Ruby (1977)

This effective shocker manages to combine the possession themes from THE EXORCIST with the supernatural deaths from THE OMEN into a workable mixture, heavy on the atmosphere and nostalgia; smattered with enough bizarre incident, cheap deaths, and harassed acting on the part of the main performers to make it worthwhile. The best thing about the film by far is not the fragmented plot, but rather the direction of cult favourite Curtis Harrington, who fills every moment with enough suspense, tense atmosphere, and shuddery chills to flesh out a dozen later horror flicks. The setting of a dead-end drive-in (forever playing ATTACK OF THE 50 FOOT WOMAN) is a perfect one, with supernatural incident after supernatural incident taking place in the creaking, derelict, and run-down old buildings. Bodies are impaled to the giant screen, hanged with film reels, and disappear inside Coke machines, and there are enough low-budget blood and grue effects to please the graphic horror fan no end, along with a little macabre humour here and there.The scripting is character-focused for a change, giving a chance for the main performers to develop their roles before being offed by the unseen spirit, which is a plus because the casting is excellent. Taking the title role is Piper Laurie, hot on the success of CARRIE, playing another eccentric character whose fate is inexorably bound up with that of her dead lover. She's just as good here as she was in Brian De Palma's hit, even if her character is deeper and more subtle than there. The underrated Stuart Whitman also turns in a fine portrayal as Vince, the ageing helper with an affection for Ruby, who may or may not be doomed to die at the hands of the vengeful spirit.As the possessed child Leslie, Janit Baldwin is exceptionally creepy; with the aid of some eye make-up she easily transforms from looking like an innocent child into a creature of evil, and hers is the scariest performance in the whole movie. Finally we have Roger Davis, as the spiritual doctor brought in to sort out the whole mess, and he too contributes a solid and flawless performance. High on horror and creepy shudders, RUBY skilfully combines old-fashioned atmosphere and suspense with new-fangled bloodshed and violence, and the end result is an unfairly forgotten yarn which is not without flaws, but for the most part one to watch. Also be sure to check out the CARRIE-style shock ending, which is one of the best I've seen.

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.

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.