Read User Reviews and Submit your own for The Ring Two

8

IlzeS.Sep 10, 2005

The first part was better. Much scarier than this. This movie was good to look at. Naomi Watts was good. Anyway I like it.

1 of 1 users found this helpful

7

GavinCJul 28, 2009

Not as good as the original, but it's just as artistic.

1 of 1 users found this helpful

10

Nick5414Oct 4, 2011

Naomi Watts is great and the movie is incredibly scary.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

10

GlynnH.Aug 23, 2005

Not as perfect as the first, but miles beyond anything else out there. I think that some of the things that don't make sense are because we have still yet to find out a bunch of stuff that will come in the form of the 3rd movie being a Not as perfect as the first, but miles beyond anything else out there. I think that some of the things that don't make sense are because we have still yet to find out a bunch of stuff that will come in the form of the 3rd movie being a prequel. Because we still need to know why Samara is the way she is, that is not answered in this movie.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful

3

NickHAug 28, 2005

I'll say it now: "Damn you Ehren Kruger". I've never laughed at a bad horror movie before. Why? Because I'm always bored during them. And this my friends, is a BAD one. But, I encourage you to rent it for a laugh. This movie I'll say it now: "Damn you Ehren Kruger". I've never laughed at a bad horror movie before. Why? Because I'm always bored during them. And this my friends, is a BAD one. But, I encourage you to rent it for a laugh. This movie is funnier than some of the so-called comedies Hollywood is throwing out. This is the FIRST horror movie I've ever laughed during, there's nothing scary about it whatsoever. Well... there may have been something towards the end that may have inspired fear in some people - but I was too giddy from laughing at the deer scene (I swear I was in tears) and the toliet scene. The so called scares were not scares at all, they were 'jump tactics' (i.e. Samara grabs someones arm). I also found humor in the fact that whenever Hideo Nakata wanted to show drama he whipped the camera around in a circle. Powerful? No. I was not impressed by his direction at all. The effects were also overdone and came off as silly excuses to spend money. The acting, if you can call it that, was just so... so... bleh. Thats the word. This whole movie can be discribed as "bleh." You'll find yourself discribing it to people as "bleh" before you tell them how much you laughed during that deer scene. This movie is really that funny, but it's not scary which is what it set out to be. For that, it gets a lowly.... ===3.3/10===… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

MovieManiac83Apr 23, 2015

As far as I'm concerned, it's official: Hollywood has lost the art of how to make horror films. Consider this year's entries as Exhibit A - everything from White Noise to The Ring 2 has been horrible. There's not a worthwhile film in theAs far as I'm concerned, it's official: Hollywood has lost the art of how to make horror films. Consider this year's entries as Exhibit A - everything from White Noise to The Ring 2 has been horrible. There's not a worthwhile film in the bunch. And nowadays, it has become popular to remake incoherent Japanese ghost stories into less cogent English-language versions. The Ring and The Grudge are prime examples of this kind of bankrupt storytelling philosophy. Give me Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, or The Shining any day.

I was not a fan of the American edition of The Ring. It did too little with an intriguing premise, offered a confusing and often dumb storyline, and was low on the creepiness scale. But compared to its successor, The Ring was pure genius. The Ring 2 is slickly made garbage - a dull, plodding horror movie that ventures into the realm of idiocy when it isn't busy remaking the first film. This is yet another example of what happens when money, not creativity, drives the production of a sequel. Despite its flaws, The Ring worked as a self-contained story. Opening it up for a second installment is a mistake. The evidence is on the screen.

If you're expecting scares from The Ring 2, you will be disappointed. Except for a few half-hearted "boo!" moments, this film has little to offer that will raise the nape hairs. The horror, to the extent that it can be called by that word, is standard, by-the-book stuff that has been neutered in order to appeal to a PG-13 crowd. It's stale. Even the one potentially edgy aspect of the movie ends up being blunted to the point where it couldn't cut butter. And, because The Ring 2 doesn't have a clear idea of where it's going, its rules and restrictions regarding the ghost and her behavior are arbitrary.

With the exception of an opening sequence that echoes that of The Ring, the most intriguing element of the first movie - that watching a video tape can result in a death sentence - is eliminated. Maybe the reason for this is that the VCR is fast becoming obsolete, joining the 8-track deck and the record player in garage sales. Can a DVD have ghostly beings encoded on it? Although The Ring 2 doesn't do much with videotapes, it offers something new: Bambi run amok. Watch and see why it's a good idea to allow hunters to thin the herd.

Naomi Watts and David Dorfman have the thankless jobs of reprising their roles as Rachel and Aidan Keller. Everyone else from The Ring gets this film off. Replacements include Elizabeth Perkins as a psychologist, Simon Baker as a reporter, and Sissy Spacek as Carrie 35 years older (or something like that). None of these secondary characters comes close to growing a personality, but that's pretty much true of the leads as well. We identify with Rachel and her son because we have known them longer.

In many ways, the film's production history is more interesting than the resulting movie. After Gore Verbinski (director of The Ring) decided he would rather go chasing pirates than try on a second Ring, the producers approached Hideo Nakata, who made both Ringu (the Japanese original) and Ringu 2 (the Japanese sequel). However, while The Ring was a remake of Ringu, The Ring 2 has nothing to do with Ringu 2. So this means Nakata got a chance to make two different first sequels. At least he can't claim that someone else messed up the American version of his franchise. He did it all by himself.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

1

carlosOct 10, 2005

One star for not naming everyone in the credits Alan Smithee. You have to earn the other nine by making something at least marginally watchable. This is an hour and fifty one minutes of my life that I will never get back. Hideo Nakata, I One star for not naming everyone in the credits Alan Smithee. You have to earn the other nine by making something at least marginally watchable. This is an hour and fifty one minutes of my life that I will never get back. Hideo Nakata, I hold you responsible.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

beckyNov 3, 2005

Well because only it was disappointing whenRachel closes the well my 2nd mum says there will be a 3rd but i do not think so and when loads of people say that Adian will die and he did not get abused

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

AndyW.Oct 4, 2005

What's that? Did she just tried to kill her child with cocaine? And a group of deer just attacked the car? Oh wait a second, I know why this is happening. Oh I get it! Because it's meant to be the worst horror movie of all time. What's that? Did she just tried to kill her child with cocaine? And a group of deer just attacked the car? Oh wait a second, I know why this is happening. Oh I get it! Because it's meant to be the worst horror movie of all time. Wow, I've never thought of that. Hmmm… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

tylercAug 26, 2005

There is nothing entertaining about this movie. Would someone please explain to me the scene with the deer? I didn't get it. There is nothing scary about this move and I have no idea how they got Sissy Spacek to play a cameo.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

bobb.Aug 27, 2005

Pros: Acting. Cons: Makes absolutely no sense. overview: DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM!!!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

mobiusSep 1, 2005

Not to bad the story continues but this time it dont focus on the 7 day cycle, instead we have samara focusing on rachel and a new ajenda. at least it isnt a remake of the first film.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

dferrisOct 21, 2005

All I have to say is "deer scene" I have never laughed so hard in my life. Not to say that the rest of the film could even salvage this horrible film, but that scene in particular was so lame that I had to show all of my friends...they all All I have to say is "deer scene" I have never laughed so hard in my life. Not to say that the rest of the film could even salvage this horrible film, but that scene in particular was so lame that I had to show all of my friends...they all hate me now.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

StanM.Oct 20, 2005

I was a huge fan of the first film so I was really disappointed by this half-baked piece of junk. This movie had none of the scares and definitely none of the creepiness of the first one. There were so many wholes in this story it was I was a huge fan of the first film so I was really disappointed by this half-baked piece of junk. This movie had none of the scares and definitely none of the creepiness of the first one. There were so many wholes in this story it was ridiculous. First, why the heck would Rachel even have a television in her house let alone a video player? Didn't the writer see Poltergeist and the all important last seen when the family shoves the television out of their motel room? And what was up with the deers? I mean were we supposed to believe that somehow deers can sense evil or was Aiden actually Damian from the Omen? And finally why didn't they just tell uswho or what Samara was? Maybe they think people will actually pay to see The Ring Three. If you haven't seen the first American version of The Ring see that and if you have don't waste your time on this.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

SamSep 12, 2005

While thr first time I saw it made me jump a few times, all in all, this movie just wasn't that scary. Sure, it was better than the first, but like the first, it's only entertaining if you expect a good, well-done plot rather than While thr first time I saw it made me jump a few times, all in all, this movie just wasn't that scary. Sure, it was better than the first, but like the first, it's only entertaining if you expect a good, well-done plot rather than a terrifying film. Also like the first one, it's only scary the first time.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

rotkuJul 1, 2012

Mediocre sequel which takes the originality of the first movie and ruin it with a tired concept which has been done over and over. The actors to their best but part of me still cant help dislike the kid.