The Ring Two

[EDsoulsurvive*]

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dreamworks_skg/the_ring_two/theringtwo_bigearly.jpg

What it's about: A sequel to the cultural phenomenon that was The Ring, Ring Two follows the further adventures of reporter Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) and her son Aidan (David Dorfman). After relocating to Oregon, it appears that Samara and her blank tape have almost followed Rachel. Sissy Spacek will also show up and probably deliver a few cryptic lines. Horror ensues?

My thoughts: I think The Ring is the scariest movie I've ever seen. The build up, the tension, the jump scenes, the mystery, and the ever growing sense of doom really pulled me in. I thought everything was resolved after the fake ending, but i was genuinely disturbed when the tide turned. I hope this sequel is half as good as the original, but I have low expectations. I feel like the new voice of Samara sounds like something out of a Scary Movie sequel; I wish Daviegh Chase would've reprised her role. Each preview I see makes The Ring Two look progressively worse. Although, I'm definitely going to see it this weekend, I really hope they don't soil what I consider one of the best horror movies of all time.

[ilovemovies]

I love The Ring. I loooove Naomi Watts. I love the trailer for this flick. I can't wait to see it on Saturday!

[Fisting Ackbar]

Hideo Nakata is one of my favorite horror directors. Him directing this is enough of a reason for me to see it.

[Strider]

My expectations for The Ring Two are very low. I loved the original, but something inside is telling me this could possibly be a total rehash of the first film, and devoid of anything fresh or exciting. I hope I'm dead wrong, though. I'll find out this weekend.

Strider

[daddiefatsacks]

Well, early word on this flick is that its horrible, boring and not even scary....so it sounds like the first allover again

[ANTBond007]

Quite possibly the wittiest comment of the last twelve seconds.

[daddiefatsacks]

thanks, another one to add to the trophy collection

[MadsenOMC]

Where are you getting this early word information? The two negative reviews at rottentomatoes?

[Horror whore]

I was lucky enough to see this last night after sneaking into a special screening (I was really lucky that I didn't get caught, the security was INSANE!).

I really enjoyed it, although not as much as the first (which I LUUURVED). I found The Ring to be genuinely scary, this one disappointed me by being just "boo" scary. I honestly didn't jump once, but I was interested throughout (thanks to the fact that I loved the first one and wanted to see where this one was going). There were several creepy scenes, and one that the crowd reacted to almost as much as the "Samara coming out of the TV" scene in the first one. I was really looking forward to Sissy Spacek's character. Unfortunately she was literally only in it for about 2 minutes. Luckily, it looked like she had a blast with the small part she was given. The whole "Samara hates water" storyline was kind of overdone and didn't make very much sense. (So she developed her hate for water right when she was born, not when she was trapped in the damn well?) There are a couple of really predictable parts (I had the whole truck scene figured out way before it happened). One of the good things about the first movie is that you truly think that it's over after the ending in the well, but then you learn that there's more. They tried to do that again here but failed horribly. It's SO obvious that more is going to happen after the fake climax. My biggest complaint about the movie is Samara. They show her too damn much. Didn't Signs teach the filmmakers anything? Once you show your monster, it's not scary anymore.

I probably sound really negative about the movie, but there's really a ton that I loved about it. The hair getting stuck in the zipper, the deer scene, David Dorfman's acting (he creeps me out), Elizabeth Perkins' character, Gary Cole's character, the bathtub part, and of course, the well scene!

I'd give it an 8/10 B+, compared to the original's 9/10 A-.

PS- This movie has a line that is DESTINED to win a Golden Schmoe next year.

[ilovemovies]

So far the movie seems to be recieving mixed reviews and that doesn't bother me. I'm pretty sure the first one got mixed reviews too.

[daddiefatsacks]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Where are you getting this early word information? The two negative reviews at rottentomatoes?

it's still early word, and its negative no?

[ANTBond007]

Originally posted by Horror whore
PS- This movie has a line that is DESTINED to win a Golden Schmoe next year.

Would that be the film's single f-bomb line?

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by daddiefatsacks
it's still early word, and its negative no?

You misunderstood me. I wanted to know if that's what you were referring to (rottentomatoes), or if you had heard/read things somewhere else.

[daddiefatsacks]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
You misunderstood me. I wanted to know if that's what you were referring to (rottentomatoes), or if you had heard/read things somewhere else.

the negative reviews on rotten tomatoes, and various other sites (maybe accumalating to 5 negative reviews) have led me to believe this is just a cash-in sequel, i have yet to hear anything positive about it


and im pretty much bias since its pg-13

[dellamorte dellamore]

I think it looks good , but something about it seems silly as hell , like an expensive cheesefest , which is not exactly a bad thing , but the long haired ghost thing is really tiring by now , and the emoting of Watts is getting to the laughable point , as is the kid trying to look menacing , the Haley Joel clone .

I'll still be seeing it in the theaters though , because this is a film that lends itself to women screaming , can't pass that up , even if the movie blows chunks , at least i'll get something out of it .

[Lazy Boy]

I'm with those who think it looks good, but I still have trepidation about the eventual outcome...

[Horror whore]

Originally posted by ANTBond007
Would that be the film's single f-bomb line?

That's the one. The entire theater broke into applause at the delivery of the line.

[EDsoulsurvive*]

it's weird, on rotten tomatoes some of the reviews declare its the "best american horror movie of all time" while many other say its a worthless piece of crap. I remember the release of the first movie met mixed reviews before it exploded. Maybe it'll be good after all...

[ilovemovies]

In a bit of irony, this movie is getting mostly negative reviews while Ice Princess is, surprisingly, getting mostly positive reviews. I say ironic, because if anything I would have thought it would be the opposite.

Anyway, I am disappointed that the reviews have been bad (even those who liked the first one are not liking this one). But it's not like it matters to me. I know I'm going to love it no matter what.

And even if it is bad atleast it won't bore me if for no other reason to ogle over Naomi Watts for two hours.

[actionagainst]

This one is definitely better than the first. If you are going to a movie looking for some cheap scares, pass on this one. This is a movie that is character and plot (a trivial as it may be) driven. It really ends up being a movie about a woman’s fight to protect her son (who is much more mature of an actor this time around). The look of this one is far superior to “The Ring”, most likely due to director Hideo Nakata(director of the original Japanese films Ringu and Ringu2 that the “The Ring” films are based on) being on board this time. I also noticed that the haunting violins and overall score definitely added to the eeriness of the movie. This is not the greatest movie ever made, but it is not the worst. See it at least to look for a cameo from Sissy Spacek, which was the most frightening thing in the movie, but only because she looked exactly like Michael Jackson, seriously.

[MadsenOMC]

How can you know that you're going to love a movie no matter what? Seems like a strange statement to make.

[ilovemovies]

Well I don't actually know I'm going to like it no matter what. I just said that because despite the bad reviews I'm still very excited about seeing it. Besides, in case you haven't noticed, it's not hard for me to be entertained. It takes a REALLY bad movie for me not to like it (i.e. Alone in the Dark, which is the only movie I've seen that I haven't liked so far this year although Cursed was only so-so). That's not to say that there aren't movies I hate but I do enjoy most movies I watch. I'm not a tough critic and have never pretended to be.

Besides, any movie that lets me ogle over Naomi Watts for a couple of hours can't be all bad. ;)

[ANTBond007]

You know... I really think I loved it. It's the kind of film I really need to see again, as it was so completely different from what I was expecting. This is not a horror movie -- it's a drama with some great scare bits added in.

[Criminal Rock]

**Minor Spoilers**

The movie was awful, it has some of the worst acting of the year, especially with that child actor that played Aiden, when the camera panned to him I wanted to throw my shit at the screen… the movie contained some of the most empty story plotting I’ve ever watched in a film. The story had these confusing and horribly executed plot twists, I could have done and should have done a better job… it did have some interesting ideas though, but like I said before, it wasn’t executed properly to make the film even remotely worth my time again, since I saw it for free. What I don’t understand about this film is WHY the little girl continues to haunt Rachel and Aiden, it wasn’t explained very clearly in the first film, and even less in this one. The theme falls under the category of one of those “Unfinished Business” gags, kind of chestnut if you ask me, but since Hollywood destroys everything, it was inevitable. Overall, this is more of a comedy then a horror, I was laughing long and hard enough to keep me in my seat, but I still wish the movie was never made.

Things to watch out for:

1. Horrible use of foreshadowing

2. Why Samara hates water, and why a Constantine style baptism drives her away

3. Why Max (Simon) was even in the film

4. Why they casted David Dorfman again as Aiden

5. And WHAT THE FUCK IS WITH THE FUCKING DEER? That was the funniest, the best, and the most pointless scene in the movie.

There’s more but I can’t think of anything right now, if any of you know of anything else to watch for, please tell.

3/10

[Moviefan02000]

I'm going to see this tomorrow afternoon with my friends, we're all going through a really hard time, and we need to do something.

[EDsoulsurvive*]

when you guys put up your reviews I'd love to see some crowd reports. I'm not gunna get to see this until Tuesday when my trimesters (like midterms, sort of) are finished.

[Weapon X]

Beware of Minor Spoilers

I saw Gore Verbinski's The Ring before Hideo Nakata's Ringu, so that aided my preference of the former over the latter. Several key scenes in Ringu did manage to deliver that chill a little more than in The Ring, however. So when it was announced that not only would The Ring Two have the original screenwriter Ehren Krueger but also original Ringu director Nakata, I took these as very good signs.

So is The Ring Two worthy? Yes. Equal? Uh, not quite.

On one hand, it continues the saga's tradition of a mix of sudden "boo!" scares in between long, uncomfortable stretches of tension. One scene in which a hospital doctor (Elizabeth Perkins) interviews Aidan Keller (David Dorfman) elongates the terror of not knowing what's going to happen, and when what happens finally does happen, you're still left wondering "What the f*ck!?"...in a good way, that is.

Furthermore, the sequel brings back two of the original's elements that worked the most - the slow, horrifying revelation of the truth through Rachel's (Naomi Watts) investigation, and the "creepy kid" factor that leaves Haley Joel Osment begging for mercy. Aidan's gradual deterioration is the centerpiece of the movie - the movie's most memorable scene features Aidan cowering in a bathtub as all the water around him tells the laws of gravity to sod off.

As far as what the sequel adds to the overall mythos, Ring Two manages to expand on the urban legend while still managing to not reveal all the little details. We're made privy to more of Samara's (Daveigh Chase/Kelly Stables) backstory and the nature of her powers, but her exact "condition" is still left unclear, and in fact made even more ambiquous thanks to Sissy Spacek's extended cameo role. If you're anything like me, you'll probably walk out of the theater with this question in mind: Was the birth of Samara Morgan really the cause of all this? Or was there some other sinister force at work that has still yet to be revealed? And even when all's said and done and the credits start rolling, there is still an unavoidable sense of uncertainty that makes the ending work more than it should...more on that later.

Unfortunately, the wonder of the the original film is somewhat lost because...well, it was at first original. The law of diminishing returns comes into play here because you've seen the scenario before, back when it was still a new idea and therefore much more terrifying. I believe it was AICN that said it best: "Nothing can top that first time we saw Samara crawl out of the TV." And sadly it's true. The drenched apparition gets considerably more screentime this time out; half of her appearances work (the digital camera tricks were appropriately weird), while other times where she suddenly pops up out of thin air are too "mainstream slasher" for my tastes.

One of The Ring's strengths was its minimal - and arguably necessary - use of CGI. Some of the Ring Two's scares might have worked better had they not relied so much on the effects wizardry; an incident involving a herd of deer (that displays how Samara's aversion to animals goes beyond the horses), while startling, would have been far more effective if they'd at least tried using real (or at least puppeted) deer for certain shots.

The same can be said for the film's finale, which fails to deliver the original's knockout punch because of moments of implausibility bordering on ridiculousness. I suppose in its own way, the "confrontation" makes sense, but the execution is just, well, a little off. The major saving grace (the Samara apparition's jerky, insect-like movements being another) is Naomi Watts' delivery of easily the best line in the movie.

I walked out the original The Ring with fearful awe in my mind as I drove home wide-eyed. The Ring Two, while delivering its own brand of jumps and freak-outs, doesn't quite accomplish that feat, but still gives you a few things to think about.

...And I still hope and pray I never walk in on a staticky TV screen that I'm certain I had turned off.

The Ring - 8/10
The Ring twO - 7/10...maybe a 6.5 given time and repeated viewings.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Originally posted by EDsoulsurvive*
I wish Daviegh Chase would've reprised her role. [/B]

Actually she did. Daveigh plays Samara when she's in human form and Kelly Stables plays her when she's in ghost form, that's how it was in film 1 as well. When Samara emerges from the t.v. to come for Noah, that was Kelly Stables, not Daveigh Chase.

The Ring 2 definitely isn't as good as the first, but it is a worthy follow up. It's not nearly as tense, but Naomi is great as always, Zimmer's score supplies a great sense of continuity, it's different in style and tone instead of a regurgitation of its predecessor, and the finale was creepy, cool, and exhilerating as hell.
I'll never forget the audience breaking out cheering when Rachel knocked Samara down the well and said "I'm not you're fucking mommy!" That's such a classic moment. Even as someone that often roots for the villains, I couldn't but get into that moment.:)
Nakata's direction can't touch Verbinski's, but he did do a very nice job. I look forward to seeing him deliver a prequel.

[vision_afar]

I don't have nigh expectations for the film, even though it's directed by Hideo Nakata.

[EDsoulsurvive*]

Really Creeper? I thought I read she didn't return for the sequel. Your news is slightly reassuring, although my friend just got back from it and said it was pretty lame :( .

and your user name is pretty sweet, I loved Jeepers Creepers.

[Fisting Ackbar]

SPOILERS




















Considering that I didn't really care for the first one but was still interested in seeing this, it was quite disappointing. With the exception of the end sequence in the well, Hideo Nakata's style that he showed in his Japanese films didn't come through; it could have been directed by any novice American director and you wouldn't know the difference. It was never really creepy or scary and I saw most of the boo scares coming, and I was surprised how bored I felt at times. Plot also made no sense (how the hell did the well get open halfway when it was closed in the first film?) and the part with the reindeer attacking the car looked pretty fake.

Unintentionally funniest moment: Naomi Watts attempting to put her son in the bathtub, asking him "Do you want me to go in with you?", for which I desperately wanted him to yell out OH HELL YEAH or something of the likes of that.

Not sure yet what I'd rate it, but probably a 4 or 5 out of 10.

http://members.lycos.nl/anonymousjohn/nerdfrenzy.jpg

Also, I wonder how the general audience will react to the DARK WATER remake since this movie already explored the whole parental neglect theme and has water as a creepy element.

Was the birth of Samara Morgan really the cause of all this? Or was there some other sinister force at work that has still yet to be revealed?

That's the kind of thing they deliberately left open so they can milk it out in another sequel.

Originally posted by EDsoulsurvive*
when you guys put up your reviews I'd love to see some crowd reports.

PS- This movie has a line that is DESTINED to win a Golden Schmoe next year

Half the audience was repeatedly quoting that line on the way out, including a bunch of kids who couldn't have been older than 10. It was pretty funny to see such young boys yell out obscenities.

[MadsenOMC]

SPOILERS!!!!

Holy lazy cash-in sequel Batman. As a fan of Ring, I found Ring 2 to be a huge disappointment and a tedious bore. I seriously almost fell asleep more than once. The irony is that this one is a cliched and conventional American horror movie even though it's directed by Hideo Kakata. Too much reliance on cheap boo scares, loud music and flashy editing for my taste. I expect that in shit like Boogeyman but I was not pleased to see it here. What was creepy and/or scary in the original (remake) just isn't scary anymore. The contorted dead face, the little girl with long black hair, Aidan. It's so tired now. The story itself is pretty damn weak. Too many plot holes; ones I just couldn't overlook. A doctor dies in his room and the kid flees the hospital, which was all too easy as it is in so many horror movies, and no one goes looking for him? It probably took all of two minutes for someone to find the dead doctor, and it's a small town. But the police mysteriously never show up at their house, where they would have found young Aidan sitting on the couch watching TV. Another useless male, this time Max. Some of the dialogue between him and Rachel is painfully bad, particularly when she's explaining shit to him in the hospital. Actually, almost all of the dialogue is pretty shitty. I did not find the deer scene creepy or frightening at all, just silly and stupid. Too much obvious CGI. I didn't find the conclusion anything to write home about either. Pretty by the book and lame. As others have said, Zimmer's music is solid. I also liked the scenery. Oregon sure is beautiful. Another aspect I liked that they touched upon but didn't really do much with is the whole possible child abuse angle. I found that intriguing, but it's pushed aside nearly as soon as it's introduced. Oh well. Other than that, not much to like here. I wasn't scared for a single moment. There's no real build up or momentum. It just lumbers along aimlessly. Seems to me that they rushed into production due to the success of the remake and settled on the first screenplay Kruger could come up with. Nothing is carefully thought out and it's instantly forgettable. I don't care if I ever see it again. No reason to. A big disappointment. As for the audience and their reaction, it was all people in their teens and 20s (theater's neighborhood is very close to a university). They laughed their asses off during the deer scene and the "I'm not your fucking mommy" line. And by that I mean they were laughing at the movie and its stupidity. That was about it for their reaction, and mine.

3/10

[Watur2Phunk]

Pretty Bad, but not boring. I was entertained once I was assured this wasn't going to be good. But... "I'm not your fucking mommy!, was the greatest line in such a long time. Everybody was saying it on the way out of the theatre, even thes elittle 9 year old girls. Yeah, beside the line it was just entertaining.

5.5/10

[ilovemovies]

I didn't like the deer scene. The CGI was pretty horrible.

I love the cameos by Sissy Spacek and ESPECIALLY Gary Cole. The Gary Cole scene was hilarious. The look on his face when Rachel asks him about the Morgans was priceless! :D

Overall, it's not quite as good as the first one, but I still found it to be a geniunly creepy little movie with great, eerie atmosphere. Watts gives an even stronger performance here than she did in the first one. The same can definately be said for Dorfman. His performance here is almost up there with Haley Joel Osment's turn in The Sixth Sense. The mother/son bond was very strong and was the heart of the movie. And there is some really suspenseful moments (like the well scene).

I wish we got to know more about the tape though. How it was created and stuff like that. But I guess that will have to wait for The Ring 3.

[MadsenOMC]

SPOILERS!!

I agree, Gary Cole was very funny. He's great. I didn't care much for Watts and Dorfman this time, especially Dorfman. He just isn't creepy to me anymore, only annoying. I just feel that it's played out now. The well scene didn't live up to the hype for me. I was really hoping it would freak me out, but all I did was laugh my ass off. When Samara started coming up the well and her body started contorting and doing all that weird shit, that's not scary. It's just funny as hell. Even though it was a remake, the first one still felt somewhat fresh, at least compared to other modern American horror movies. This one is stale. I really hope there is no Ring 3. Let it die already.

[sightless]

Huge Dissapointment 6/10
The main difference ebtweeen this one and original. This mvoie fails to capture and it's very hard to get into the movie.. theer are "BOO" scares here and there, however teh first ring captured you right at the beggining and would not let go
some what spoilers, so don't read if you haven't watched it?

so did anyone really thoguht the the whole movie was ruined after Watts said" I'm not your fuckign mommy." Though her nipples were showing -_-

In the end after she woke up and it was a happy end i just said to myself someoen DIE already that's how bored I was witht his movie..

and why was she after them that time? she wanted a mother what the hell):

[Harry Warden]

I'm a huge horror movie fan. And I'm in love with all Asian ghosts movie I've seen...from Ringu to Dead Friend and One Missed Call.

And I loved The Ring...Just as an example, I loved Boogeyman!! I did..

But The Ring Two sucked major ass. How could a great director like Nakata make a crap film like this..

On the IMDB I'm already seeing post where people say that the Dark Water remake is a rip-off...Please people...

The whole ending of Ring Two is a complete rip-off of the original Dark Water's ending...It looks like they hope that ignorant fools will say that Dark Water is a rip-off while it's Ring Two that stole from the original!

[ANTBond007]

Yeah, Dark Water's in an interesting position, since it doesn't come out for five months. Everyone who walks out of it is going to wonder "Why did it rip off Ring Two?"

[PuggyD]

Now, I know I'm going to be in the minority on this, but I really liked "Ring Two". In fact, I'll go ahead and say that it's just as good - if not a little better - than the first one.

I was concerned about where they would take a sequel because the original has since been roundly mocked, like in "Scary Movie 3", and the whole J-Horror remake subgenre has some very obvious trappings.

But seriously, this movie was very cool. Not as scary as the first, but very atmospheric, very artful, very cool. It had a very classic feel, kind of like "Rosemary's Baby" or "The Omen". They did some very different things with this one, and I can see why a lot of audiences won't respond to it as well, because it's really unconventional and at times genuinely weird. But in the end while it's not what a lot of people were expecting and, I'll say it again, not as scary as the first, this is a much more interesting film.

It just really worked for me. Already skyrocketing to the top of my list of underrated sequels.

[free]

I saw the movie yesterday (5/10, no where near the first), and something toward the end really bothered me. These things completely destroyed the credibility of the end of the movie for me.


SPOILERS


OK, the kid kills the social worker in hostpita during the dayl, leaves the hospital, has to walk a long way to get home, waits on his mother to get home, kills the other guy, then the mother comes home at night, proceeds to almost drown the kid, gets sucked into the TV, comes backs, hugs son, she says they live happilly ever after.

My problems with this scenario:

1) How does a kid manage to leave a CCU unit of the hospital without being seen by anyone (keep in mind he might be an abused kid, so someone would have been looking out for the mother to come back)?

2) When the doctors come in and see the dead social worker, (I'll give them maybe an hour or two), and find the kid missing, why wouldn't they send someone to the mother's house/ have SWAT members waiting for when she came home?

3) When (or if) the police do decide to interrogate the prime suspect, and find the man in his truck, with the face looking the same as the face of the dead teen from the beginning, wouldn't they put two and two together and charge her (the mother) with 3 murders?

[ilovemovies]

SPOILERS!




Originally posted by free

3) When (or if) the police do decide to interrogate the prime suspect, and find the man in his truck, with the face looking the same as the face of the dead teen from the beginning, wouldn't they put two and two together and charge her (the mother) with 3 murders?[/color]

The first two questions are probably just holes in the story. They didn't bother me because I was really into the movie so they were not noticeable to me while watching it.

And for 3):

I'm sure they'd do some kind of autopsy or something to find out a cause of death. And they would find out that he died from his heart stopping. There wouldn't be any evidence to link her to the death of Simon Baker's character or that kid who died in the begining.

[Duke Nukem]

WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD!!





#2 is not a plot hole. They were staying at the guys house (from her work), not their home. They left their home when Samara popped up there and eventually stayed at the guy's house for the rest of the movie. Police wouldn't have known where to look for them after the doctor's death...which itself actually shouldn't have prompted them to think it was either the kid or the mother anyway, because they never actually touched the doctor (no finger prints or evidence). It only appears that doctor shot herself with that needle.

[mr_gamecube]

one.of.the.worst.movies.ever.made

[ilovemovies]

SPOILERS!



Originally posted by Duke Nukem
WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD!!





they never actually touched the doctor (no finger prints or evidence). It only appears that doctor shot herself with that needle.

That is true. They probably would have thought it was suicide. But, the police would still look for the kid. And they would look everywhere for him. Plus, the police don't know that Aiden and Rachel were staying at Baker's house. So they probably would still look at their house first. And even if they did know they would look at their house right away after Baker's place.

[Duke Nukem]

Originally posted by mr_gamecube
one.of.the.worst.movies.ever.made

Not.even.close.to.being.the.worst.movie.ever.made. go.watch.Battlefield.Earth.

[jaw2929]

Well I snuck into this one, after going to see the FAR superior flick "Finding Neverland" and I thought it was WAY better than pile o shite that preceeded it... I fucking HATED the ring, and I figured I'd go see this one, since it started right after Neverland got out... I figured I could walk out of it, if I didn't like it, and wouldn'tve worried about wasting money....

This movie was JUST able to keep my attention long enough for me to NOT walk out... I love Naomi Watts as an actress, but this movie was pretty fucking boring for the most part... It was by NO means a "horror" movie of any kind, that I noticed... It's more of like a mystery/suspense flick if anything....

I thought the movie got a BIT better once everything was explained, because I thought that's what went wrong with the first piece of shit... Let's just string a buncha of unexplained nonsensical fuckin scenes together for about an hour and a half, and have some stupid bitch crawl outta a TV to scare everyone... I just never understood the appeal... :rolleyes:

But the explanation in this one, at least made me satisfied as to WHY I was watching what was on-screen....

Anyhow, if you feel you just HAVE to see this movie cuz of the hype or whatever, then see it for the Dead/Elk scene alone, fucking GREAT scene and made it worth my money! :D

[XvoorheesX]

It's weird, I agree with all of Madsen's points, but I didn't think it was completely horrible.

For one, I thought it was incredibly well done, even if that "it" part wasn't anything special, or even anything on the better side of decent. There was a lot of good things they could've done, set up that they would do, and then completely ignored. I thought that child abuse could've made a good theme for this, and they actually started to develop it, but then ignored it when they needed it. When Samara takes over Aidan's body and Rachel has to kill him/her. There could've been a struggle, maybe rachel had to tie him/her up, stuff 'em in the trunk of her car (see why in the next paragraph) ... Max (the most pointless character ever, who wore a "I'm a third act turning point death" shirt the whole time) could've seen this, and would've been convinced of the abuse, he could have tried to stop this... This would have helped to solve another abundent problem, the overall lack of conflict.

Anyways, another huge problem comes here... The place where Samara is afraid of is the bathtub? Doesn't she spend 90% of her scenes there??? What they should have done was made that place the original fountain from the mental asylum. That way you have a cool set-piece climax, you could've thrown in some pre - "scary driving at night" shots, et cetera. I know I'm going a little far here, but that's because I thought the ending was extremely anti-climatic. You build it up for two hours or so, then barely even attempt to pay it off.

As others have mentioned, the foreshadowing was cheezy at best, a lot of the acting was iffy (aidan, max, and even naomi watts in a couple of scenes). Somethings just not delved into for conveniance sake -- Like how Aidan escaped the hospital, then walked all the way to a strangers house when it was made claar that this was a brand new town. HORRIBLE expository dialogue in the beginning for those who haven't seen the first one -- Guy on phone: "Hey man, did you get that chick to watch it yet? Because if she doesn't by the right time, you're dead man!" Give me a break.

Another really weird thing... The central plot only came to fruition about halfway into the movie, but when we finally know what the movie's about, it's not scary anymore, or even suspensefull.

Question 1: For those who saw the original Ring 2, did this one stay true? I heard that it was supposed to explain how the original tape was made?

Question 2: Anyone else catch the awesome Fritz Lang/"M" homage?

[dellamorte dellamore]

I'm getting this sneaky suspicion Watts is the most overrated , overacting , overemoting actress working right now . Holy sweat , did she go over the top in this thing , this is spoof territory now , she's reminding of some b horror movie actress . If it wasn't for Mulholland Drive , i would put her on the B list . She is a great comedian though . Awesome music though , too bad it's stuck in a wanna be excorsist / Sixth Sense film . Damn , i'll recommend it just for that alone , it realy sets an unsettling , creepy tone from the very beginning , and i like how Nakata pays homage to the original Ring by opening the film with scenes of the ocean , too bad it's all downhill from there . I do have a soft spot for a film that features makeup reminiscent to the baddies in Demons :) .


This series is dead , but there will be another obviously , because this one will make a bunch of money .

[MadsenOMC]

After the doctor injects herself with the needle, the kid goes home. He is sitting on the couch watching cartoons. And the cops never show up. That is a huge, gaping hole. Other staff members know the kid is bruised and that his mother is suspected of abusing him. Now, the doctor is dead and the kid is gone. Just as ridiculous is how easy it is for the kid to walk right out of a hospital. Give me a fucking break. I don't care if it is a small hospital in a small town. It would never happen. I think Watts is a good actress. She is outstanding in 21 Grams. She didn't have anything to work with here. Ring 2 may not be the worst movie ever made, but it's awful.

[dellamorte dellamore]

by the way , that opening credit sequence homage i'm reffering to is for the original Ringu film , not the original American remake . Did that make sense ? I loved the way that film started , it had an ominous tone because of the shot of the ocean , dark , mysterious , foreboding , that's how Ring 2 starts , but then , we see the teenagers , and all hope is lost . What a tease .


Now , in the end , i would still recommend this film , it's still an entertaining horror film , but it's impact is lessened because of cliches and it's derivative nature . It looks great and sounds great , but fails in the narrative department . Keep in mind , maybe it's because i've seen all of the Ring films and all the Grudge films , so i am a bit jaded with these types of films . if you haven't been exposed to too many of these films , the long haired ghost type , you'll prob like this movie way more than i did .

[MadsenOMC]

That's a good point dd. If you haven't been exposed to too many of these particular horror movies, the Japanese versions and their remakes, you might enjoy it more. If you have, you're probably going to be disappointed. And I would not recommend it. I did not find it entertaining at all. The score is decent, but it is overused. That's one of the main problems, overusing sound to try and elicit scares. Extremely loud noise is not scary.

[ChemicalRomance]

Originally posted by mr_gamecube
one.of.the.worst.movies.ever.made
Funny coming from someone who once had THE GRUDGE and RESIDENT EVIL: APOCALYPSE listed under their favorite movies.

:-P I keed, I keed.

[osdia]

This film was very dissapointing, I give it a 6/10, the best thing about it was Naomi Watts, she was obligated by a contract to come back, she was astounding in Mulholland Drive and 21 Grams.

[ANTBond007]

I finally wrote a full review.

In 2002, audiences were terrified by a film that literally came out of nowhere – Gore Verbinski’s “The Ring.” Opening to a paltry if decent $15 million, the film went on to gross nearly $250 million worldwide and has forged the way for the most recent horror trend studios are sure to capitalize on, remakes of classic Asian films.

Nearly three years later, “The Ring Two” hits cinema screens, directed by none other than the man who began the Japanese franchise on which this grand ‘ol story is based, Hideo Nakata. An interesting choice, to say the least, as “The Ring” and his original film “Ringu” are about as different as one can get while telling the same story.

Picking up an undisclosed amount of time after the first film, “Two” begins in a familiar way, as teenaged Jake (Ryan Merriman) charms Emily (Emily VanCamp) into watching the killer video tape audiences everywhere fear. But there’s a twist – this isn’t the age old story of a boy trying to terrify his girlfriend into… something else, but instead that Jake’s seven day countdown is nearly up, and this is his last chance to escape death.

Bad things happen. And when Rachel (Naomi Watts), after moving with her son Aidan (David Dorfman) to the quiet ocean-side town of Astoria, learns of the events, she immediately steals the cursed tape and destroys it. Immediately afterward, Samara (Kelly Stables) appears in Rachel’s home and attacks young Aidan. But he doesn’t meet the green-faced end of so many characters in “The Ring” – he wakes up the next morning, sweating like hell with a body temperate that should kill him.

“The Ring Two” is by no means a horror film. Whereas the original movie was a scary tale with some nice dramatic beats, this is the flip side of the same coin: a drama with a few scenes designed to send chills down the audience’s spine. I can think of no better contrast than in the highlights of both films. “The Ring” features the terrifying climax of the week-long curse, with Samara escaping the television to take another life. But in “Two,” for my money, it’s a scene in a bathtub, where Rachel is forced to deny new life to a ten-year-old girl who wants nothing more than a loving mother.

Audiences who can’t yet get into R-rated films will hate this movie. Expecting something more along the lines of “The Grudge,” a film that’s all (attempted) scares and no story, they’ll instead find a mother-son drama that’s about much more than fending off the boogeyman yet another time. This is a film that abandons in twenty minutes the very plot cycle that moviegoers loved the first time around, and instead makes the story smaller in an effort to make you care.

And you know what? That’s fine by me.

8/10

[MadsenOMC]

They failed miserably then, because I certainly did not care. I was just eagerly waiting for it to end.

[ANTBond007]

Um, darn?

[Weapon X]

Eek. Joblo's given it a 3/10. I was hoping he'd be on the supporters' side on this one. Perhaps Arrow will disagree...?

[ANTBond007]

I doubt it. This is probably too 'tame' for Arrow.

[MadsenOMC]

Too tame? What do you mean? It's a fucking bad movie. Maybe that will explain it if he doesn't like it.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
I'm getting this sneaky suspicion Watts is the most overrated , overacting , overemoting actress working right now . Holy sweat , did she go over the top in this thing , this is spoof territory now , she's reminding of some b horror movie actress . If it wasn't for Mulholland Drive , i would put her on the B list . She is a great comedian though . Awesome music though , too bad it's stuck in a wanna be excorsist / Sixth Sense film . Damn , i'll recommend it just for that alone , it realy sets an unsettling , creepy tone from the very beginning , and i like how Nakata pays homage to the original Ring by opening the film with scenes of the ocean , too bad it's all downhill from there . I do have a soft spot for a film that features makeup reminiscent to the baddies in Demons :) .


This series is dead , but there will be another obviously , because this one will make a bunch of money .

I thought she was terrific. She really got me caring about Rachel, and I often root for the villains.
I also thought the deer CGI looked pretty good compared to how badly it could've looked. It's very difficult to make real life creatures that we all have seen many times look believeable digitally, I could tell they were CGI, but they still worked. They didn't like cartoon characters or anything.

[The Heart Collector]

SPOILERS



Yeah, this movie sucked hard. I've got millions of objections against it. The only thing I really liked was the beginning of the first scene, because boy, that guy was a true asshole. But everything else sucked. There was no tension at all when Samara would try to get out of the T.V. The premise was completely destroyed because the tape was irrelevant to the movie and Samara just did whatever the fuck she wanted. That whole 'dream' shit was absolutely, positively retarded. Most of the characters were completely useless. Why, oh, why, did that guy's face turn all weird if the scene hinted that he went to the car and commited suicide with the exhaust gas? I mean, wasn't that why the car was all weird inside? What the hell?

What the fuck was up with the deer scene?!?! Can't they use some real fucking deer?!? For at least a few of the shots? It was laughable. What was Gary Cole doing here? How did any of this add to the mystery of Samara? If anything, it kinda ruined it, knowing that she was born out of a normal woman. I'd prefer more mystery. The movie wasn't scary either.

And the effects when people would 'hop into the world of the ring' sucked.

Oh, and what the hell was the ending all about? What, the well was open, so you have to close it? Explain to me how that makes any sense.


UGH.


4/10

[Weapon X]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Why, oh, why, did that guy's face turn all weird if the scene hinted that he went to the car and commited suicide with the exhaust gas? I mean, wasn't that why the car was all weird inside?

Umm...what are you talking about? :confused:

[PuggyD]

I wondered if the windows looked a little funny or not, but I figured if so it was because of Samara making things cold. But I don't think the windows were actually supposed to look, like, all fogged up or something. And it never occured to me at all that they might be implying suicide.

[The Heart Collector]

SPOILERS













I don't really see any other reason as to why he'd go to his car and die sitting down inside it.
















SPOULERS

[dellamorte dellamore]

That is a prob Mad , it's a horror film without actual scares . They are all starting to look the same , these remakes of Japanese / Asian horror films . Again , it is an entertaining film , but way below any acceptable standard , there is nothing to distinguish it from any recent films in the genre , the PG 13 nonsense thats being pumped out by the truckloads . There are a couple of inpsired moments , but seriously , is this film any better than , a say Gothica , not really .

[MadsenOMC]

No, it's definitely not any better than shit like Gothika. But I didn't find Gothika entertaining either. Both made me laugh though. Unfortunately, they're not supposed to be comedies, as far as I know.

[Criminal Rock]

This movie is as bad as Eyes of the Serpent... also a three out of ten.

Actually, now that I think about it, EOTS is better in a way because of the random sex scenes that CUT in the middle of the sorcerer's lines, and its horribly choreographed fght scenes which are hilariously bad.

...

Honorable mention: The 'Deathstalker' series.

[Weapon X]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
SPOILERS













I don't really see any other reason as to why he'd go to his car and die sitting down inside it.

Same reason Aidan's cousin was found cowering on the floor inside a closet or Noah was sitting in his desk chair with his back conveniently turned toward the camera. SAMARA PUT HIM THERE. Given the events in the hospital when the doctor needles herself in the neck, it's obvious (to me at least) Samara has power over people's motor fuctions. Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

[The Heart Collector]

OWNED.

It's still kinda weird that she'd take the guy all the way to his car and then give him the O face, unless she just carried the corpse around, which is kinda useless. Really, the scene had no purpose or sense other than to allow Rachel to find the corpse.

[PuggyD]

It is a MUCH better film than "Gothika". What distinguishes it from the recent spate of PG-13 horror is the refusal to rely on "loud noise" scares, the striking and occasionally beautiful visuals, the great lead performances, and a genuinely effective slow-building moodiness. In fact, one of the main adjectives I would use to describe this movie is "unconventional". There is really much more depth to this movie than most recent horror, PG-13 or otherwise, and what few loose ends there were didn't really bother me. A linear plot wasn't the point, especially given the gradual build of Samara's reality bending. I'd say one of the main reasons people are responding poorly to it is that it's not really a "horror" movie per se. That said, I still think the direction they took, while unexpected, was much more interesting.

[Weapon X]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
OWNED.

Not just OWNED...

http://www.boomspeed.com/big_josh/ring-owned.jpg

:D

[PuggyD]

*spoilers*





In reference to the why the corpse was in the truck question, I say that Samara just wanted the body out of the way so as not to tip off Rachel. So theoretically putting it anywhere in the house would only be a temporary fix, and putting him on the lawn would be suspicious, so the truck would be the next closest place to dump a corpse.

[MadsenOMC]

But this movie does use loud noises in an attempt to generate scares, unless you saw a different version of the movie than I did. I mentioned that to myself as I was watching, how it was so conventional and Hollywood in its approach, unlike the original remake. They constantly used loud music and loud noises in Ring 2. Way, way too often. And I can't speak for everyone, but I don't care that it's not exactly a typical horror movie. I'm all for doing something different. What I do have a major problem with is how fucking ridiculous and tedious and stupid it is. That is the issue.

[PuggyD]

I'm not referring to sheer volume in general, I meant the recent trend of having jump scenes that are based more on a physical reaction to a loud bang or string hit on the soundtrack than any actual scary content. With the possible exception of the deer scene, none come to mind. Compared to "Boogeyman" or "Grudge", this movie was subtlety city. And while I'll grant it was slow moving, I thought it was very involving, which of course is subjective. Also subjective: I interpeted the "ridiculous" aspects as being "expressive". I really don't think that a linear reality with set rules was really the point, and that's part of what I liked about it so much. That being said, I still think that the movie held together fairly well by normal narrative standards. I never once got the impression that there wasn't a lot of thought put into this movie - I think they crafted a very specific on-screen world.

[CyclicNightmare]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
No, it's definitely not any better than shit like Gothika.
Let's not go THAT far.

[ANTBond007]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Too tame? What do you mean? It's a fucking bad movie. Maybe that will explain it if he doesn't like it.

Come to think of it, is there a movie you do like? Off the top of my head, the closest I can remember you coming was Hitch. You sure vent a lot of energy (and a lot of pointless 'fucks') continuously reiterating your hatred.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Contrived is another word that comes to mind when watching Ring 2 . Like when they go to the flea market , what the hell . Not only was that entire scene silly , it just didn't make any sense .


Spoilers

At this point Rachel already knows something is brewing , so let's go to the community fair and walk around a bit . But wait , let's not just go there , but let my young son walk around by himself . Didi miss something , she is this caring , loving mother and she let's her son go off on his own with a bunch of strangers milling about . But i guess they needed a way to set up the scene in the bathroom , more silliness, then the now infamous Deer attack scene on the way back from their little trip . That's what's called a contrivance with regards to narrative , set up a silly , unbelievable situation to set up another silly , unbelievable situation . Poor writing in that respect , lazy also . I'm not a stickler for details , but i like when an attempt is made to at least make the narrative flow naturally , just about every situation in this film seems forced , an endless succesion of set ups to try and maintain some momentum , but it trips over it's own feet countless times , as with the entire sequence at the fair .


And it's not in the least bit scary , not at all , no how , it's not even chilling or tragic like a film like Dark Water is , because that's exactly what Ring 2 is , a remake of Dark Water , but the same director made that film , so he gets a little pass from ripping that film . Even the narrative thread about the ghost just wanting a mother is lifted from DW , they just twisted the end a bit , but it's the same damn film , on a slightly larger scale .

It really disappoints me that the film failed , overall , they had a cool concept that could have been something special , it simply never rises above it's b horror movie mentality and the script limitations . This is a lazy , uninspired effort , slapped together from spare parts from Nakata'a other superior work . Again though , if you hadn't seen all those opther movies , you may think this is groundbreaking and original , i've seen it all before . And please , how many times do we need the clutching of someone's arm scenes , and the scenes in the bathroom / bathtub ? And why didn't Rachel take her son to the hospital as soon as she realized his body temp was dangerously low , i just can't understand that one . She waits until he's an iceberg and for the waterworks scene to even consider it , what the hell .


Ah , i could go on and on with this film , the more i think about it , the more it pisses me off , this Nakata guy can do , and has done so much better , he's way better than this nonsense , way better .

Maybe Dark Water will restore my confidence in the Japanese horror remakes , because Ring 2 has shattered it , but it's going to be tough , some of these films have ripped it off so much , it will look cliche at this point .


And there is a film that Mad liked , that one with Dennis Quaid and Scarlett Johanseen from a couple of months ago , forgot the name of it , but i know he def liked that one :) . I don't blame him for not liking this one , he has good reason not too

[dellamorte dellamore]

One more thing , this Samara charater has now , officially turned into the modern day equivalent of a Freddy or Jason , this series is just a glossy slasher film without the gore now .

[Joshmo]

Originally posted by ANTBond007
Come to think of it, is there a movie you do like? Off the top of my head, the closest I can remember you coming was Hitch. You sure vent a lot of energy (and a lot of pointless 'fucks') continuously reiterating your hatred.


My sentiments and observations as well.

[The Heart Collector]

He liked Alexander (unfortunately, since i was expecting a hilariously scathing review), Collateral, Before Sunrise, and I'm sure some others.

[MisterTwister]

Originally posted by ANTBond007
Come to think of it, is there a movie you do like? Off the top of my head, the closest I can remember you coming was Hitch. You sure vent a lot of energy (and a lot of pointless 'fucks') continuously reiterating your hatred.

Thank you ANTBond007, someone finally agrees with me!! Madsen pretty much hates every single movie that comes out, what's the point dude?? You should just stop watching movies all together. Your not a movie fan, just a movie hater. You should stop now while your ahead.

[chinton]

Madsen is jus t tired of ebing forgiving to films that are at t he best lazy. I understand.



Going on I ahvent seen this yet but whats up with the attacking deer. I understand the horse aversion that was logically set up in t he first one but where did the hate of deer come from

[eleven]

I couldn't tell if I was watching a horror movie or a comedy, but that "raging deer" scene was priceless. Everyone in the theater was laughing at that part. So I guess Samara has acquired the power to control forest animals in the sequel . . . didn't see that coming. I might have been able to take it seriously if it wasn't for the elk scene. But that scene where Samara is crawling up the well was damn creepy.

[Weapon X]

Originally posted by chinton
I understand the horse aversion that was logically set up in t he first one but where did the hate of deer come from

Was I the only one who noticed the multitudes of deer antlers hanging in the Morgan house's basement?

[moviegroupie]

MADSEN SPEAKS THE TRUTH FUCK HATERS!

(HAVENT SEEN THIS ONE, er two, YET_

[XvoorheesX]

In regards to the deer scene; I don't think that Samara can control animals, per se... But it's old mythology that animals have kind of a "sixth sense" of sorts. Animals can always tell when there's going to be a storm, they act weird at random times, and I'm sure this is just an extension of that myth. The animals can sense an evil presence following Rachel and Aidan, and it freaks them the fuck out.

[MadsenOMC]

Not this again. It's become pretty redundant by now, to say the least. For the record, I gave Constantine a positive review and yesterday I posted my positive review for The Upside of Anger. I do not hate every movie. Not even close. To state something like that is just plain ludicrous, and of course wrong. I make no apologies for not being completely easy to please when it comes to movies, and that is because I love them. No one is in a position to tell anyone else whether or not they love movies. I love horror movies and I hate seeing lazy, idiotic ones like Ring 2, especially since I liked The Ring. I am far from the only person who didn't like this movie, not that that should really matter. I love movies just as much as anyone around here, and based on some people's comments, much more than certain people. I know what a true lover is. I know that I am one. If you don't like my comments/opinions, oh well. But don't accuse me of not loving movies or tell me to stop posting my thoughts if you disagree with them or think I'm too negative.

[Moviefan02000]

When I walked in the theater, Rachel and Aiden were moving furniture, how much of the movie did I miss?

[Fisting Ackbar]

SPOILERS
















When I walked in the theater, Rachel and Aiden were moving furniture, how much of the movie did I miss?

Basically the opening sequence with some kid trying to show some girl the videotape and getting owned by Samara at the end, but I believe that's about it.

As for the whole deer scene (to answer chinton's question), my interpretation was with the antlers hanging in the old Morgan house, it implies that the Morgans used to hunt them, and with Samara's vibe and spirit hanging over Aidan, the wild deer would have been provoked by that. Though even that doesn't make much sense, and it probably was just thrown in there for the hell of it or to have another crazy animal scene like in the first one.

And I just thought of another plothole: in the beginning the teenager invites the girl over to his house to watch the tape, which is proven by the fact that one of his buddies calls him up. But later, Rachel finds out through the girl about a rock with a key inside of it to enter the house, as if it's the girl's house, since I doubt she would know about something like that otherwise. Am I right or can someone explain this to me better?

[Weapon X]

Originally posted by Fisting Ackbar
And I just thought of another plothole: in the beginning the teenager invites the girl over to his house to watch the tape, which is proven by the fact that one of his buddies calls him up. But later, Rachel finds out through the girl about a rock with a key inside of it to enter the house, as if it's the girl's house, since I doubt she would know about something like that otherwise. Am I right or can someone explain this to me better?

The girl didn't tell Rachel about the fake rock. She found it while looking for a real rock to break into the house with. Improbable, yes, but it makes more sense.

[The Heart Collector]

....no, dude. the girl told her. that's why the scene before was rachel trying to convince the girl, and the girl just about to talk.

[PuggyD]

No, it never occured to me to think that the girl might tell her about the key. If that was true she would've gone for the rocks first, before even checking the door. I agree that she was either looking for a rock to smash the window, or, that she maybe just knew that lots of houses have those fake rock thingys so she was gonna try around and see if they had one.

[Weapon X]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
....no, dude. the girl told her. that's why the scene before was rachel trying to convince the girl, and the girl just about to talk.

But Rachel wasn't asking "How do I get into the house?", the question was "Where is the videotape?"

[fabxxx]

VERY DISSAPOINTING !!:mad:
The short movie "Rings" on the Special Ring DVD is way better than the whole Ring2 movie !!
Who was the moron that approved this crappy script?? Just L A Z Y !!!

*Spoiler*

This whole "Ghost/Monster-trying-to-come-back-as-a-kid" has been done before !! Freddy Krueger tried... and Chuck tries in every movie !!

Watching "Rings", I really thought they were going to expand the "video" stuff over the internet... But no... that was totally ignored.

Also, I think we got that Aidan calls Rachel by "Rachel" not only by the first movie, but also when she asks him, but nevertheless the writer makes him call her "Rachel" every 2 mins !!! WE GOT THAT ALREADY !!
When Samara takes his body and he says "I wanna see my mommy", it was like he was trying to make sure EVERYONE noticed !!! Jeeez... I hate PG13 "horror" movies !!

The "I'm not your fucking mommy" was great though !!

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Weapon X
But Rachel wasn't asking "How do I get into the house?", the question was "Where is the videotape?"

The implication is that the girl would also tell her how to get inside the house to find the videotape she wanted.

[fabxxx]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
The implication is that the girl would also tell her how to get inside the house to find the videotape she wanted.

And then, as someone already said, Rachel would be stupid enough to try the door knob BEFORE looking for the key IF she knew where the key was!?!?
She was looking for a ROCK to break the door when she found the fake rock !! Sounds far-fetched but less far-fetched than thinking the girl knew about the key in the rock... Plu-ease

[The Heart Collector]

Maybe the girl told her about the rock assuming that the door was going to be closed, but Rachel tried the door to see if it was open. She wasn't 'looking for a rock' to break the door, and if she was, she's a bit retarded, considering all the rocks were the same size, therefore there's no reason why she'd throw some of the rocks and then just stumble upon the one that has the key in it, unless of course, that is exactly what she was looking for, which explains why she set the other rocks down. It wouldn't be stupid to try the door first, but it would be absolutely retarded to grab a rock, put it down, grab another one, and turn it around to presumably observe its beautiful texture and stumble upon a magic key.

I win.

*happy dance*

[CyclicNightmare]

*Raises The Heart Collector's hand*

HERE IS YOUR WINNER...

[fabxxx]

Originally posted by CyclicNightmare
*Raises The Heart Collector's hand*

HERE IS YOUR WINNER...

I think we all lost... that movie was CRAP !!

[Weapon X]

I...uh...well...see, the thing is, um........ah, fuck it.

I still liked the movie. Got a problem with that, take it to the Complaints Department:

*drops pants, moons the world*

[chinton]

see Madsen just doesnt like lazy movies. I can understand where hes coming f rom. I get critisized all t he time for my negative reviews at my college paper. Its not that Im trying to be mean. I just seem to be losing patience with films that are even remotely lazy. That and maybe Im a little harsh

[MadsenOMC]

Thank you chinton. I make no apologies for being harsh. That has nothing to do with how much one truly loves movies. No one else can decide how much another person loves movies. Out of curiosity, I made a last of all the movies I have seen in theaters and enjoyed in the last three months. Off the top of my head, I came up with 12 movies. Some are mainstream, and some are not. Some I reviewed here, and some I didn't. Yes, in general I tend to prefer movies that aren't "mainstream." But so what? That's hardly rare. Each movie lover has specific tastes and preferences. The one thing we all do have in common is a love for movies. Thankfully everyone's taste is different. Otherwise it would be pretty damn boring around here. I hope this puts to rest once and for all any claims that I am too negative or not a true movie lover. OK, please forgive me for getting off topic. Back to our regularly scheduled program.

[The Heart Collector]

I think people might also not understand that you work for a newspaper (right?), so its not like you have a choice on whether to watch crap or not.

[daddiefatsacks]

aside from the Staff's reviews, due to the fact that we have people complaining about his negativity, I think Madsen writes the most anticipated reviews, i know id rather click a Madsen review than a daddiefatsacks review :)

[chinton]

Heart Collector

Lol true

[silentasylum]

Movies are movies, you can sit there and crticize evey movie but you have to realize that not every movie has to be Casablanca, does that mean they're not fun to watch?.. I like to think my movie taste is sophisticated but I'm not going to be uptight and try to put every movie down, I'll give you an example. I saw Thirteen going on Thirty(with my niece) and I enjoyed it...Do I think it should have won an Oscar? of course not but that doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy it. Not sure what is meant by lazy movies.

I haven't seen this movie but I also feel the constant bashing of films...some may deserve it but you're kind of beating a dead horse.....

[chinton]

To me lazy films are jus t movies that deliberately go on auto pilot and not do anything else. I dont care if a movie ha s a formuliac story but if it is done with a little wit charm or whatever then I dont mind. 13 Going on 30 is a good example. Loved the first Ring so Im curious to s ee this

[MadsenOMC]

silentasylum, I assume you are talking to me, but please correct me if I am wrong. When did I ever say that every movie had to be Casablanca? That is what makes this so frustrating. People just make shit up. I have never said that every movie needs to be a serious Oscar winner. I have never implied that. Nor would I. I do not criticize every movie. Did you even read my post? How am I beating a dead horse? Look at all of the negative reviews Ring 2 is getting. I am far from the only person who didn't like it. I am not uptight. I do not put every movie down. I just got done pointing out all of the movies I've seen in theaters this year and liked. Jesus Christ. I have no idea where some people come up with this shit.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
I think people might also not understand that you work for a newspaper (right?), so its not like you have a choice on whether to watch crap or not.

Yes, that is true, and since I am not the full-time movie critic, I see whatever he either doesn't have time for or doesn't want to see. I have no say in it. Not that I'm complaining. It's a great job.

[mr_gamecube]

Originally posted by Duke Nukem
Not.even.close.to.being.the.worst.movie.ever.made. go.watch.Battlefield.Earth.

I.said.ONE.of.the.worst.ever.made

[Duke Nukem]

Originally posted by mr_gamecube
I.said.ONE.of.the.worst.ever.made

Correction.No.where.near.to.being.one.of.the.worst .movies.ever.made.go.watch.Battlefield.Earth.AND.T he.Texas.Chainsaw.Massacre.Four.The.Next.Generatio n.

[MadsenOMC]

Well, he thinks it is one of the worst movies ever made. OK? Just his opinion. He isn't wrong, regardless of how you personally feel about Ring 2.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Spoilers





This is probably a say duh observation , but the reason i feel the little cute chick Samara could conjure her presence practically anywhere was because Rachel burned the tape , consequently unleashing her spirit on the natural world ( i feel it was a sort of joke by the director also , but that's for later ) . Her captured image was bound to the tape because of the the horrific expirinece she had as a child in the barn were she was imprisoned for quite some time before the whole well thing . Now , much like the Grudge , the place were rage festers , or something of the sort , becomes the domain of the rage filled spiritual entity . In this particular situation , it was the well and the videotape . Her physical presence was in the well , but her spirititual presence inhabited the videtaped image . My guess is that she could not actually come of the televison to kill , she could only project her spiritual presence into the living world via the projected image with the aid of the vhs tape , it was merely an illusion that terrified and killed people from fright . Like a sort of hallucination , they experienced the same fear and dread she did in her short , horrific existence .



Now , when Rachel burns the tape , she unleashes her spirit , and Samara has free reign in the natural , physical world , she can manipulate it to her desire , but not only does she long for the loving grace of a good mother , but she needs a host in this world to escape the spiritual pergatory , or hell she is doomed to languish in for eternity . Rachel and Aidan were safe from Samara until she deciides to burn the tape , the virus had already been passed on , but by destroying said tape , Rachel became the object of desire ( she was the one that freed her , akin to giving birth to Samara ) , and her son became the target , the logical physical presence to posess in order to secure her freedom for good , and to be with her " birth " mother .

[EDsoulsurvive*]

The Ring Two is a horrible disappointment and truly abysmal sequel. I don't even know where to begin. I think Ring Two did a better job spoofing the fantastic original (10/10) than Scary Movie 3 (6/10) did last year.

In The Ring Two, Samara tries to possess Aidan after Rachel burns a copy of the the tape from The Ring. Factor in a bunch of disgruntled elk, unimportant side characters, and hilarious one liners and you have this entire film.

I heard the most awfult things going into this movie, but the part of me that adores the first still maintained some hope. After the creepy and effective opening scene (doesn't compare to the original, however) my hopes thought they were met. Then Naomi Watts enters a curiously large ambulance and Samara starts to talk. What a stupid stupid idea this was. Whenever Samara spoke in this movie, it sounded like Freddy Kruger trying to hold in a case of violent diahhrea, especially at the end. My first chuckle escaped me. I don't want to do a play-by-play because not only would I realize how bad Ring Two really was, but I guess those of you who still haven't seen it and want to wouldn't appreciate having all the gags revealed. So I'll just say this: the script goes from moronic to just plain ludacris. It's a shame because I feel like director Hideo Nakata had some original ideas (the zero gravity bathroom scene was so cool) but couldn't string them all into one big scarefest. I blame it all on the script. Then again, it probably wasn't the best idea to show so much of Samara as often as possible. There was no mystery to her anymore; she looked like a chubby old woman who had never set foot into a salon. To top it off, Nakata even whored out the once scary face of Samara's vitcims. Shown for a lengthy two times, the faces weren't shocking in the slightest way.

As things start setting up for a long overdue climax, you can't help but realize how many stupid scenes we had to endure to get to this point. It created, for me at least, a sense of frustration. Samara was reduced to an annoyance, I wanted nothing more than to see Rachel beat the shit out of her. Unfortunately for the audience, The Ring Two kept it all in the family (in the most literal sense of the phrase). I won't ruin the end, but I bet you already know what's going to happen because it's shown in all the commercials. After all is said and done, Naomi Watts somehow manages to keep a straight face while spitting out the stupidest line of any movie so far this year. For that alone, I will buy a ticket to her next movie (which luckily for us all is Peter Jackson's King Kong).

In conclusion, if you don't feel obliged to see The Ring Two because you loved The Ring, skip it all together. If you need to see it for yourself, then go with... on second thought, just don't. Save your money for Sin City.

2/10

[shawn-o]

When I first heard about this sequel to The Ring. I thought it was going to be awesome! What they could have done with it was endless. Then, later I heard that it was going to be a prequel/sequel mix. I thought the world had just ended! That was one of the coolest ideas I had ever heard! Soon after I heard that there was to be no prequel/sequel and I saw the first trailer of this sequl. "This better be good" I told myself walking into my viewing of The Ring 2...of course it wasn't

**SPOILERS**

This is a unneeded and ridiculous sequel with the worst premise from what it has come from. Samara wants to have a loving family! Well, thats very sweet but we'er all not winners. And heres another thing, if Rachel and Aiden already relieved themselves from this curse why the fuck is Samara going after them? Why not the teenagers at the beginning of the movie? I'm sure they have loving families. Why Rachel Keller? Perhaps it's because she wanted to solve the videotapes mystery? We never find out. Oh, and there is this scene in which a huge pack of deer start destroying Rachel's car. THey take one look at the little boy and stop and go away? Why do they do this? We are never told.

Another funny thing is that everyone, I mean everyone, supposively has a VCR in 2005.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Shawn O , read my last post , i explained why i think she was after them . Maybe it didn't make any sense , but that's the impression i got , and for me in a fantastical way , it makes the film more believable , in a narrative sense .

[fabxxx]

Originally posted by shawn-o

Another funny thing is that everyone, I mean everyone, supposively has a VCR in 2005.

LOL !! True !! That's why watching 'RINGS' from the SE of Ring, I thought we would have a movie with the "tape" spreading by the internet !!
Such a dissapointment !!

[Fisting Ackbar]

Originally posted by shawn-o
Another funny thing is that everyone, I mean everyone, supposively has a VCR in 2005.

You mean that you don't still have one? I highly doubt that people would throw their VCR's in the trash just because DVD's have become popular these days.

[MadsenOMC]

I don't have a VCR. Most people I know haven't had a VCR in years.

[The Heart Collector]

Well the movie is in a small town, and if there's something Napoleon Dynamite taught us its that small towns are trapped in 1980.

[optimus1]

I feel bad that an actress like Watts gets stuck contractly with a sequel script like this that she has almost no choice but to try and make work but man throwing all the mythos of the original ring and how things work with samora out the window and turning her into freddy kruger destroyed this film for me and from what i can tell the rest of the people in the audience felt the same way. 3/10 is generous for this dog crap of a movie. The kid constantly calling her rachael also was grating on my nerves :)

[Donnie_Darko]

But Rachel, why didn't you like this movie Rachel? I mean, come on Rachel, this was a great movie Rachel? Rachel? Rachel?

GRAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, I'd give the move a 4/10 IF they got a kid who could fucking act... but, since they didn't, it gets a 3/10... generous at that.

As for the whole "VCR" thing... snobs... I own one. Why? Uhm, cause I've got 1000 fucking tapes that's why. Most of which I can't get on DVD, or would be a HUGE hassle to convert over... especially since I don't have a capture card, nor a DVD burner. I'd LOVE to have everything I've got on tape, on DVD, but it just ain't happening. From my wrestling, to football games, to TV shows, to concerts... shit, I'd be converting for years, just to do that.

Anywho...

Shitfest... that's what one word rating I'd give this movie.... shitfest.

Naomi... poor Naomi. Much like Kate Beckinsale in Van Helsing... only Kate signed on for that, Naomi had no choice for this shitfest.

[dellamorte dellamore]

I don't feel sorry for Watts , he career is going strong and she will be in a surefire blockbuster , the upcoming King Kong . I feel bad for the little Dorfmann kid , this may be it for him .

In the end though , don't think the film was that bad . It could have been much better , but when i look at some of the other recent studio horror , this one looks much better in comparison . It's still not even close to the original ( remake ) , but it is half way decent for it's genre . I've seen ten times worse dreck recently .

The film will make a nice profit , so one more installment is in order , hopefully they can improve upon this one somehow .

[wheresdonnie?]

Huge, huge disappointment. What happened to the slow-burn, creepy horror of the original?
4/10