Two words. Kuh rap. I was so disappointed. Aside from a few scenes with Samara, it's really worth waiting for it to come to DVD if you must see it. But all of you who loved the first one like me will probably disregard this warning and plunk down your sheckles anyway. For me, there was too much involvement between Rachel, Aiden and Samara. I'm not giving away anything not in the preview, but the premise that Samara wants to somehow become Aiden doesn't come off well. Now I will give something away: it makes absolutely no sense how suddenly Aiden and/or Rachel somehow have the power to communicate to each other in their dreams. This movie drags a lot whereas in the first film, I felt like an actual set-up for something later was going on in between scares. And every horror movie has rules, right? The rules in this one don't make sense, or at least, I don't understand how Rachel and Aiden keep figuring them out. How does he know she can't hear him in his dreams? And a major spoiler here (hi-light if you want to read): how does Rachel know she can be sucked into the television, escape from the well and push the top back on so Samara can never escape again? Isn't the presentation of the well on the TV before she kills you a construct of Samara's mind?
Oh, and one last thing: too much CG. The first film didn't need it, it's always a disappointment when a follow-up movie employs it so heavily (see Matrix: Reloaded & Matrix: Revolutions).
But there were some decent previews. Wes Craven presents: Red Eye. It looks like a drama at first in the preview until too many coincidences happen where this woman is running into this guy in an airport. She has the seat next to him on the plane and she says as much and he says something to the effect of, "Don't you know who I am?" and his left eye turns red the color of a setting sun and the title screen comes up. And Amityville Horror looks cool even though they keep lying and saying it's based on a true story.
Oh, and one last thing: too much CG. The first film didn't need it, it's always a disappointment when a follow-up movie employs it so heavily (see Matrix: Reloaded & Matrix: Revolutions).
But there were some decent previews. Wes Craven presents: Red Eye. It looks like a drama at first in the preview until too many coincidences happen where this woman is running into this guy in an airport. She has the seat next to him on the plane and she says as much and he says something to the effect of, "Don't you know who I am?" and his left eye turns red the color of a setting sun and the title screen comes up. And Amityville Horror looks cool even though they keep lying and saying it's based on a true story.
Anyone who has seen and stands by the original Japanese “Ringu” series as the true vision of the Ring movies need not see this installment. I am not a purist; I may even be walking the thin line of blasphemy by declaring the American version of the original The Ring as the better crafted. So, I was more than a bit surprised at how the sequel had little or nothing to do with its Japanese counterpart. Not say that this makes the film bad, just surprising that the first film was so closely translated and the second is a blatant disregard for the source material. But therein lays the beauty of the Ring Two, if I dare use such an adjective to describe a mediocre horror film. It doesn’t try to be anything but original. It strays so far from Ringu 2 that the only scene reminiscent is the final. The film picks up where the original left off, with Rachel played by the beautiful Naomi Watts and David Dorfman who is still doing his best Haley Joel Osmett impersonation. They have moved from Seattle to some Podunk Washington State town called Astoria where the trees are green, the neighbors are friendly and the deer are homi-suicidal-maniacs! I have to admit, I had high expectations for this film because there was not one, but two Oscar nominated actresses in it. Naomi: who garnered praise for 21 Grams, and Sissy Spacek. My logic though was flawed as I realized even award receiving actors and actresses have bills to pay. Prime example: Halle Berry a la` Catwoman. What is perhaps the most disappointing though is seeing how fast such an original horror movie can become cliché, and the worst part is that the movie rips itself off. How many times can we see a water logged little girl with a bad hairstyle (Come on Samara, this is 2005, short is the new long.) crawl through the television before it loses its scare factor. There are long periods where nothing happens then when something happens it is simply to keep the viewers attention while another twenty to thirty minutes of nothing transpires. There is no sense of urgency in this film as compared to the original, no puzzle or mystery that has to be solved and no impending doom other than Ayden may become a woman trapped in a man’s body. And if his close minded mother can’t accept that then she needs to take a time machine back to the sixties because she sure isn’t welcome in these progressive times. Overall the movie is just okay. It doesn’t bring anything new to the genre but then again it doesn’t harm it in any way. It was just an alright film with some freaky moment but not enough to warrant eight dollars. If you see this film, see it at a matinee and sneak in your own snacks. Or simply wait for the DVD.
AsMoral Wrote:Anyone who has seen and stands by the original Japanese “Ringu” series as the true vision of the Ring movies need not see this installment.
My argument isn't that it wasn't a remake of Ringu 2. I knew going in that the American version was going to follow its own path which is fine. What I was upset about was that they disregarded story that was set up in the AMERICAN version (The Ring), that it wasn't scary AT ALL (which is how they're marketing it but, in all honesty, how else are they going to market it?), and that all the actors just seemed bored. No sense of urgency or anything.
Is it the worst movie ever? No. It's it a worthy follow-up. Hardly. If you're going to see this don't waste a matinee... rent it or wait for it to be on television.
Tony,
Will you please compile all of your movie reviews? Or start an e-mail list of your critiques? They are all quite funny and very entertaining. And more important than being well-written (which they are) they are dead on for those movies that I've seen.
Keep up the great work and keep them coming.
Will you please compile all of your movie reviews? Or start an e-mail list of your critiques? They are all quite funny and very entertaining. And more important than being well-written (which they are) they are dead on for those movies that I've seen.
Keep up the great work and keep them coming.
Scott Hajek
[i]"A beer right now would sound good, but I'd rather drink one than listen to it."[/i]
Scott Hajek Wrote:Tony,
Will you please compile all of your movie reviews? Or start an e-mail list of your critiques? They are all quite funny and very entertaining. And more important than being well-written (which they are) they are dead on for those movies that I've seen.
Keep up the great work and keep them coming.
It never occured to me to compile my reviews, a majority of them I just write here, so I don't have them stored on Word or anything. I may one day start my own tiny movie review site but I would have to start seeing movies more frequently to keep it updated. Thanks for the kind words Scooter.
Tony