The Ring Two (2005) Poster

(2005)

User Reviews

Review this title
559 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
The Ring 2 Made Me Swear At My TV
fortey3 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The one sentence review of this movie is that it sucks. Pretty straight up. But no one likes the criticism "sucks." They want reasons. Allow me.

CGI deer. A whole whack of them. A whole whack of unexplained CGI deer. One wonders if they couldn't find horses to continue the story from the first movie so they figured fake deer was the way to go for part 2. And just to try to make it seem like it wasn't 100% lame and irrelevant they toss in antlers at the Morgan homestead. Oh, well then, it all makes sense now. Or not.

Did anyone even listen to what Samara's birth mother said? She tried to kill her baby cuz the kid told her to in her head. Just like Rachel's son told her to in her head. To get rid of the thing inside her. So the "thing" in Aiden isn't even Samara, it's just some damn nameless thing the writer's never explain beyond a casual line about some watery world beyond that possessed Samara as a baby. OK....whatever...

Samara wants a mommy. You know what I want? Some friggin Vicodine to slip me into a drug induced coma so I can wipe the memory of that lame as lame plot contrivance out of my head. But wait, it gets worse... she wants to watch TV with her mom. That's about it.

Excuse me, I need to go yank some of my hair out.

This thing from some nether world that can make things happen with the power of its mind gets killed in a well, comes back from the dead through VHS tapes and murders people within 7 days of witnessing said tapes then inexplicably possesses a living boy.....cuz she wants to watch TV with her mom? Who the hell wrote that? What drooling, mittens-pinned-to-his-coat, Scooby-Doo-lunch-box-carrying, lazy-eyed, fat-necked, Lysol-huffing, ice-cream-smeared-on-his-face, laughing at the antics of Uncle Joey on Full House idiot wrote that? That is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen in my life.

Does she want to kill millions? Does she want to inflict suffering on mankind? Eat the living? Make a race of obedient slaves? Reign in darkness? No, she wants to watch friggin cartoons from the 50's and eat sammiches with ma on the sofa. The mind reels at the absolute idiocy.

So, to reiterate, this movie sucks. Do yourself a favour and stay away. If you hated the first one, this one will make you wish you were stricken blind by burning embers before you put the DVD in. If you liked the first one, this will make you mourn for a half decent story and a film that doesn't induce bile production. And if you saw this one and liked it we clearly can't be friends. I'm sorry, I'm sure you're a nice person though.
59 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Did Anyone who made this POS see the original movie???
Poohbair6723 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Did no one who made this mess ever see the first Ring movie? I mean, how many years was Samara at the bottom of that "SEALED" well and she seemed to have no problem getting out and about when she felt like it. Having Rachel thinking at the end of the movie that the only way to stop Samara is to seal the well...wasn't she the one in the first one who un sealed it? Why would sealing it now stop her? And when did Samara ever have a problem finding someone she was looking for? The kids in the first movie watched the tape at the cabin and then went back to their homes and I doubt that they left a forwarding address for Samara to find them. When in The Ring 2, Samara grabs Rachel's arm and says "I found you." Please...did Samara loose her Map Quest? I could go on and on with the HOLES in this POS movie....I was a big fan of the first Ring and also the original RINGU, but this was just TRASH! This movie was not creepy or scarry at all...but just down right CRAP! I thought if they did this right the studio may have a nice franchise on their hands like a Jason, Freddy or Michael Myers...but did they ever blow it. Sure it made 36 million the first week...but I bet it will fall so fast you will hear the studio heads spinning.
50 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Fear doesn't even come half circle
T1Thousand19 March 2005
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
146 out of 225 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Fear comes...maybe half circle.
snow0r12 April 2005
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.
45 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
No where as good as the first movie but still worth seeing
Marcvan27 March 2005
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.
24 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The art and fear of grabbing
Jessimaca27 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Opening scenes in "horror" films these days have been followed, almost religiously since Wes Cravens' "Scream". An opening scene in a horror film scares the audience to leave them scared the entire film. "The Ring" accomplished this. "The Ring Two" did not. Sitting there with my hands clamped together and my knuckles probably turning white, I prepared to crap my pants at the opening scene. But two minutes into the scene, I began to relax myself because to tell you the truth, a five year old wouldn't have found that scary. A five year old with a bladder problem wouldn't even have wet themselves.

This film was supposed to take place six months after the other film right? Well, super idea because Aidan obviously LOOKS older. And I don't mean six months older. I'm talking and obvious change from eight years old (when the first movie was shot) to an eleven year old (when the second movie was shot). Nice going. Give it another six months and they'll be trying to make him a nine year old. With a beard.

Simon Baker. Ah, Simon Baker. Watching Guardian so many times got me hooked on this man. So I was relieved to see him in this film. However, two-dimensional characters with less than 20 words in a film don't get me that excited. As much as Simon Baker is a good actor, he was wasted in this film. He wasn't even developed into a love interest or anything remotely interesting for the audience. He was just ... there. And you always know that you are outside of a major city when people are wearing checked shirts. Baker used these to the extreme. Very cosmopolitan.

Let us move on to the faces of the dead, which look a lot like my face when I realize I have an assignment due tomorrow. You know, all scrunched up with my tongue sticking out and veins all over my face. A small group of people in the theater erupted into laughter when seeing the faces of those who had been killed by Samara. And you had to laugh. They were nothing compared to the first movie, which struck fear in our hearts matched with piercing music.

I also found there was a lot of grabbing in this movie. Samara grabbing Rachel in the ambulance, Samara grabbing Aidan in the bathtub, Samara grabbing Rachel through the T.V, Samara grabbing Aidan through the T.V, Samara grabbing Rachel in the Hospital... I had no idea that grabbing people was the new scare tactic. And let me tell you, if you go into this film with an intense fear of grabbing, you shouldn't see The Ring Two. You might suffer a severe heart attack.

Sissy Spacek. What a relief to see her name in the opening credits. What a displacement of that relief when we see her character playing a crazy ass woman with frizzy hair in her face, stuttering and saying things that do not make sense. I have always been captivated by her Michael Jackson-like nose and that nose kept me entertained for that entire scene.

This movie was highly predictable. By this time, my ass is hurting and I wish I had my watch on so I could see how long I had to sit through this "fear fest". The story wasn't too bad. The acting wasn't too bad. The script did no justice to The Ring films. But if you want to see a movie that will make you jump up just a little, then go for it and enjoy it for what it is. A movie assaulting checked shirts and screwed up faces.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not so bad
GirishGowda28 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Unlike many of 'The Ring' fans, I didn't find this part so horrible. I loved the first movie and being a teen, I was totally into 'The Ring 2' as well. I have to agree it doesn't match expectations that the original made us hope for, but still it is a well made movie. 'The Ring' and 'The Sixth Sense' were the movies which played a huge part in making me a fan of the horror genre. The first film and The Sixth Sense gave me sleepless nights for weeks because of the way they were brilliantly executed and it may also have something to do with my being a teen when The Ring films released. Hideo Nakata took over this film from Gore Verbinski and that is where the treatment of the film changed quite a bit. He goes for a lot more gore and cgi effects than an actual story, it lost its spark there.

Six months after the incidents involving the lethal videotape, Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) wants to move away from the city into a quiet town with her son, Samara Morgan (Daveigh Chase) after the horrible deaths of her boyfriend and niece, and start over again. She had freed Samara from her earthly prison and now she is free to terrorize anyway she wants and doesn't have the restrictions that the previous film rules set. Now, Samara wants Aidan Keller's (David Dorfman) body so she could live normally again. She does all she can to get hold of his body without alerting Rachel. She even comes out of televisions to get hold of her victims. She is more evil than ever and it is upto Rachel to put an to all this mayhem.

This movie is overloaded with cgi effects in scenes that is not exactly needed. Samara possesses hundreds of deers and stags in a forest. What's up with that? She couldn't control an animal in the last film. If so, she could have controlled the horses. But the horses killed themselves due to her evilness. And the water is replaced by a black emf emission, I think. That was more cheesy than scary because of so many effects. David Dorfman is not so creepy as Aidan in this film. In the first film, I was convinced he was the ghost. He creeped me out in the first one. This time around he gave an alright performance and didn't scare me at all, as he seemed more humane in this. My sympathetic view on Samara's plight was overcome with disgust in this one. Why does she want only Aidan? She could have any kid she wanted. And shouldn't she be thankful to Rachel for releasing her from her hellhole and go to heaven or something? I was very sad that Naomi Watts accepted this film, her story is not so good in this film. Still she gave a good performance. I still give this film a 7 rating because it creeped me out the first two times I saw it.

7/10
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Interesting and abounding in weird unsettling energy
winddancer_197116 March 2005
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!
124 out of 205 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A letdown after The Ring and Rings, but still worth seeing
BrandtSponseller26 April 2005
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.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Just Terrible - not at all frightening
CozyNWarm22 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I loved the first movie. This sequel is a joke, and not at all frightening. In a couple of places, the audience burst out laughing that's how believable the plot was. How could the writer, director and production people think we could buy this supercilious, ridiculous screen play. Acutually, I take it back about not being scary. Sissy Spacek was a horror to behold and laughable at the same time. The whole new explanation for Samara's diabolical antics made the audience groan with remarks like -- ah comon now! And at the end, I heard a some of the audience say, That's what you said last time. I suppose The Ring Three will consist of Aidan's murder trial.

Take my advise and wait until it comes to TV. I wouldn't even pay the money to rent the video. It's not worth it.
24 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
100% worthless
rolling_skulls20 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
**SPOILERS** (As if you should care) This was one of the worst movies of all time. Like the first movie, the plot throws you many scenes that are made to scare, but simply do not live up to expectations. In addition, none of it makes any sense. One of my major problems was the fact that Smara hated water - why? It wasn't because she was thrown in a well - she was afraid of water as soon as she was born. This huge oversight leaves the viewer confused and unimpressed.

Oh, and when the mother uses the F-word for effect - what a cheap movie ploy. If a movie has to use profanity like that to make it better, then the movie itself must just be crap. Maybe they should learn how to make a good movie before releasing it (yeah, that's probably a good idea).

Again, The Ring Two throws the viewer a ton of images that neither make sense nor engage the viewer. I found myself laughing through the parts that didn't just disgust me outright. No movie is more deserving of a 1 out of 10.
31 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not As Good As The First
eXtreme2323 March 2005
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.
46 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Ring Two: The Heretic!!!!!!!!!
HeartMonger19 March 2005
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!
182 out of 320 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
One of the biggest disappointments in cinematic history!
baumer23 September 2005
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
55 out of 91 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Wait for the DVD!
dmatthe28 March 2005
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.
61 out of 102 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
suspense all the way
mjb3391426 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I have seen quite a few horror films, but the Japanese style is fairly new to me. I admire how they can scare you without all the gore that is such a staple in recent American films. I thought the sequel, in spite of its' faults, was much better that the first. It seemed that too much of the first movie was devoted to her research. It did not get interesting until it was more than half over. Many horror/scary movies have a scene where you find yourself yelling at the screen,"Don't do that! Watch out!" This movie delivers from the beginning. In horror films, there are always things that don't make a lot of sense when you think about it. The rules that vampire movies follow change from movie to movie. How does Freddy Krueger manage to kill people while they are sleeping? How come Jason never dies? You have to suspend your sense of reasoning a bit in order to enjoy the movie.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Ridiculously Ridiculous...
dcheng-74 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The story goes like this:

An evil spirit presumably from hell possessed a baby called Samara. Despite she was only months old she had managed to transpire her Mom to kill her so as to save her from being possessed.

Failing this, the Mom was institutionalized and the baby grew up. She was adopted but despite all her supernatural powers she had allowed her step mom to drown her in a well.

She is now a ghost, or whatever. She made a funny tape, and whoever saw it will receive a phone call stating they will die within 7 days. From experience, mankind know if they pass the tape onto others the curse will be passed onto them too. Otherwise, Samara will climb out from their TV sets and scare them to hell.

At times and just for fun she drove crazy some deers and sometimes horses.

Occasionally, Samara did some direct killings bypassing all these "red tapes", example, Max and Dr. temple.

But the police didn't even bother chasing up Temple's death at Aidan's house probably because mysterious death was no news in those days.

Now Samara wanted to return to life through Aidan, because she fancied watching cartoons with a beautiful Mom.

Despite all her powers, Samara still got tricked by Aidan and Rachel and she got out of Aidan's body. She could have easily got in again but she had chosen to drag Rachel into her well.

Unfortunately Samara hadn't practiced well-climbing lately because she has been busily climbing in and out of TV sets, otherwise she could have stopped Rachel from closing the well entrance. After all this shouldn't bother Samara who could get through walls, doors and TV sets.

Having solved all the problems, Rachel was so relieved that she decided to commit suicide. She jumped over the cliff, but found herself suddenly in bed with Aidan, who actually looks creepier than Samara.

Dear viewers, if you are still with me at this moment you are quite qualified to see this ridiculously ridiculous movie!
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not as bad as you think it may be, but not as good as the first one.
k-narkevicius25 March 2005
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.
40 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
excellent
ems_9424 April 2005
it's excellent just as scary and as exciting as the first one it really recommend it to people who like to have a good scream with their mates it's guaranteed to keep you up at nights like the first one there is a big quite complicated story behind it all that will make your hair stand on ends it's exiting and the scariest film i have seen in years from the beginning to the end it will have you sceaming ever since i saw it i have having flashbacks and waking up in the night a superb story that would make anyone even the toughest people scream and hide there head in a pillow. buy it now it's abasing but be warned it is the scariest film and i haven't ever ever screamed that much in my life so don't say i didn't warn you!
14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Ring Two Should've been called BO-RING!
misterembryo22 March 2005
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.
91 out of 176 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Moving Continuation of the first
elliott782129 February 2013
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.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Total garbage!
yourwarmembrace5 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I and everyone else in the Manhattan cineplex that opening Sunday felt robbed and embarrassed. $10.50 for this? If I had (and surely will) seen it in Wal-Mart's $5.50 DVD bin, I would have tossed it to the side like the piece of trash that it is. In this sequel, that has now made me hate the original, the "Dark Child's" mom is introduced. Big-friggin-deal! This was THE only new element and we didn't need to know who the birth mother was... served no purpose. The rest of the movie followed the original so closely that for a while, I thought I was watching deleted scenes & alternate takes. Save your money folks. I am a huge fan of Sci-Fi/Horror... I'm there opening weekend no matter what the movie is. 7x out of 10 these movies are crap but I can at least find something comical or enjoyable about the film. The Ring Two was just plain dumb, one slap in the face after another. BEWARE: This movie holds you in suspense just long enough to keep you from walking out and collecting a refund in the alloted 30 minutes.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A fulfilling and well-done, yet vastly misunderstood sequel...
MaximumMadness10 December 2005
"The Ring Two" is everything you could want in a sequel to the surprise hit "The Ring." That is, assuming you have an open mind and are keen on looking for symbolism and deeper meanings in everything. That seems to be the problem with many opinions people have against the film... they just don't get it.

The movie takes place presumably some time after the original. Rachel Keller has moved to a small town with her son Aiden to start over... And although we never learn what happened exactly, we are to presume they have broken Aiden's curse by placing it upon someone or even several people. A dark sub-plot that is mentioned briefly several times, this fact has been troubling the mother and son.

But they want to start over, and have been living well. Rachel has a new job and Aiden is seems to be doing better. But this does not last. A teenager is murdered and Rachel suspects the vengeful spirit of Samara is involved. (An importent note: The murdered teen is the lead character of the short film "Rings" which reveals that there are so called 'rings' or groups of people who pass around the cursed video, recording anything they see after viewing it, trying to learn it's secrets.) As the film progresses, it becomes apparent that Aiden is the target of Samara, who takes hold of him fairly early on. The rest of the film is a dark investigation into Samara's true past, and what has to be done to stop her once and for all.

Thats the plot in a nutshell. But as I said before, people have a tendency not to like this film. And I do believe the problem is the lack of sophistication in film audiences nowadays.

Many reviews I have read (Both professional critics and online fan-reviews) all point to different reasons as to why this film was not as good as the original. Some say that it simply isn't scary, which is true in a way. However, the film doesn't seem to be going for sheer scares. It wants to be suspenseful and emotional... not watered down into a pure fright-fest. Other people say the plot is weak and that there is a lack in storytelling. Again, I cannot speak for everyone, but there was definitely power in what I saw. It was a story of a mother willing to do anything and everything to save her son... Even if it means what could be her own death, and the death of others. Very powerful in it's own respect. And another final complaint is that the film is different than the original. I cannot argue with this, because that is the whole point. The story to this film and it's keys are different than the original.

Another interesting thing to look for is the symbolism and connections that both "Ring" films have. Water, reflections, and simple noises take on deeper meanings.

Bringing on the director of the original Japanese film, "Ringu" (Hideo Nakata) was also a good choice. He seemed to add another layer, different from Gore Verbinski's first film. And the writer of both films, Ehren Kruger, again proves that he has a knack for suspense.

Overall, I felt this film was just as good, if not better than the original. I recommend it to anyone who enjoys suspenseful and emotional stories, or anyone that enjoys a good film in general.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
"The Ring Two" is an excellent continuation, not sequel, to "The Ring"
cwfultz20 March 2005
"The Ring Two" stars Naomi Watts and David Dorfman reprising their roles as Rachel and Aiden Keller, a family plagued by Samara Morgan, a demon child that created a video tape after death that showed horrifying images and killed the viewers seven days after they watch it. The original was met with great praise, labeled by critics as the scariest movie since "The Exorcist" and "Rosemary's Baby", even though I didn't find it scary at all, just a good mystery. In "The Ring Two", Rachel and Aiden have moved to a new town, and evidence arises that a local death may have been caused by a mysterious video tape. This inspires Rachel, a reporter, to investigate.

Most critics don't like this film because it doesn't have the "atmosphere" of the original. Since I've read the books and now how vastly different the first is from the second, I didn't expect it to. You can't expect it to, anyway, seeing as how they have two different directors. I'm quite sure this movie would have been better if Gore Verbinski had been on to direct, but the studio hired the director of the Japanese film. It didn't work for "The Grudge" and it didn't work for this, but it turned out better than what I expected.

In "The Ring" the mystery of the video tape was revealed, including where it came from and the history of who made it. (Though I will admit, they could have explained it better. The book does.) In "The Ring Two", we know what there is to fear so all there is left to do is throw it at us and see what happens. They try something new though, that slightly resembles what occurs at the very end of the book, but is much different and happens in the middle. I didn't like how they just threw the idea of Samara being adopted at us. I wish they had explained it. They also kind of overexagerated on the water. After a fact about the villain is later revealed, it kind of makes sense but not really. I just hope fans react to "Dark Water" well when they see it. I also really liked the scene at the end with the well. There seems to be a scene like that at the end of both of them, one that shocks you and makes you flip out. (The first being where she crawls out of the TV.) All in all, it was a very cool movie, one of the better ones I've seen recently. I'd give it 10/10 because it did everything I thought it should. They did close it off, but I still expect a third. Why wouldn't they do it?
23 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Rachel got run over by a reindeer!
Banshee5719 March 2005
Lets see, how do I say this? I HATED IT! What the heck were they thinking? Oh, so a film does good, really good, does that mean that they NEED to make a sequel? No I don't think so. That was SO rude! We as a country adored the original because of its different way of film-making, and now, you have "Boogeyman", "White Noise", and "The Grudge", all looking exactly like the original "The Ring". That is SO rude! Now I suppose that we will see a third one, somewhere in time...like "Exorcist III", cause this one was like, "Exorcist II : The Heretic"! It played as a 'part "two"', and acted as a "III", Yeah, "Poltergeist III"! What the hell was Samara saying familiar dialogue such as "I found you!". That was SO rude! This film is running hot and blowing cold! So cold that Rachel Kellers brat son has hypothermia! Yes, the winner takes it all, and these losers are gonna have to fall...down that stupid well! That was SO rude! The story goes to say, Samara is not finished with the Kellers, and all because she needs a "Mommie Dearest" to slap her around and play house. Her intentions are for a strong and unfortunately good Watts to fulfill this, while poor Aiden Keller sits in a paper bathtub crying "Help, I'm drowning, and I can't get out!" Next we have people dying because they suspect the worst, before realizing the truth. That is SO rude! What is this? "Omen III: The Final Conflict"? That is SO rude. Watts tried, but failed, The film lacks in logic and creation, and those stupid CGI reindeer from hell are synthetically injected for some scare that we already saw in "The Omen". Watts is a brilliant actress, and I will like to see her in many more films, redeeming this mush, and that won't be too hard, and all can see that this film is so RUDE! ..............Because.............. Rachel got run over by a reindeer! While driving to her house one foggy noon. You can say there's no such thing as Samara, but as for me I thought it was rather soon. Too soon to be rushed. Yes Rachel got run over by a reindeer, when Aiden came down rocky with a cold. Rachel tried to keep him in her care but, the doctor of the city had been told...and Rachel got run over by a reindeer, she slipped and broke her neck down in that well, you can say this film was extra special, but I sure want this film to go to ...
64 out of 124 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed