606 commentaires
Aidan (David Dorfman) and Rachel (Naomi Watts) have moved to a small town in Oregon. However the videotape seems to have followed them after Rachel finds another one of those strange deaths. Rachel takes the tape and burns it. Samara starts coming after Aidan, and Rachel must dig up the past to put it to rest.
The great thing about this sequel is that the actors came back to finish the story off. It's interesting to go back to the source story. However the franchise can't surprise the audience any more. It was a nice fresh idea in the first movie, but the sequel can't shock us anymore. It's a good wrap up. I hope they don't keep dragging this out like other franchises.
The great thing about this sequel is that the actors came back to finish the story off. It's interesting to go back to the source story. However the franchise can't surprise the audience any more. It was a nice fresh idea in the first movie, but the sequel can't shock us anymore. It's a good wrap up. I hope they don't keep dragging this out like other franchises.
- SnoopyStyle
- 22 janv. 2014
- Permalien
The Ring was my favourite film of 2002, the best horror film I'd seen in ages, and I subsequently saw and enjoyed (with the exception of Ring 0 - What the hell was that?) all the Japanese films as well.
So when I heard that the director of the original films was set to do the second "remake", it was suitably excited. Imagine what he could do with a bigger budget and better technology? It is however, not even close to the first, and such improvements don't surface (same CGI, C-list Hallmark Channel cast). It does manage to keep you nervous throughout, but the proper scares are too infrequent and it appears to take itself too seriously. This is all too evident when the creepiest kid in cinema is admitted to hospital and The Ring 2 turns into a child abuse drama for around twenty minutes, leaving you wondering when it'll pick up a bit again.
It's also the kind of film that demands that you re-watch the first one before you go to see it; the opening makes no sense unless you've seen "Rings" on the Collectors Edition DVD, and there's a ton of stuff that may have easily been forgotten if you saw the film three years ago.
It's alright; it's a horror sequel-remake thing, so you don't expect too much and you wont be disappointed, but you can't help but think it could have been done a bit better.
So when I heard that the director of the original films was set to do the second "remake", it was suitably excited. Imagine what he could do with a bigger budget and better technology? It is however, not even close to the first, and such improvements don't surface (same CGI, C-list Hallmark Channel cast). It does manage to keep you nervous throughout, but the proper scares are too infrequent and it appears to take itself too seriously. This is all too evident when the creepiest kid in cinema is admitted to hospital and The Ring 2 turns into a child abuse drama for around twenty minutes, leaving you wondering when it'll pick up a bit again.
It's also the kind of film that demands that you re-watch the first one before you go to see it; the opening makes no sense unless you've seen "Rings" on the Collectors Edition DVD, and there's a ton of stuff that may have easily been forgotten if you saw the film three years ago.
It's alright; it's a horror sequel-remake thing, so you don't expect too much and you wont be disappointed, but you can't help but think it could have been done a bit better.
The movie trailers were promising. The premise was semi-promising. Oddly enough both the premise and the trailers were scarier than this sequel to The Ring. Yes, the original Japanese director returns and he conveys the images and symbolism very well, but he does not provide anything engaging here. The two movies do not seem to necessarily connect. It's almost as if they remade the first Ring with a few additions. There is not a lot of new material presented here. The movie tries to scare us by using either the same or similar events from the first. The ominous music playing throughout the film and the fact that this sequel was made so nonsensically are scarier than the movie itself. There are too many things that occur that you just have to accept without explanation. And then after the movie's done, you'll be left with plenty of questions including how the first one relates to this one. I cannot place some of those questions here without spoiling anything, so I'll leave that up to you. Okay, let's move away from the negative and talk about the few positives this film has. The acting is much better than the average horror film and, as stated before, the images are presented very well. The visuals are nice and you come to slightly care about some of the characters, although most of them do ridiculous things. Other than that, I cannot think of much else to say that is good. This movie was just disappointing. Do not watch this with high expectations unless you are easily scared and jump at the "sudden" music and scenes. The first Ring was good. It was different and well-made. I did not find it particularly scary, but bizarre. This just relies on music and jump surprises. Fear doesn't even come half circle in this film. If you liked the first Ring and expect to see much more about the story, you may be disappointed as well. But if you only want to see a different version of part one, then you may enjoy this sequel. Good luck =)
4.8/10 Stars
4.8/10 Stars
- T1Thousand
- 18 mars 2005
- Permalien
The Ring 2 isn't as bad as some people say it is, the plot is a little more simple than the first one and I admit that there are a few places in the movie that could've been better, but it's still a good movie. I like how the movie starts off in a similar way to the first film, since it gives the feeling of deja vu. After that there are some things that are a little to much like the first but they can be ignored with little effort. The story starts out really well as I said the plot is kind of simple but its set out so that it takes a while to see the whole picture. There are some parts with CGI effects that aren't needed and that will annoy some people but thankfully, there's not to many of those. Half way through it gets really good, you don't know whats happening and you don't know how they're going to stop it all you know is that Samara has come back but with unknown intentions. After that it gets a bit obvious and kinda hurried but who cares. To sum it all up I'd have to say it done quite well since the first film was hard to follow up on. See the film for your self, trust me, you won't regret it.
- GirishGowda
- 27 mai 2010
- Permalien
- Poohbair67
- 22 mars 2005
- Permalien
I'm not a horror fan at all, but got invited to this screening and decided to go see what all the hoopla was about. What I got was an interesting piece which I might sooner qualify as a supernatural thriller than a horror movie (but I guess that's what J-horror movies are). Sure, it's quite gross in a couple of places and there are a few heart-stopping moments as well, but what really impressed me was that the entire movie, from the first minute to the last, is filled with this weird kind of suspenseful energy. Even when literally nothing particularly frightening in itself is going on, it still feels «off», it's still unsettling, uncomfortable, on edge. And that for me was the strength of this movie. Not having seen Hideo Nakata's previous Ringu movies, I was pleasantly surprised to find out that he seems to be a master of creating an atmosphere scarier than any special-effect driven sequence could. All the actors did a good job as well and Sissy Spacek's cameo was a nice touch though I would have liked to have seen a bit more background to the Max-Rachel relationship. All in all, I predict a good show at the box-office for this one!
- winddancer_1971
- 15 mars 2005
- Permalien
Everyone knows the story of The Ring. You watch this tape and your phone rings and some creepy little girl says "Seven Days" which means you have seven days left to live. In The Ring Two, it forgets that story. The movie focuses on Rachael (Naomie Watts) and her son Aidan (David Dorfman). Racheal and Aidan have left their home that they used to live in and to start fresh in Astoria, Oregon. It is 6 months after the events in the first movie. However, Racheal's resolve quickly turns to dread when evidence at a local crime scene including and unmarked video taped-seems familiar. Racheal realizes that the evil Samara is back.
The original Ring was scary and thrilling. The sequel isn't loaded with terror. But there are some scenes when I did get a bit terrified. Before, seeing it, I expected to be jumping up and down out of my seat and being really scared. The Ring Two is not a bad movie, I just expected a little more.
The original Ring was scary and thrilling. The sequel isn't loaded with terror. But there are some scenes when I did get a bit terrified. Before, seeing it, I expected to be jumping up and down out of my seat and being really scared. The Ring Two is not a bad movie, I just expected a little more.
Series note: It is imperative that you watch The Ring (2002), and preferably also the short film Rings (2005), before you watch this movie. The Ring Two is constructed as a further "chapter in a novel". It will make much less sense, and have far less significance, if you do not watch the other films first.
Set an unspecified but relatively short period of time after the events of The Ring, Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) has now moved from Seattle, Washington to Astoria, Oregon, with her son Aidan (David Dorfman). They're hoping the move to small-town life will help them emotionally recover from the horrific curse they experienced--namely that watching a particular videotape, associated with a strange little girl named Samara (Daveigh Chase/Kelly Stables) would result in one's death if one didn't make a copy and show it to someone else within a week. But when Rachel, now a reporter at a small Astoria newspaper, overhears a report of a disturbingly familiar death on the police scanner, she investigates and discovers that "the Ring" has followed her to Oregon. Apparently the videotape they made at the end of the first film to keep themselves alive wasn't the only one to be made. Rachel burns the tape she finds at the crime scene, but does that bring about a new kind of curse?
While this is a decent film, it unfortunately does not come near the excellence of The Ring, Rings, or even the original Japanese film, Ringu (1998). I was geared up to love The Ring Two. I think The Ring, directed by Gore Verbinski, is superior to the Japanese original, and the short film Rings, co-written by The Ring Two scripter Ehren Kruger, was just as good, if different, taking the story into an exciting new direction (as suggested by the last few pages of Kôji Suzuki's Ring novel) that was prime fodder for social commentary in our Internet Age.
But unfortunately, Kruger didn't continue the same idea past this film's prologue. It's difficult not to believe that maybe the flaws in The Ring Two are the result of Hideo Nakata being in the driver's seat, as the same blemishes also crept up in Ringu and especially Ringu 2 (1999), both of which he also directed. The problem is that The Ring Two spends far too much of its time in a slow, straightforward drama mode, to the detriment of its horror aspects, so that they often seem incoherent and "tacked on". It seems like maybe deep down Nakata really wants to be doing realist drama instead.
As realist drama, there are a number of interesting things going on here. Watts and Dorfman both turn in impressive performances--we wouldn't expect anything less from Watts--in a story that is more of a contemplative meditation on dysfunctional mother/child relationships. For much of the film, the children--Aidan and Samara, go from being the villains to being more like victims. The mothers and "the system" are portrayed more as villains. In the sequence prior to the climax, our focus changes to cultural institutions and people upholding the norms within them as the antagonists. It's a weird, but slightly effective shift that makes The Ring Two feel more like a paranoid conspiracy theory film for a moment. But the climax returns to Samara, and reinterprets the curse as a symptom of the dysfunctional familial relationships that are the focus of the film.
It's not that the kids don't do bad things, with Aidan mostly as a "channel" for Samara, in a more literal, symbolic parallel between Samara and her mom and Aidan/Rachel, perhaps suggested by occasional interpretations of The Ring as eventually being about Samara trying to "reincarnate" herself as Aidan. On a surface level, you can still read the film as an evil kid flick; but the kids are doing bad things because they're seeking healthy parent/child relationships. It was weird in The Ring that Aidan kept calling Watts' character "Rachel" instead of "Mommy", but it remained unanalyzed. Here, it is made an issue, and eventually becomes a hinge for resolving the climax. The focus on parent/child relationships also suggests an odd reinterpretation of The Ring, retroactively putting more of an emphasis on Rachel's neglect of Aidan while she was pursuing the mystery of the curse, as well as the odd distancing suggested in scenes such as her conversation with Aidan's teacher.
When Nakata does bother with more straightforward horror material, it is usually rewardingly subtle and surreal, aided greatly by special effects maven Peter Chesney. A number of sequences stand out--such as the gravity-defying water, the "deer attack", and the scene in the well (which was strongly reminiscent of Nakata's Ringu 2). But again, they do not have quite the impact they should because of the surrounding material. The rest of the technical elements--cinematography, production design, score, etc.--are competent, but The Ring two does not have nearly the stylistic panache of The Ring or Rings.
The film is an odd amalgamation of genres. The emphasis on realist drama may be off-putting to many horror fans. The horror and weird supernatural stuff may be off-putting to many more mainstream film fans. In the end, the people who will probably like The Ring Two the most are those who were very fond of Ringu 2 and Ringu 0: Basudei (2000). Although I enjoy both, they're closer to "average" than "great" to me. If another American Ring film is made, I'd like to see the story of the Rings short continued instead.
Set an unspecified but relatively short period of time after the events of The Ring, Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) has now moved from Seattle, Washington to Astoria, Oregon, with her son Aidan (David Dorfman). They're hoping the move to small-town life will help them emotionally recover from the horrific curse they experienced--namely that watching a particular videotape, associated with a strange little girl named Samara (Daveigh Chase/Kelly Stables) would result in one's death if one didn't make a copy and show it to someone else within a week. But when Rachel, now a reporter at a small Astoria newspaper, overhears a report of a disturbingly familiar death on the police scanner, she investigates and discovers that "the Ring" has followed her to Oregon. Apparently the videotape they made at the end of the first film to keep themselves alive wasn't the only one to be made. Rachel burns the tape she finds at the crime scene, but does that bring about a new kind of curse?
While this is a decent film, it unfortunately does not come near the excellence of The Ring, Rings, or even the original Japanese film, Ringu (1998). I was geared up to love The Ring Two. I think The Ring, directed by Gore Verbinski, is superior to the Japanese original, and the short film Rings, co-written by The Ring Two scripter Ehren Kruger, was just as good, if different, taking the story into an exciting new direction (as suggested by the last few pages of Kôji Suzuki's Ring novel) that was prime fodder for social commentary in our Internet Age.
But unfortunately, Kruger didn't continue the same idea past this film's prologue. It's difficult not to believe that maybe the flaws in The Ring Two are the result of Hideo Nakata being in the driver's seat, as the same blemishes also crept up in Ringu and especially Ringu 2 (1999), both of which he also directed. The problem is that The Ring Two spends far too much of its time in a slow, straightforward drama mode, to the detriment of its horror aspects, so that they often seem incoherent and "tacked on". It seems like maybe deep down Nakata really wants to be doing realist drama instead.
As realist drama, there are a number of interesting things going on here. Watts and Dorfman both turn in impressive performances--we wouldn't expect anything less from Watts--in a story that is more of a contemplative meditation on dysfunctional mother/child relationships. For much of the film, the children--Aidan and Samara, go from being the villains to being more like victims. The mothers and "the system" are portrayed more as villains. In the sequence prior to the climax, our focus changes to cultural institutions and people upholding the norms within them as the antagonists. It's a weird, but slightly effective shift that makes The Ring Two feel more like a paranoid conspiracy theory film for a moment. But the climax returns to Samara, and reinterprets the curse as a symptom of the dysfunctional familial relationships that are the focus of the film.
It's not that the kids don't do bad things, with Aidan mostly as a "channel" for Samara, in a more literal, symbolic parallel between Samara and her mom and Aidan/Rachel, perhaps suggested by occasional interpretations of The Ring as eventually being about Samara trying to "reincarnate" herself as Aidan. On a surface level, you can still read the film as an evil kid flick; but the kids are doing bad things because they're seeking healthy parent/child relationships. It was weird in The Ring that Aidan kept calling Watts' character "Rachel" instead of "Mommy", but it remained unanalyzed. Here, it is made an issue, and eventually becomes a hinge for resolving the climax. The focus on parent/child relationships also suggests an odd reinterpretation of The Ring, retroactively putting more of an emphasis on Rachel's neglect of Aidan while she was pursuing the mystery of the curse, as well as the odd distancing suggested in scenes such as her conversation with Aidan's teacher.
When Nakata does bother with more straightforward horror material, it is usually rewardingly subtle and surreal, aided greatly by special effects maven Peter Chesney. A number of sequences stand out--such as the gravity-defying water, the "deer attack", and the scene in the well (which was strongly reminiscent of Nakata's Ringu 2). But again, they do not have quite the impact they should because of the surrounding material. The rest of the technical elements--cinematography, production design, score, etc.--are competent, but The Ring two does not have nearly the stylistic panache of The Ring or Rings.
The film is an odd amalgamation of genres. The emphasis on realist drama may be off-putting to many horror fans. The horror and weird supernatural stuff may be off-putting to many more mainstream film fans. In the end, the people who will probably like The Ring Two the most are those who were very fond of Ringu 2 and Ringu 0: Basudei (2000). Although I enjoy both, they're closer to "average" than "great" to me. If another American Ring film is made, I'd like to see the story of the Rings short continued instead.
- BrandtSponseller
- 25 avr. 2005
- Permalien
Naomi Watts could not save this. Not even a descent performance by herself could save this this mish mash of a sequel that had the same affect as Exorcist II: The Heretic. By the climax, EVERY one around me in the theater was laughing. No joke. The dialogue becomes unbearably tedious and the plot becomes atrociously abstruse. The film follows Rachel Keller into Oregon where she tries to forget the events of the first one, but then Samara shows up wanting a mommy... and that is the point of the film. All that CGI crap for absolutely nothing. And that is exactly what this film is. No, really, I am not going to dignify this film with a review worth reading. I am sure Naomi Watts would rather have changed Samara's diaper then done this film!
This film honestly has no guts, spunk, or attitude that the first film had. This film is a bunch of special effects covering up a paper thin plot.
Avoid like the plague!!
1 Star!
This film honestly has no guts, spunk, or attitude that the first film had. This film is a bunch of special effects covering up a paper thin plot.
Avoid like the plague!!
1 Star!
- HeartMonger
- 18 mars 2005
- Permalien
Lacking the impact the 2002 film had, but still enjoyable and quite atmospheric- The Ring Two is hardly the horrible sequel many critics make it out to be- and instead proves just to be alright. I feel the films biggest issue is the writing. The idea of the film feels muttled, and at time a bit forced. The beginning is nearly a rehash of the original, and quite bland to be honest, but luckily it picks up as it goes on and decides to become something rather original. Thankfully we do see the return of Naomi Watts character and her character's son, instead of some new group of people to terrorize- but the effect just isn't the same. Some moments are a bit ridiculous (the deer especially) and some can be a bit dramatic- as Kruger simply doesn't know how to harness the films emotional impact in the most sincere way. Its slower than the original (american remake), although it does prove to be quite interesting- focusing on more ideas to unfold from the original- with the potential being its most glimmering part. Naomi Watt's was great as the films lead, and though it was short, I truly did enjoy Sissy Spacek in her role as well. The look of the film is incredibly well done, and honestly given the script provided, i'm thankful for the original Ring veteran director Hideo Nakata taking over this time around to give the film a much needed touch up. It isn't as scary as the film before it, but it is very creepy, atmospheric, and quite fun to watch unfold. It's a horror mystery, and if you are a fan of both, you'll most likely enjoy it despite the rest of the films flaws.
My Rating: 6.2/10.
My Rating: 6.2/10.
- AllieRubyStein
- 10 juil. 2021
- Permalien
I have always believed that the horror genre is the most difficult to master. To make an effective horror film takes an amalgamation of talent, luck and one intangible that most cannot figure out. To me, you have to love the genre and you have to have little studio interference. Films like Halloween, Last House on the Left, Evil Dead, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre were all low budget and independent films and all were pioneers of the genre. All were also emancipated from any studio intervention which more often than not can destroy a director's vision. I would think that somewhere in Urban Legend and The Haunting's vernacular was a good film until the morons who knew nothing about film got a hold of it.
I mention all of this as a precursor to the review because The Ring was a modern day miracle. It was the scariest horror film in twenty years and it was a studio project. I honestly never thought that a film made by Dreamworks would touch a nerve in the way it did. But with direction by Gore Verbinski and Ehren Krueger writing one of the best scripts I've ever been privy to, The Ring scared the hell out of me.
To do a follow up was almost a no win situation. Not since Nightmare on Elm Street 2 has there been a more disappointing sequel than this one. I don't know where to lay the blame, because Ehren Krueger, whom I respect very much, returned to pen the sequel and you have the director of the Japanese film that started it all, helming this one. So where does the blame fall? Was it the studio who interfered too vehemently? Was it that the Japanese original was that inferior to the Dreamworks version? Or is it just that lightning doesn't strike twice in most films? I'm not sure what the answer is to that perplexing question, all I know is that this is about as much of a true dichotomy from the first. You can't get any further apart.
Naomi Watts is adequate as Rachael and David Dorfman is passable as Aidan, but the continuation of Samara story is perhaps the weak link here. In the original, she was an enigma. Her story was such a mystery that it kept you guessing as to what she was and where she came from. There was a blend of The Changeling and a bit of The Shining all rolled into one. A sequel succeeds when it extends the story, not just retells it. There was no continuation of the story here. No one bothered to explain why Samara can come through the TV and petrify you to death. No one bothered to explain why she is still haunting people through videocassettes. No one bothered to explain anything. Now maybe some are okay with that. Maybe a mystery should remain a mystery. But if you can get past the regression of the story, then what is even more disturbing is that there is nothing remotely disturbing, interesting or scary about the film, and everything that was freaky about Samara in the first one is now like watching Scooby Doo and mystery of Samara. There is no fear of her now. There is nothing remotely disturbing about her. Maybe I was expecting too much, but this film is one of the weakest sequels I have ever seen. If they decide to make a third, they had better go back to their roots and get Verbinski back.
Is it wrong to expect this much from a sequel? Maybe. But then again, there are sequels that can match the original, if not surpass it. At least two of the Friday the 13th sequels surpass the original and if you are talking non horror, then you can also add films like Lethal Weapon 2, Bourne Supremacy and of course classics like Terminator 2, Aliens, Godfather II and Empire Strikes Back to the list of sequels that either equaled or surpassed the original. Now in my opinion, Nakata is not on the same level as Cameron, Lucas or even Copolla, so there is no reason to believe that he can create a better film that Verbinski did. But suffice to say that everything that made the first such a paradigm for years to come, has vanished in this one. It is truly unfortunate as it feels like too many politicians in this one threw their hat into the ring and tried to make changes that did nothing but give us another Nightmare on Elm Street 2.
And that is a shame.
2/10
I mention all of this as a precursor to the review because The Ring was a modern day miracle. It was the scariest horror film in twenty years and it was a studio project. I honestly never thought that a film made by Dreamworks would touch a nerve in the way it did. But with direction by Gore Verbinski and Ehren Krueger writing one of the best scripts I've ever been privy to, The Ring scared the hell out of me.
To do a follow up was almost a no win situation. Not since Nightmare on Elm Street 2 has there been a more disappointing sequel than this one. I don't know where to lay the blame, because Ehren Krueger, whom I respect very much, returned to pen the sequel and you have the director of the Japanese film that started it all, helming this one. So where does the blame fall? Was it the studio who interfered too vehemently? Was it that the Japanese original was that inferior to the Dreamworks version? Or is it just that lightning doesn't strike twice in most films? I'm not sure what the answer is to that perplexing question, all I know is that this is about as much of a true dichotomy from the first. You can't get any further apart.
Naomi Watts is adequate as Rachael and David Dorfman is passable as Aidan, but the continuation of Samara story is perhaps the weak link here. In the original, she was an enigma. Her story was such a mystery that it kept you guessing as to what she was and where she came from. There was a blend of The Changeling and a bit of The Shining all rolled into one. A sequel succeeds when it extends the story, not just retells it. There was no continuation of the story here. No one bothered to explain why Samara can come through the TV and petrify you to death. No one bothered to explain why she is still haunting people through videocassettes. No one bothered to explain anything. Now maybe some are okay with that. Maybe a mystery should remain a mystery. But if you can get past the regression of the story, then what is even more disturbing is that there is nothing remotely disturbing, interesting or scary about the film, and everything that was freaky about Samara in the first one is now like watching Scooby Doo and mystery of Samara. There is no fear of her now. There is nothing remotely disturbing about her. Maybe I was expecting too much, but this film is one of the weakest sequels I have ever seen. If they decide to make a third, they had better go back to their roots and get Verbinski back.
Is it wrong to expect this much from a sequel? Maybe. But then again, there are sequels that can match the original, if not surpass it. At least two of the Friday the 13th sequels surpass the original and if you are talking non horror, then you can also add films like Lethal Weapon 2, Bourne Supremacy and of course classics like Terminator 2, Aliens, Godfather II and Empire Strikes Back to the list of sequels that either equaled or surpassed the original. Now in my opinion, Nakata is not on the same level as Cameron, Lucas or even Copolla, so there is no reason to believe that he can create a better film that Verbinski did. But suffice to say that everything that made the first such a paradigm for years to come, has vanished in this one. It is truly unfortunate as it feels like too many politicians in this one threw their hat into the ring and tried to make changes that did nothing but give us another Nightmare on Elm Street 2.
And that is a shame.
2/10
- rolling_skulls
- 19 mars 2005
- Permalien
I liked the first movie, and actually i liked this one two. It is not that bad as a lot of people say, but it is not as good as the first one. What I liked in the first movie, that it was horror movie, and along with that something like a detective movie, Rachel was looking for information about the events happening, and in this movie, there is less of this detective stuff. Second thing I didn't like is directing, or maybe not the directing itself, but (I'm not from English speaking country, and don't know a lot about the movie terms=) the picture, the colors and effects. My taste is a bit different, the picture (I mean everything you see on the screen) was a bit ad hoc, untidy. The effects are also not that good. Despite all these minuses, the movie is still quite interesting, and if you like "The Ring" and this story and the first movie is not enough, this is better than nothing.
- k-narkevicius
- 24 mars 2005
- Permalien
I LOVED The Ring, so naturally, I was ecstatic about seeing The Ring 2. What a disappointment! The movie didn't have much of a plot (even for those of us with more creative imaginations), and, because of that, it was difficult to follow. I found myself being bored more than anything else and waiting for the next scary scene to shake me awake. The special effects were pretty good, and all the cast members did a really good job with their roles, but despite their abilities, the movie failed to make an impression half as good as the original. There are several points in this movie when you feel like you begin to catch on to something that will eventually make sense (and make it worth your money), only to be let down at the conclusion of the scene. Better save your money and wait for this one to hit rental shelves...I wish I had.
The Ring Two starts off pretty much where The Ring left off. Rachel (Naomi Watts) and Aidan (David Dorfman) are starting over again after all the horrors of the first movie are, for the time being, finished. It is not long before some events, which are not so coincidental, start to occur. Rachel, as the new editor of a small town newspaper, listens to the police scanner to what may be the biggest story to ever hit this small town. It seems a teenager has been murdered with his girlfriend cowering in the basement, but that is not the strange thing. It is something about the murder victim's face! Rachel decides she has to see if the events are related to what she has just been through and goes to see the corpse. To her dismay, the face resembles those who have died before. This is how the story begins and the evil Samara begins to show her face again, after she finds Rachel.
The Ring Two is not as mysterious as the first. That is easy to figure out, most of the questions were answered in the first, so it leaves more "meat and potatoes", so to speak, for the sequel. You get to see much more of Samara. Boy, does she look creepy crawling out of that well. You will see what I mean. This installment relies much more on imagery, such as the tree we all recognize from the first movie and who will ever be able to forget the instant classic scene with the reindeer or the moose (not sure what they were).
The fact is, I never expect much with sequels so I was pleasantly surprised by this one. While it is not as good, or original as the first movie, it is no slouch and far better than the last horror movie I saw, Boogeyman. No comparison whatsoever. I give 8 of 10 stars.
The Ring Two is not as mysterious as the first. That is easy to figure out, most of the questions were answered in the first, so it leaves more "meat and potatoes", so to speak, for the sequel. You get to see much more of Samara. Boy, does she look creepy crawling out of that well. You will see what I mean. This installment relies much more on imagery, such as the tree we all recognize from the first movie and who will ever be able to forget the instant classic scene with the reindeer or the moose (not sure what they were).
The fact is, I never expect much with sequels so I was pleasantly surprised by this one. While it is not as good, or original as the first movie, it is no slouch and far better than the last horror movie I saw, Boogeyman. No comparison whatsoever. I give 8 of 10 stars.
- FrancesTheWHORE
- 17 mars 2005
- Permalien
I think this movie is best viewed right after the first in this context the emotional roller-coaster, the eerie well paced story unfolds. You find a mother willing to do whatever it takes to save her child, gain a deeper understanding and yet have so many more questions. While the firs one holds genuine scares, and suspense this one takes you on a what happens the day after storyline. Mesmerizing, chilling and emotionally dramatic I love them both but only recently saw them back to back and found it most gratifying my friends and I downed a lot of popcorn, and after wards had an interesting discussion two people in our group had never seen either and were scared through out.
- elliott78212
- 8 févr. 2013
- Permalien
The Ring Two joins the new breed of "Who-dun-it" mysteries... "Who-dun-it first". For example: Creepy Kids... Who-dun-it first? How bout the Sixth Sense, The Shining, the Omen and the Exorcist... A desperate ghost hoping to manifest itself into physical form? Just watch Child's Play and, oh yeah, Ghostbusters II (Veego's even creepier than Samara at times). There's even a taste of Jurassic Park believe it or not. But most of all Who-dun-the-entire-movie first? Of course its predecessor, the Ring.
The Ring Two is of course the sequel to The Ring. To refresh your memory The Ring was genius. The creepy video tape. The mysterious deaths. The deep history of Samara and her family. And of course the infamous phone call warning you that you will die in 7 days. The first Ring movie was deep. The focus being on the video tape, which is much like the creepy chain letters you get in your e-mail, and the suspense of Rachel (Naomi Watts) dying in 7 days. And finally you get your cheap thrills, which Gore Verbinski accomplished masterfully making The Ring a new legend for our generation.
If The Ring is deep, The Ring Two is a kiddie pool. With all the things that went on during the first Ring movie, there was nothing left for the Ring Two to do but MORE cheap thrills in between borrowed gags from other thrillers and horror flicks. Verbinski left the director's chair and passed it back to the director from the original Ring Series, Ringu. This was proving to be the most anticipated thriller this year. I was real disappointed to find that the Ring Two simply shouldn't have been made.
The Ring Two is about Samara who comes back and wants to be human again. Who does she choose? Conveniently the son of Rachel from the first ring.
If you notice there's so much more to talk about concerning the Ring but all it takes is a couple sentences to sum up everything in the Ring Two. That's because there's not a whole lot that goes on. In this movie, plot line wasn't as important as the cheap thrills. Even with the mentality of wanting to be scared, The Ring Two doesn't deliver as well and leaves you thinking "ehh... that could've been done a lot better". The opening sequence, for example, could've been a moment in the movie that all moviegoers will remember just like in the first Ring, but instead it was in short... stupid.
There's nothing new in the Ring Two. Everything is either recycled from the first movie or reused from other movies. There are three types of movies: good movies, bad movies, and movies that should've never been made. The difference between a bad movie and one that shouldn't have been made is that the latter has a lot to live up to and has the pressure of satisfying the fans of the story, whether it be a sequel or an adaptation from another text. The Ring Two dangerously ruins the mystery behind the first movie which should've been left alone.
Everyone should just watch the Ring One, get scared, be happy, then burn every copy of the Ring Two. That should put Samara away for good.
The Ring Two is of course the sequel to The Ring. To refresh your memory The Ring was genius. The creepy video tape. The mysterious deaths. The deep history of Samara and her family. And of course the infamous phone call warning you that you will die in 7 days. The first Ring movie was deep. The focus being on the video tape, which is much like the creepy chain letters you get in your e-mail, and the suspense of Rachel (Naomi Watts) dying in 7 days. And finally you get your cheap thrills, which Gore Verbinski accomplished masterfully making The Ring a new legend for our generation.
If The Ring is deep, The Ring Two is a kiddie pool. With all the things that went on during the first Ring movie, there was nothing left for the Ring Two to do but MORE cheap thrills in between borrowed gags from other thrillers and horror flicks. Verbinski left the director's chair and passed it back to the director from the original Ring Series, Ringu. This was proving to be the most anticipated thriller this year. I was real disappointed to find that the Ring Two simply shouldn't have been made.
The Ring Two is about Samara who comes back and wants to be human again. Who does she choose? Conveniently the son of Rachel from the first ring.
If you notice there's so much more to talk about concerning the Ring but all it takes is a couple sentences to sum up everything in the Ring Two. That's because there's not a whole lot that goes on. In this movie, plot line wasn't as important as the cheap thrills. Even with the mentality of wanting to be scared, The Ring Two doesn't deliver as well and leaves you thinking "ehh... that could've been done a lot better". The opening sequence, for example, could've been a moment in the movie that all moviegoers will remember just like in the first Ring, but instead it was in short... stupid.
There's nothing new in the Ring Two. Everything is either recycled from the first movie or reused from other movies. There are three types of movies: good movies, bad movies, and movies that should've never been made. The difference between a bad movie and one that shouldn't have been made is that the latter has a lot to live up to and has the pressure of satisfying the fans of the story, whether it be a sequel or an adaptation from another text. The Ring Two dangerously ruins the mystery behind the first movie which should've been left alone.
Everyone should just watch the Ring One, get scared, be happy, then burn every copy of the Ring Two. That should put Samara away for good.
- misterembryo
- 21 mars 2005
- Permalien
I consider The Ring some kind of classic that all horror fans should check out. The sequel...welllll... I'd say only if you're a big fan of the first film and want more. Then it will probably satisfy your appetite.
If the story in the first movie was weird, this one at times seems even more weird. The "rules" of how the monster interacts with the world are a bit too random. There are many cool and scary moments but the story just isn't as good as in the first movie.
I still like Naomi Watts, she's my favorite. But I liked the character better in the first film. There she was more like a detective, but in the sequel she appears more in the role of a mother.
As a whole Ring Two is quite basic horror flick but I guess it's worth checking out if you like the first part. But I'm not sure if I want to watch it again.
If the story in the first movie was weird, this one at times seems even more weird. The "rules" of how the monster interacts with the world are a bit too random. There are many cool and scary moments but the story just isn't as good as in the first movie.
I still like Naomi Watts, she's my favorite. But I liked the character better in the first film. There she was more like a detective, but in the sequel she appears more in the role of a mother.
As a whole Ring Two is quite basic horror flick but I guess it's worth checking out if you like the first part. But I'm not sure if I want to watch it again.
- SkullScreamerReturns
- 18 nov. 2021
- Permalien
The Ring Two is a pretty good sequel for what it was, but it was not like the first one. I guess that is to be expected when you learn everything in the first movie, therefore it goes straight to the horror in the second movie. This was just about as creepy as the first, but the continuity between the two movies did not quite add up. For example, you do not automatically die in 7 days if you see the video but, if you can get someone else to watch it within that time, the curse is transfered over to them. Also, Samara (Kelly Stables), is not bound to the 7 days for those that have seen the tape in the original movie. She is nearly omnipotent, as the only place where you can talk and she can not hear is in your sleep. A little hard to make sense of, but the movie does a good job.
Rachel and Aidan Keller (Naomi Watts & David Dorfman) move to a small, new town to escape the horror of what they have just been through just 6 months earlier. Thinking they had destroyed the last copy of the tape and they were safe, somehow another copy has resurfaced in the small town they were in and Samara has killed yet again. When Rachel shows up at the scene and looks at the face, I assume to make sure it is the same as before, Samara had found her, and stalks her son, Aidan throughout the movie and eventually possesses him.
I can not really go too far into the story without giving a lot away, but there are many scenes which will always stand out and will no doubt be spoofed my movies like Scary Movie and others like it. Most notably, the deer scene was great. That made the movie for me, but there were others that were good, too. While I think this movie was not as good as the first, it does not make a complete mockery of itself either (like Jeepers Creepers 2). It is very good. 7.5/10
Rachel and Aidan Keller (Naomi Watts & David Dorfman) move to a small, new town to escape the horror of what they have just been through just 6 months earlier. Thinking they had destroyed the last copy of the tape and they were safe, somehow another copy has resurfaced in the small town they were in and Samara has killed yet again. When Rachel shows up at the scene and looks at the face, I assume to make sure it is the same as before, Samara had found her, and stalks her son, Aidan throughout the movie and eventually possesses him.
I can not really go too far into the story without giving a lot away, but there are many scenes which will always stand out and will no doubt be spoofed my movies like Scary Movie and others like it. Most notably, the deer scene was great. That made the movie for me, but there were others that were good, too. While I think this movie was not as good as the first, it does not make a complete mockery of itself either (like Jeepers Creepers 2). It is very good. 7.5/10
- BigHardcoreRed
- 17 mars 2005
- Permalien