Simply A Masterpiece

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

The acting in this movie is really good.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

The prologue takes place in 1935.Former actress Ruby Claire witnesses her gangster boyfriend Nicky's killing by his associates.Sixteen years later.Ruby operates highly successful drive-in movie cinema located in the middle of rural US.Unfortunately the ghost of Nicky returns to claim revenge on his killers,who work with Ruby.Last theatrical horror film of Curtis "The Killing Kind" Harrington is a mix of haunted drive-in/possession flick in the vein of "The Exorcist".My favourite scene from "Ruby" is when mutilated body is hidden inside Coke vending machine.Incredibly fat woman decides to have a drink,puts a coin and receives healthy cup of fresh blood.The film has moments of effective suspense but there are also some dull spots.6 cups of blood out of 10.

Hard-bitten former gangster's moll and faded nightclub singer Ruby Claire (superbly played by Piper Laurie) runs a drive-in movie theater and pines for the good old days. The vengeful spirit of Ruby's murdered mobster lover Nicky Rocco (handsome Sal Vecchio) uses the body of Ruby's sweet and innocent mute daughter Leslie (an impressive almost wordless portrayal by Janit Baldwin) as a vessel to exact revenge from beyond the grave on the people who killed him. Director Curtis Harrington, working from an engrossing script by George Edwards and Barry Schneider, relates the absorbing story at a steady pace, offers a generous sprinkling of decent gore, adds a few neat touches of amusing macabre humor (a corpse gets stashed in a soda vending machine that pumps out the guy's blood), and does his customary expert job of creating and sustaining a supremely eerie and unsettling gloom-doom atmosphere. Moreover, Harrington brings a wistful and melancholy nostalgic sensibility to the material which kicks the picture up a few extra notches. The sturdy acting from the sound cast rates as another major asset: Stuart Whitman does well as Ruby's loyal and amiable longtime buddy Vince Kemper, Roger Davis contributes fine support as helpful parapsychologist Dr. Paul Keller, and comely flash-in-the-pan 70's exploitation film starlet Crystin Sinclaire vamps it up nicely as shameless stuck-up tramp Lila June. William Mendell's crisp cinematography makes excellent use of vibrant color and makes the most out of the misty swampland location. Don Ellis' moody score hits the shuddery spot. Marred only by a rushed and sloppy tacked-on cheap shock ending, "Ruby" overall sizes up as a fun little low-budget fright feature.

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.

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.