisite atmosphere: Laurie's bitter but still-attractive torch singer/aspiring film-star/gangster's moll dominates her associates (the very same gang that killed her lover at the start of the picture!) but obviously clings to the past – linking the film to Harrington's earlier horror outing WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH HELEN? (1971). The odd-looking Janit Baldwin is perfectly cast as the mediumistic girl, especially creepy when the dead gangster – through her – confronts Laurie with his suspicions that the latter set him up. Stuart Whitman is a likable ageing hero, and Roger Davis rises to the occasion as a paranormal expert.

Unfortunately, the special effects and gore are cheaply done and the ending (different from Harrington's original conception) somewhat abrupt; though the version on the VCI DVD I purchased is credited as being the "Director's Cut", it's still missing some footage…but, at least, is free of other additions requested by the producers (reportedly the work of Stephanie Rothman) for the film's Network TV showings.

The disc includes an hour-long career overview with director Harrington and film critic David Del Valle, which is extremely interesting: it touches upon some of the films I watched in tribute to his recent passing, but also a number of others (including the TV stuff) which are still very rare to come by. Besides, he fondly reminisces about his encounters with several film legends such as Alfred Hitchcock, Josef von Sternberg, Orson Welles and James Whale (let's not forget that Harrington is the man responsible for saving the latter's delightful THE OLD DARK HOUSE [1932] from oblivion) – all of whom, incidentally, are among my own personal favorites!

The Audio Commentary is similar to the one for Harrington's NIGHT TIDE in that, apart from denoting locations where specific scenes were shot (which would mean very little to a foreigner like myself!), the director seems to be fuzzy on many production details. However, what he didn't forget – or forgive, for that matter – is his strained relationship with the film's executive producer, Steve Krantz (whom Harrington even describes as "evil"): he never misses an opportunity to put him down – berating Krantz for his stinginess, for imposing a mediocre cameraman on him and, needless to say, for ruining his 'poetic' ending! The director also remarks about the remarkable longevity of horror classics vis-a'-vis mainstream productions from Hollywood's Golden Age, and recalls the Karloff/Lugosi vehicle THE RAVEN (1935) as having been his introduction to the genre. Incidentally, the RUBY Commentary is a lot more animated than that of NIGHT TIDE – thanks to the enthusiastic contribution of star Piper Laurie, even if she's critical of her own performance at this juncture (and blames the tight schedule for it). As for the 'spider walk', it emerges that this eerie contortionist effect wasn't borrowed from THE EXORCIST at all – but rather from a Salvador Dali painting about a psycho-physiological condition known as the Hysterical Arch!

Piper Laurie follows her success in Carrie with another supernatural horror, Ruby, in which she plays gangster's moll Ruby Claire, who, sixteen years after witnessing the cold-blooded shooting of Nicky (Sal Vecchio), the father of her unborn child, finds herself menaced by his vengeful spirit. Believing that he was betrayed by his lover, Nicky's ghost proceeds to bump off the ex-gangsters now employed at her drive-in theatre, using his mute daughter Leslie (Janit Baldwin) as a conduit, before finally confronting Ruby herself.

Opening with the wonderfully dreamlike murder of Nicky in a bayou, Curtis Harrington's Ruby is not without atmosphere and style, the director making effective use of his rundown drive-in location and its eerie, foggy swampland surroundings. Sadly, despite the creepy ambiance, several creative kills (ala The Omen)—hanging by film stock, impalement to movie screen, death by drinks vending machine—plus a couple of fun possession scenes clearly inspired by The Exorcist, the overly talky nature of the script prevents the film from being a complete success, the dull dialogue frequently bringing the action to a standstill.

"Ruby" follows an ex-gun moll in 1951 Florida who employs a bunch of her former mobster peers to run a drive-in theater adjacent to her house. Unfortunately for Ruby, the spirit of her deceased husband has come back to haunt her, the drive-in, and her mute daughter.

This is a film that has been on my radar for years, but I've never caught it until recently; and boy, what a strange cocktail it is. At times, "Ruby" is a quasi-mob flick; at others, it's a supernatural horror film riffing (rather sloppily) on "The Exorcist." In some moments, it's a chamber drama. The end result is truly baffling and the tone inconsistent. But is it all bad? Not really.

The glue that holds it together is star Piper Laurie, fresh off her critical acclaim from "Carrie" (it's a mystery why she agreed to do this low-rent grindhouse flick). Even though her role is much less exciting than that of Margaret White, she plays the oddly amoral Ruby in a way that evokes Norma Desmond from "Sunset Boulevard." Her gun moll past is at times overshadowed by her failed "career" as a singer and actress, and she spends a fair amount of the film lamenting her nascent glory days, strutting around her house in extravagant costumes and playing her sole record on a jukebox in a makeshift dance hall. It's all very bizarre, and director Curtis Harrington never even attempts to elucidate the context.

It's probably this utter weirdness and lack of clarity that left me mildly amused by "Ruby," because there is more that doesn't make sense about it than there is that does. As the film ramps up to its finale, featuring full-blown poltergeist madness and Linda Blair-esque contortions, it serves up a ridiculous conclusion that is oddly befitting. Given how silly and utterly strange it all is, the "Scooby Doo" ending makes sense.

Overall, I found myself consistently entertained by "Ruby," though it is not a good film, nor is it a film for everyone. As a horror film, it is rather dull and apes snippets of its contemporaries--but as an utter anomaly, "Ruby" deserves some street credit. There truly isn't much out there that is quite like it. A haunted gun moll running a haunted drive-in? The people who will enjoy this know who they are. 6/10.

This oddball horror/possession flick was yet another '70's film made in the race to rip-off the super horror hit THE EXORCIST. However, this one is better than most because it was directed by cult favorite Curtis Harrington who pays special attention to plot, character, atmosphere and detail rather than reverting to spinning heads and vomiting pea soup. Furthermore, Piper Laurie(who won an Oscar nomination the previous year for her role in CARRIE) gives a marvellous performance in the title role, and Janit Baldwin is also impressive as Laurie's disturbed young daughter. Roger Davis(of DARK SHADOWS fame) also does well with his role as a psychologist who gets caught up in this eerie tale of the supernatural. BEWARE: Although most video editions of the film run fifteen minutes longer than the version that was originally released to theatres, they slash much of the gore(which wasn't really all that graphic to begin with) and substitute it with dull, pointless footage featuring supporting characters that really have no connection to the plot or action of the film. This version of the film is credited to the pseudonymous Allen Smithee and was apparantly the version that first aired on network television. If you are lucky enough to find the 84-minute version credited to Curtis Harrington, the film's original director, you"ll fare much better.

Horror movie with a needlessly convoluted plot. In 1935 a gangster's girlfriend named Ruby (Piper Laurie) sees her boyfriend shot down dead. At that moment she gives birth to his baby (!!!) The movie cuts to 16 years later. Ruby is an alcoholic running a drive in and Leslie is her daughter--born a deaf mute (I think). For reasons never made totally clear she has the guys who shot her boyfriend dead working for her in the drive in! Then they start getting killed--it seems Ruby's ex is coming back for revenge...

If that synopsis sounds confusing you should see the movie! Curtis Harrington is a good director and I'm giving this a 4 just because it is well-directed...it just doesn't make a lot of sense. I saw the director's cut which was thought to be lost. Harrington was fired before the movie was finished. The producer took the movie, cut out all the violence and shot scenes with a totally different cast! That was the one released. Harrington complained about it and said his version was gone. Somehow it was found and that's the one I saw. If this is the cut the director approved I can only wonder how bad the reedited version was! Scenes seem to end before they're finished; the plot meanders all over the place; there are way too many unanswered questions still lingering at the end; Ruby is inexplicably always dressed like a madam; the special effects are poor; the deaths are very poorly done (and look REAL fake); the twist at the end comes out of nowhere--and doesn't make a lot of sense and, basically, this is BORING!

Laurie is a wonderful actress but she's terrible in this. She appears to be drunk most of the time--or looks like she wishes she were. Stuart Whitman walks through his role. Janit Baldwin is actually pretty good as Leslie. And Roger Davis (fondly remembered from "Dark Shadows") pops up about 30 minutes in as a parapsychologist. He has little to do with the plot except have Whitman provide some clumsy exposition to him. It's supposed to clear up the plot--it doesn't.

A dull, confusing mess. Not worth seeing at all. It's really a shame-the VCI DVD looks just beautiful.

After ending a 15-year retirement from films to do Brian De Palma's "Carrie" (in which she was Oscar-nominated), Piper Laurie inexplicably turned up the very next year in this low-rent schlocker directed by Curtis Harrington. Needless to say, she didn't net another nomination. It's an abhorrent concoction about an aging gangster's moll who runs a drive-in movie theater, and Laurie gives a flat, depressed performance. Turns out the gangster's ghost now haunts the drive-in, and he may be responsible for possessing a young girl (Janit Baldwin, forced into imitating Linda Blair). Mixture of scares, satire, comedic elements, and bloody violence makes for one cruddy movie. NO STARS from ****

After a setup that kills her husband, Ruby a gangster wife has to raise her daughter alone, or maybe not. She have her ganglike family to support her. Then people start getting dying around her. Is it ghost, a crazed murderer, or could be; he dead husband seeking revenge.

Mobster Nicky Rocco is gunned down in the middle of a Louisiana swamp. With his dying breath, he vows revenge on all of those who did him wrong - including pregnant girlfriend Ruby (Piper Laurie). Some 16 year later, Ruby lives at and operates an out-of-the-way drive-in with some of the former gang members she's given jobs to. Also in Ruby's household is Nicky's teenage daughter, Leslie - a very troubled girl. Things start to get really weird when Nicky's former associates begin dying horrible, unexplained deaths. Leslie's demeanor also begins to change until one fateful night when her body is fully possessed by her long dead and wronged father. Through Leslie, Nicky repeats his vow of vengeance.

Overall, as my wife would say, Ruby is pretty much hot garbage. While the movie has its fair share of reasonably spooky moments, there's too much here that I didn't care for to give the film a positive rating. The plot is a mess, the dialogue is often silly, and there are long patches of the movie where nothing much happens. It wasn't until the final 10-15 minutes that anything really peaked my interest. The acting is all over the place. Piper Laurie chews enough scenery to choke on. Her overacting really got old. The usually reliable Stuart Whitman, in contrast, plays his part so understated that Laurie literally runs him over. No one in the cast really stood out to me. Also, the film is supposedly set in 1951. I've seen a number of goofs listed on IMDb about the film's setting. My issue is that it just doesn't look like 1951. The way Ruby was filmed, it has a distinct 1970s look to it that no manner of old cars or old clothes can hide. I don't know any way to say it other than I never felt like I was watching a movie set in 1951.

Finally, the movie we see projected on the drive-in screen is Attack of the 50 Foot Woman. It says a lot about my feelings on Ruby when I say that I would have much rather been watching Attack of the 50 Foot Woman.

Despite its reception, which seems to have been quite negative from what I have read, Ruby made an absolutely huge profit at the box office. Made for $600,000 it went on to rake in $16million. That's serious commercial success for sure. But it appears to have been one of those movies which made big waves on initial release but then kind of fell off the radar immediately afterwards. In 1935 a man is gunned down by his fellow gangsters. Sixteen years later his wife, now the mother to a disturbing mute girl, runs a drive-in theatre that specialises in horror movies. She employs all the men responsible for the earlier murder and soon they all start winding up dead, victims of a mysterious supernatural entity. It soon transpires that the young daughter is possessed by her dead father's spirit and he's out for some serious pay-back.

This one was directed by Curtis Harrington who was responsible for the subtle off-kilter chiller Night Tide (1961) which featured a young Dennis Hopper in an unusually restrained role. Ruby is a decidedly more standard horror offering combining elements of a trio of big-hitting horror hits of the day including Carrie (1976) with Piper Laurie as a demented mother, The Exorcist (1973) with the spider-walking possessed young girl and The Omen (1976) with its series of elaborate death scenes - victims are impaled high up on cinema screens, choked to death on film reels, hung from trees and left bloodied in...a Coke machine. It's a combination that basically works though, with enough incidents occurring to ensure it's never a boring watch. I think its possession movie element is the one that works best though, with Janit Baldwin perfectly cast in the role of the demented daughter. With her saucer eyes and creepy smile she is genuinely unsettling and the scenes with her possessed by her father are actually kind of scary. Perhaps if the various death scenes had been executed with a little more verve and detail, the film would be better but the weird killings still do add a further macabre detail to the overall whole never-the-less. The drive-in setting is actually a pretty good one and gives the film a bit of distinct character and I did enjoy the interspersing of the featured film Attack of the 50 Foot Woman into things even if it was a movie released seven years after events depicted on screen were supposed to be happening - ah, the trifling details film-makers could so easily get away with in the days before the internet! Anyway, events do dovetail to an ending which was a little odd. I don't think the general idea of it was especially bad – quite decent in actual fact – but it was just far, far too abrupt. All-in-all though, this forgotten box-office smash is actually well worth seeking out if you like 70's horror movies, it's a little ropey in places for sure but it does have a bit of atmosphere, originality and legitimately scary moments.

I don't understand all the negative reviews. Piper Laurie gives an emotional, strong performance as Ruby. The film has atmosphere, is moody, and somewhat original (particularly with the death scenes). Janit Baldwin looks remarkably like Piper Laurie in some scenes (I thought that was Piper Laurie on the theatrical release poster until I saw the film). Roger Davis, an actor with a spotty career, does a good job in his second film for Harrington (he had previously been in Killer Bees). And the ending...I love it! It's both chilling and effective. Check it out!

Despite a multitude of minor blemishes, RUBY stands as an effectually devised psychological/supernatural chiller which gainsays its deficient funding.

Piper Laurie turns out an impressive performance as Ruby, a hard-drinking harlot in ownership of a weatherbeaten old drive-in movie theater. In years past, she was a knockout gangster's moll whose man was murdered gangland style. Before he died, he vowed to return from the grave...a promise which, it seems, he has kept.

A cleverly formulated B quickie thick with gloom and disquietude, RUBY is an honorable short-order undertaking which emanates a pleasingly differential mood of foreboding creepiness.

6/10

RUBY is a bizarre amalgamation of incongruous elements taken from different genres that just doesn't work as a whole once they're put together. I haven't seen such a kookily conceived horror film since THE BOOGEYMAN. But unlike that Uli Lommel flick, which actually works in an odd kinda of way, RUBY's disparate elements are totally impossible to mix together to create a satisfying product. Take one part Film Noir flick, one part THE EXORCIST, one part CARRIE and one part DRIVE-IN exploitation flick and what you get is something that's just plain silly. The direction is very old fashioned, which would have worked in the 1960s but not in the gritty 1970s, when the film was released. And why is the title of the film called RUBY, when it should have been LESLIE? What does Ruby the character have anything to do with the horror in the story? If a movie can't get its title right, what hope is there for the rest of the film?

RUBY is more of a showcase for Piper Laurie, who's good but for what? Singing (but is that what we're looking for in a horror film)? Or dressing up in vintage clothes (again, the same question...)? Or spouting inane "film noir" dialogue? While watching it, I couldn't help but feel that the production was highjacked by producers (like THE REDEEMER) and the whole thing was altered in order to capitalize on the success of CARRIE and THE EXORCIST, and other horror movies of that period. The end result is embarrassing.

My version of this is from an old big box VHS that I first watched about thirteen years ago. Initially, I thought the movie was slow-paced, boring, and cheap but tastes change, so I thought I'd give it another shot. Well, still no dice. It pretty much tries to fuse the dead-guy-seeks-revenge-from-beyond-the-grave shtick with "The Exorcist" with lack-luster results and the only good part is the ending, that made me laugh out loud. It has some veteran actors and actresses in it, but this could just as well be your typical low budget drive-in production with a bunch of no-names. I've seen worse, but it's lame stuff for the most part and need only be sought out by die-hard horror fans.

Dull, murky, and uneventful horror film set in a remote Florida drive-in;the perfect place to show this film. Ruby is about a gangster's moll, the gangster's spirit, and the moll's possessed daughter. The whole things is sketchy and underdeveloped, the pace is deadening, the acting, writing and directing are lackluster, and the cinematography is muddy. You'll probably be seeing red long before the credits roll. Curtis Harrington who directed the compelling Night Tide(63), the campy What's the Matter with Helen?(71) and the disturbing The Killing Kind(73)doesn't distinguish himself here, and Piper Laurie who was scary as Carrie's mom is not terrifying as Ruby despite what the ad says. "Christened in blood, raised in sin, she's sweet sixteen, let the party begin!" Ruby opened and closed without a trace.

I saw this one in the theater when it first came out and any film with Piper Laurie and Stuart Whitman holds promise for me. The dead-gangster-coming-back-to-avenge-his-murder premise could have worked, but the cheesy, B-movie script, the direction and several unfortunate sequences drag it down. Laurie and Whitman give the film its best moments but the rest of the cast is less than stellar and the minute Ruby's mute daughter starts "talking" in the dead gangster's voice we know this picture is in trouble. The low point comes when the hapless daughter is forced to do a ridiculous and incompetent take-off on Linda Blair's levitating and similar antics from "The Exorcist" - what can I say? I love good horror shows and hoped this would be one of them. There are chilling moments at the beginning and the very end, but the campy script and amateur supporting players sink this effort - too bad.

After tearing up the screen in the 1976 film "Carrie", Piper Laurie again gets a showcase role she can relish. She plays the title character, a former gangsters' moll who now runs a legitimate business, a drive-in. Her old criminal associates are now employees at the place and begin to be killed in supernatural occurrences. It would seem that the big flame of her life, Nicky (Sal Vecchio), is seeking vengeance from beyond the grave. Nicky forces his spirit on his and Ruby's daughter Leslie (Janit Baldwin), a mute teenager who lives in a world of her own.

"Ruby" is an above average production of this kind, which benefits the most from a grim and gritty atmosphere that pervades everything. There's a somber quality to the script by George Edwards and Barry Schneider; there's very little in the way of humour. The gore is minimal but effective, and the special effects are likewise good. Horror fans will love the memorable soda machine gag. Curtis Harrington directs quite well, giving "Ruby" a good pace and a sense of eeriness.

Laurie very much dominates the movie as a character who is not always terribly sympathetic. She receives sturdy support from Stuart Whitman as her friend Vince Kemper, and Roger Davis as parapsychologist Paul Keller. The striking young Baldwin has a very expressive pair of eyes, and registers strongly in a role mostly without dialogue. The sexy Crystin Sinclaire gets some laughs as the slutty Lila June, who's always showing up at the drive-in with somebody new. 1930s star Fred Kohler Jr. plays the crippled old Jake Miller, and Len "Uncle Leo" Lesser is one of the doomed employees.

Only a weak and cheesy final shot cheapens the experience.

Incidentally, many viewers are bound to notice an anachronism: the events of "Ruby" take place in 1951, but the one flick played most often at the drive-in is "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman", a 1958 classic.

Seven out of 10.

Ruby is a low budget film on the same level as something like "Mansion of the Doomed" or "The Hills Have Eye's". It isn't horrible but we're not talking Oscar material here either. It is a low budget horror film.

Piper Laurie and Stuart Whitman had to have known what they were getting into. Their acting is very good but they have nothing to work with. The dialogue isn't good, the direction is terrible and you can tell the editor struggled to make the film work. He didn't have much to get creative with.

What is annoying about the film is the direction. The film shifts abruptly from scene to scene, the acting from the secondary actors is, well, secondary. It's amateur time. The film is NOT scary. It has a few scenes here and there that could possibly be called haunting but the entire thing is just so low budget and makes no sense so you cannot become involved. All I could think of is 'thank God this is only 88 minutes" and then we get to the end. The worst scene of all. Laughably bad! Never want to sit through this again.

I remember seeing Ruby listed on the Drive In Marquee in my hometown when it came out,unfortunately I do not remember seeing it at that time but that's been a long time ago to remember. I just watched the DVD version and it was like seeing a new Ruby. Great incredible transfer and never before scenes. I also happened to pick up the Congress Video Group VHS that has been around for years and compared both. The VHS is very grainy and not watchable especially after being treated to the DVD Version.

But what is interesting is that there are some scenes that do not appear in the DVD version which involve the local sheriff's and some of the other characters in the film. So I was happy to see some of those. However this particular VHS version has omitted all the gore and violence for the most part and some scenes do not make sense (no wonder the director did not claim it). I just cant imagine why they would not show any of this. The box cover gives credit to Alan Smithee which was an official pseudonym used by film directors who wish to disown a project.

I highly recommend the DVD Version and if you can find a cheap VHS grab one up to see some of the missing scenes not found on the DVD.

Raw and gritty horror/exploitation movies from the glorious '70s decade simply can't start any better than "Ruby" does… With a fuzzy and soundless flashback, set in the mid-1930s, and witness the promenade of two young lovers in a Florida swamp area. Suddenly a car drives up and the four passengers that come out relentlessly execute the boy, Nicky, who apparently was an over-ambitious mobster. Now that's what I call an opener, and it even gets better, as we fast-forward to the year 1951 at a typical drive-in theater where a projectionist guy in his cabin inexplicably gets killed by his own film reel! Great stuff, but then of course the script has some explaining and character drawings to do, and the whole thing quickly crumbles apart like a cookie! It turns out that the murdered mobster's girlfriend Ruby now runs a drive-in and actually employs the retired assailants. Apparently Nicky extracts his vengeance from beyond the grave and to obtain this he also possesses the mind and body of their now 16-year- old daughter Leslie that he never saw getting born. So basically what we have here is a miscellany of gangster movie with revenge-flick and spiritual possession elements, and all this is served to us by an over-the-top bizarrely behaving Piper Laurie who was clearly asked to come across as unnerving as she did in last year's box office hit "Carrie"! I will gladly admit that I personally stopped paying attention to the incoherence and numerous holes in the script, and simply tried to enjoy the crazy murder sequences and wonderfully trashy atmosphere and scenery as much as I possibly could. Quite frankly I can't explain why little Leslie walks around like a spider just as Linda Blair did in "The Exorcist", or what exactly is the added value of Roger Davis' character, or even whether or not it gets revealed that Ruby did betray her lover all those years ago. Fact remains, however, that "Ruby" contains a handful of awesome moments that are simultaneously odd, cheesy and disturbing! Mobster bodies' are being tossed around and smashed against trees, the flamboyant Ruby spies on her drive-in employees through a telescope whilst being drunk and one poor sucker even ends up hacked up in a soda vending machine. Perhaps director Curtis Harrington ("Queen of Blood", "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?") and his crew could have done even more with the smart drive-in setting, but they already include a couple of atmospheric moments, like for example when Ruby finds herself all alone in the middle of the drive-in parking and haunted by her murdered lover's voice coming out of all the separate speakers. In conclusion, "Ruby" most certainly isn't a good movie if you analyze or review it thoroughly, but it contains multiple strong moments and memorable details to make it a must-see for admirers of 70s horror cinema (drive-in classics and otherwise)

It may not be completely fair, but as a viewer it's sometimes easy to begin forming early impressions about a film. The premise here sounds interesting enough as the operator of a drive-in, along with her friends, experience strange events that seems to be tied to their past mob connections. Other ideas woven in, like the title character being stuck on her past as a lounge singer, seem more fitting for a stage drama a la 'Death of a salesman.' Some stunts and effects are excellent; others are underwhelming. Some of the acting is splendidly nuanced and admirable; other instances are limply middling, or a tad overcooked. The storytelling, meanwhile, seems to be rather direct, yet at the same time wildly scattered, and with some exceptions Curtis Harrington's direction feels much the same. Then again, in addition to supernatural deaths and violence, and instances of intended disturbing imagery, the horror element is further brought to bear with a small measure of atmosphere when the movie is at its best - brought out in some of Don Ellis' music, fine use of lighting and environmental effects, plus an overarching feeling of unease as events begin to escalate.

Suffice to say that 'Ruby' is a very mixed bag. Nothing here is specifically bad per se; nothing is particularly strong, either, in a manner that meaningfully grabs our attention and stands out. There are good ideas in the narrative, and some curious ones; the introduction into the tale of Dr. Keller raises a skeptical eyebrow, and Leslie is just altogether flimsily written. There is a complete, cohesive story imparted, but the connections between many beats and ideas feel weak, and at times it almost feels like between Harrington and the writing team (including co-producers George Edwards and Steve Krantz), the filmmakers couldn't entirely figure out what they wanted the feature to be, or where to take the root concept. For everything here that's earnestly enjoyable, as a whole it seems all over the map, emphasized by death scenes and other beats that come out of nowhere and the lack of any real sense of progression in the plot. It quite feels to me that the screenplay needed a lot more time to be further developed; there are ideas here, but they are poorly fleshed out, including some tiny moments that just make one ask "What is this doing here?"

I don't wholly dislike this, yet overall the viewing experience is much more tedious than it is entertaining, or even baseline engaging. For as thin as the writing and direction are, it's hard to especially care about other facets that are done well, like sound effects or art direction. By the time the most substantial horror flavors take over in the last stretch it's both too little too late, and the sheer barefaced nature of it is kind of obnoxious instead of enticing. I'm glad for those who get more out of 'Ruby' than I do, but I'm put out by how patchy and unimpressive the conglomeration is. Watch if you like, but do so with tempered expectations, and I think there are too many other pictures in the world - much more plainly deserving ones - to bother spending time here.