The Ring Two (2005) Poster

(2005)

User Reviews

Review this title
383 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
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
147 out of 224 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.
48 out of 69 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.
29 out of 42 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
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.
7 out of 8 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!
179 out of 315 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Nice to see Aidan and Rachel but no longer scary
SnoopyStyle23 January 2014
Aidan (David Dorfman) and Rachel (Naomi Watts) have moved to a small town in Oregon. However the videotape seems to have followed them after Rachel finds another one of those strange deaths. Rachel takes the tape and burns it. Samara starts coming after Aidan, and Rachel must dig up the past to put it to rest.

The great thing about this sequel is that the actors came back to finish the story off. It's interesting to go back to the source story. However the franchise can't surprise the audience any more. It was a nice fresh idea in the first movie, but the sequel can't shock us anymore. It's a good wrap up. I hope they don't keep dragging this out like other franchises.
4 out of 4 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.
45 out of 72 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
56 out of 93 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.
57 out of 99 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.
41 out of 69 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.
90 out of 173 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Ring Two Features More Of The Creepy Samara And An Instant Classic Reindeer Scene!
FrancesTheWHORE18 March 2005
The Ring Two starts off pretty much where The Ring left off. Rachel (Naomi Watts) and Aidan (David Dorfman) are starting over again after all the horrors of the first movie are, for the time being, finished. It is not long before some events, which are not so coincidental, start to occur. Rachel, as the new editor of a small town newspaper, listens to the police scanner to what may be the biggest story to ever hit this small town. It seems a teenager has been murdered with his girlfriend cowering in the basement, but that is not the strange thing. It is something about the murder victim's face! Rachel decides she has to see if the events are related to what she has just been through and goes to see the corpse. To her dismay, the face resembles those who have died before. This is how the story begins and the evil Samara begins to show her face again, after she finds Rachel.

The Ring Two is not as mysterious as the first. That is easy to figure out, most of the questions were answered in the first, so it leaves more "meat and potatoes", so to speak, for the sequel. You get to see much more of Samara. Boy, does she look creepy crawling out of that well. You will see what I mean. This installment relies much more on imagery, such as the tree we all recognize from the first movie and who will ever be able to forget the instant classic scene with the reindeer or the moose (not sure what they were).

The fact is, I never expect much with sequels so I was pleasantly surprised by this one. While it is not as good, or original as the first movie, it is no slouch and far better than the last horror movie I saw, Boogeyman. No comparison whatsoever. I give 8 of 10 stars.
60 out of 116 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 13 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 ...
61 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Dead Keep Getting In.
BigHardcoreRed18 March 2005
The Ring Two is a pretty good sequel for what it was, but it was not like the first one. I guess that is to be expected when you learn everything in the first movie, therefore it goes straight to the horror in the second movie. This was just about as creepy as the first, but the continuity between the two movies did not quite add up. For example, you do not automatically die in 7 days if you see the video but, if you can get someone else to watch it within that time, the curse is transfered over to them. Also, Samara (Kelly Stables), is not bound to the 7 days for those that have seen the tape in the original movie. She is nearly omnipotent, as the only place where you can talk and she can not hear is in your sleep. A little hard to make sense of, but the movie does a good job.

Rachel and Aidan Keller (Naomi Watts & David Dorfman) move to a small, new town to escape the horror of what they have just been through just 6 months earlier. Thinking they had destroyed the last copy of the tape and they were safe, somehow another copy has resurfaced in the small town they were in and Samara has killed yet again. When Rachel shows up at the scene and looks at the face, I assume to make sure it is the same as before, Samara had found her, and stalks her son, Aidan throughout the movie and eventually possesses him.

I can not really go too far into the story without giving a lot away, but there are many scenes which will always stand out and will no doubt be spoofed my movies like Scary Movie and others like it. Most notably, the deer scene was great. That made the movie for me, but there were others that were good, too. While I think this movie was not as good as the first, it does not make a complete mockery of itself either (like Jeepers Creepers 2). It is very good. 7.5/10
46 out of 89 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!
15 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terrible, Terrible, Terrible
filmjabber20 March 2005
I think something got lost in translation. I'm pretty sure Hideo Nakata, director of the original "Ringu," was hired to make a scary sequel to the hit 2002 horror movie "The Ring," but... he didn't. In fact, what he did deliver to the powers at Dreamworks was an absolutely terrible comedy of horrors that undoes everything in the previous movie while simultaneously making the audience wish that they themselves were drowning in the bottom of that damn well. "The Ring Two," titled such because Nakata evidently doesn't know that you can use a single character to depict a number, starts off exactly like the last one, with two bad actors plugging in the infamous videotape where at least one will eventually die. The horrid death, which conveniently isn't shown to us for the sake of a PG-13 rating (yet more was shown in the previous movie, which was also rated PG-13), just happens to occur in Astoria, Oregon, the far and distant land where Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) and her son Aidan (David Dorfman) have escaped to all the way from Seattle. A good two hour drive from the place where they almost perished under the hand of the creepy Cousin It ghost in the first film, Rachel is looking to start a new life. Unfortunately for her, Samara (the creepy Cousin It ghost) has found her and has decided that she should be like every other creepy kid ghost in the history of cinema and possess Aidan. The rest of the plot really doesn't matter, since none of it makes any sense and "The Ring Two" is easily one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. Watts does an adequate job in the lead, which is about the only highlight of the entire film. Unfortunately, since "The Ring Two" is rated PG-13, there should be no expectations that she will do any of the stuff she did in "Mulholland Dr.," even though she does tease all the guys in the audience by asking her son if he wants her to get in the tub with him. Unfortunately, while her performance is bearable up until the climax (and definitely not during the climax), her character is so freaking stupid it's amazing she doesn't die in the first five minutes. After all, she knows Samara has returned for them, yet when Aidan has a nightmare that he refuses to share with her, his temperature drops five degrees and he starts acting really weird, she still is entirely clueless to what's going on. Of course, little Mr. Dorfman is weird and creepy anyway, so maybe that's her excuse. No excuses can be given for Dorfman himself, however, who is absolutely terrible here. He was okay in the first "Ring" and I liked him in "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," but he is ridiculously God-awful in this sequel. It doesn't help that the screenplay gives him the worst lines of dialogue known to man, many of which involve saying his mother's name over and over again. Yes, he says "Rachel" exactly 5,432 times in the movie. The most blame has to be placed on Nakata, film editor Michael Knue and the special effects team responsible for the truly horrific visuals in the movie. Nakata has quite possibly put the final nail in Asian horror for me, as I have completely lost interest with the flash-images-until-we-get-one-that-scares-some-idiot-in-the-back-row method. "The Ring Two" is slow, dull and uninteresting, with a plot that seemingly has no connection to the original and editing that exemplifies the editor's experience - let's see, he's done such great movies as "Bones," "Highlander Endgame" and "The Crow: City of Angels." Had Knue successfully edited 100 minutes out of the middle of the movie, "The Ring Two" might have been halfway decent. Despite its badness, "The Ring" is tense at times. The first twenty minutes are mildly engaging, although even then it was quite apparent things were only going to get worse. However, there is one pivotal moment where "The Ring Two" changed from a lackluster sequel to an all-out piece of sh*t. The deer. There are deer in this movie - a whole lot of them. Unfortunately, they're all computerized, they all look really fake, and they all attack Rachel's car. Yes, a bunch of cheesy-looking deer attack the car. Instantly, I lost all interest in the movie and began to see it for what it really is - an unintentional laugh-fest. Yes, most of the audience laughed at the deer. And yes, most of the audience laughed at the scene where a very fake CGI version of Samara floated over the bathtub. And yes, for the last half of the film the audience was checking their watches, their cell phones and even sun dials in hopes that their misery would finish sooner than later. Sadly, it was not to be. "The Ring Two" is one of the worst big budget horror movies I have ever seen. Boring, stupid and hardly scary, this is not a good first step for Nakata in Hollywood. In one scene, Samara forces a psychiatrist to inject herself with air and thus kill herself; by that point, I was jealous of the psychiatrist. I wish my fate was as pleasant as hers.
31 out of 59 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 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Ring 2 =bad, bad, bad
scoobiesue3221 March 2005
I was so excited to see this movie. I waited in line for a while because I loved the 1st one and thought #2 would be even scarier. Should have realized that sequels don't usually do very well. The plot was all over the place and the movie was generally boring.It started out scary but after the first 10 minutes it just got weird. I felt like they just threw a sequel together since the 1st one did so well. The story didn't make sense, and if just bored me to tears. The acting was good but without a good script the movie can't sell.You can tell watching this movie that they didn't put much thought or creative ideas in to it. Yes there were some scary scenes but overall the movie was hard to sit through. Halfway through I wanted to leave and get my money back. I hope they don't do the Ring 3. If they do I'll wait until it comes out on video.
30 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A fulfilling and well-done, yet vastly misunderstood sequel...
TedStixonAKAMaximumMadness10 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 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good sequel
munckhof16 March 2005
Today I saw this movie as a premiere in a "Ring marathon" organized by an Amsterdam movie theater. It pleasantly surprised me that the first part again did not fail to sent shivers all over (I previously saw it as a sneak preview when it came out). People often expect sequels to be solely-profitable-meant and kind of cheap extracts. I think in the case of The Ring two, the producers really did their best to make a good story and to provide some pretty heavy scares again. Perhaps unexpectedly, this movie really tries to further build upon the basis of the first one and tries to explain some items left unexplained in the first movie. This has been done quite well.

Obviously, there are some flaws. Why, for example, would the door to a cellar be covered with spiderwebs if all furniture was moved in there the day before? Also, quite a few questions are still left unanswered. I feel there is certainly room for a third part. In case such is produced, I will definitely go and see it.

Hint: if you have not seen the first part, you should really take the opportunity to do so now. Unlike with, for example, final destination 2, with The Ring 2 I would strongly recommend to watch its prequel. If you have already seen The Ring, you should probably refresh your memory before you go and see part 2.

This is definitely a movie to watch in a cinema, hoping there are no giggling ladies (and gentlemen) around.
20 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Solid film
mdaltonnyc15 March 2005
Like all good sequels, Ring 2 doesn't mistreat its predecessor by being a bigger-is-better $100-million movie. It's a well-written and subtle film that takes its time getting to its revelations and intrigues us not with false scares but with intelligent characters and good direction from Hideo Nakata. It wisely avoids the storyline from the Japanese Ring 2 - which is not a good film - and presents a series of ideas that cross the lines of reality and the other-wordly: not only are there spooky goings-on, the film deals with real subject matters like depression, diseases, family dysfunctions, isolation, and the need for affection.
14 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A "Ring" Toss Of Awful PG-13 Horror Dreck
britishdominion16 March 2005
***SOME BIG SPOILERS - so read with extreme care (or with extreme gratitude that I saved you 2 hours of your life that you'll be able to better use in benefit of your family, your community or place of worship).***

"THE RING TWO" is is truly one of the laziest horror films of this or any year. It shamefully exists only for the sake of milking another $10 out of the poor saps who enjoyed (or understood) the first film.

I had no expectations for this movie, but say what you will about the first film - it did maintain a creepy tone through most of its running time, and its goofy psychobabble was at least palatable in the whatever-it-takes-to make-this-work mode. The sequel unfortunately, has no desire to flesh it's bare-bones plot out or explain anything that happens outside of it's narrow focus of two main characters.

Is this the best sequel idea the screenwriter could come up with? Naomi Watts again stars as Rachel, the lone survivor of an evil videotape who, by merely watching what's on that tape, kills its viewer. Part Two actually dispatches that gimmick with 20 minutes of its opening (!), and instead cobbles together what amounts to a backstory piece that picks up with Rachel and son Aidan's move from Seattle to picturesque Astoria, Oregon to start a new life. Soon though, the undead spirit from the first film reappears to lie claim to Rachel's son through a series of not-entirely-understandable "shock" sequences that lead to a cyclical revelation of horror repeating itself.

Logic seemingly goes out the window as soon as the Dreamworks logo appears on screen. With "The Ring's" evil specters again unleashed, wouldn't any of the locals in the small town - that one character describes its most newsworthy events as "...a school board meeting, a car accident or a cat up a tree..." - be all a-twitter? Considering that the body count increases as the film progresses in highly public places without so much as a police investigation, front page headline or a neighborhood revolt is the kind of lame bedrock this film is built on. Watching this, I saw huge dollops of "Poltergeist 2: The Other Side" in this with its journeys into the spirit world - and a sequel to "Poltergeist" isn't exactly a hotbed of movie concepts to begin with. If you were at the screenplay-regurgitation factory, why not at least crib a good scary premise from a good film, say like "Videodrome" or something and build on it? Even "Halloween 3" could have given this film's screenplay a few more scary beats than it has.

Characters do audience-insulting, idiotic things as crutches to ratchet up some tension - such as leaving a lethargic child alone in a tub AND THEN LEAVING THE HOUSE (!) or taking plenty of time to stop and watch a herd of deer attacking you in your car... over and over! Instead of capitalizing on the original's spooky teaser premise of the possibility of a worldwide pandemic of "Ring" video viewing - as well as that film's not-so-subtle commentary of the unknown evils that flow into your living room through consumer products - the sequel goes off in borderline-tasteless takes on the serious malady of post-partum depression and child abuse. Some fun.

This movie has no shame whatsoever. It contains absolutely NO scares, and in fact goes out of its way to throw in every cheap "jump" in the book just to make it "feel" like it's a horror film. There's the surprise-scare-from-behind, the it's-only-a-dream, the it's-not-dead, the jump-up-corpse... you know, every hackneyed trick in the book. The special makeup work provided by effects master Rick Baker gets two or three-second PG-13 showcases that don't titillate, but confuse. In a fright movie like this, you do have the license to linger a little longer on the macabre, right? Not in this movie - the scares are safe enough to guarantee that your little sister and her friends can see this on Saturday night and not have to sneak in from "Ice Princess" next door.

"THE RING TWO" is all over the map acting-wise. Watts seems to be catatonic through most of the film, with a range that goes from confused to pretend-scared, while her overly-pancaked son Aidan played by young David Dorfman seems both possessed and cardboard all in the same go. The film tries to "class" itself up by throwing in cameos by legitimately fine actors like Sissy Spacek, Elizabeth Perkins and Gary Cole for one or two scenes that are as distracting as they are embarrassing to watch. Did these actors really need to be in this film? What was the director's motivation for hiring such good actors for such insignificant parts? I hope the three got paid well for the one day each put in and maybe did something fun with the cash.

Yes, it's only a movie, but the resulting "product" does the unconscionable: it rips it's audience off and sends them out the other side poorer and less entertained - suckered in by the goodwill earned from the first film. It also manages to give sequels an even worse name than they already have. Burn its audience with a few more of these and maybe Hollywood will be up for making some original, challenging and thoughtful horror films again.
7 out of 12 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