Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pre-release The Ring 2 discussion
#36
Quote:

Originally Posted by fabfunk

However, the project’s history isn’t nearly as dense as the tall tales of this film’s troubled production, which come across onscreen as a confused series of loaded motifs and thematic bogs. THE RING TWO is not without it’s desire to be distinctive, but it’s failings result from a misled set of cooks dipping their grubby hands into a gruesome broth.

I had not heard about this, what went on?

Nice review. Seems like one of those films that will get bad reviews.
Reply
#37
Nakata only directed the first Ringu sequel in Japan.
Reply
#38
Ah, the old "Ringu vs Ring" debate...

Ringu was an unique, slow, scary horror movie. It had a very interesting mood, a sense that something was wrong with reality, a supernatural tone, something strange in the way the characters tried to live their lives in this dark and warped world... but yet... everything still felt real. Even the tape looked like something that you could´ve shot yourself. It was the world that the characters lived in that made it seem so disturbing. The idea of a simple tape bringing the (under-the-surface) supernatural into play, the whole depressing way the characters would accept this... It all felt very real. They knew the supernatural was there, they just chose to live their lives ignoring it. Ringu was simply perfect. It made you unconfortable, it didn´t explain too much, it had a nice pace, the characters were all unique, it was scary and the directing made it all seem real.

The Ring on the other hand, is a Hollywood movie right from the first minute. It´s not concerned with making anything seem real. It doesn´t take place in our world. There´s no underlying supernatural in it - here, the supernatural only exists because of Samara. The characters don´t seem like people, they´re not unique, they´re just Hollywood clichés. The pacing can only be described as "padding". There are literally a dozen random scenes that serve no purpose and are there only to look "cool" and fill up the running time. The tape looks more like a music video from some "hardcore" rock group. Gimmicks fill the whole picture - little things that are supposed to make dumb movie-goers happy. Scenes that have no meaning, but are there to tie the tape and Samara to the random, made-up BS the scriptwriter wanted in his "spooky" scenes. The Samara background removes any horror left in the character, creating another clichéd and empty character (nothing sgainst adding background to the villain, but here it simply doesn´t work). The "new" (created for The Ring) horror scenes are not scary - they´re typical Hollywood scenarios. The "old" (rehashed from Ringu) horror scenes are now glossy and don´t feel real. The climax is straight out of an action movie - down to the editing and flashy effects. And don´t even get me started on the silly Freddy Kreuger-style antics that Samara does.
Reply
#39
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Harvey Cobblepot

I had not heard about this, what went on?

Nice review. Seems like one of those films that will get bad reviews.

Thanks.

And as for the troubles? Naomi Watts placed producers on an unreasonable deadline, clearly not wanting to be part of a new RING movie, so the shoot had to move quickly, and apparently held up to her mandate and ended up leaving before the film finished. And, of course, this fast pace really affected the slow work schedule of Hideo Nakata, who's methodical way of working did not please the studio.

Nevermind the loss of Gore Verbinski and the departure of original director Noam Murro (a first timer ditching a gravy train project because of creative difference is, to say the least, colorful).

Also, I don't know this for a fact, but the ending HAD to have been reshot a dozen times, because, without spoiling it, it looks like it's going to a very dark, realistic, ROSEMARY'S BABY-type place, and then cops out.
Reply
#40
Quote:

Originally Posted by Orin_Quon

The Ring on the other hand, is a Hollywood movie right from the first minute. It´s not concerned with making anything seem real. It doesn´t take place in our world. There´s no underlying supernatural in it - here, the supernatural only exists because of Samara. The characters don´t seem like people, they´re not unique, they´re just Hollywood clichés. The pacing can only be described as "padding". There are literally a dozen random scenes that serve no purpose and are there only to look "cool" and fill up the running time. The tape looks more like a music video from some "hardcore" rock group. Gimmicks fill the whole picture - little things that are supposed to make dumb movie-goers happy. Scenes that have no meaning, but are there to tie the tape and Samara to the random, made-up BS the scriptwriter wanted in his "spooky" scenes. The Samara background removes any horror left in the character, creating another clichéd and empty character (nothing sgainst adding background to the villain, but here it simply doesn´t work). The "new" (created for The Ring) horror scenes are not scary - they´re typical Hollywood scenarios. The "old" (rehashed from Ringu) horror scenes are now glossy and don´t feel real. The climax is straight out of an action movie - down to the editing and flashy effects. And don´t even get me started on the silly Freddy Kreuger-style antics that Samara does.


Well, I suppose you'll hate this sequel then, because all the details you named are even more prevalent this time.

I liked the American RING. I thought that Gore Verbinski's direction was crisp, and Ehren Krueger's script really made the film thematically American. The mass media and it's attack on our senses really comes through here, and I particularly liked the silent scene with Rachel alone on the balcony. She wanders out as her ex watches the tape, and she stares across into the windows of the other apartment building. At that point, without any instrumentation or fancy editing, the camera just lingers over countless people seduced by the warm glow of the television. Of course, he comes out and even makes fun of the tape, which made me accept how unscary it is compared to the tape from the original.

On a trivial note, also worth noting, as far as the second film goes, it does THE AVIATOR one better in letting loose a perfectly timed single "f" word that the MPAA would allow for a PG-13 movie.
Reply
#41
Quote:

Originally Posted by fabfunk

On a trivial note, also worth noting, as far as the second film goes, it does THE AVIATOR one better in letting loose a perfectly timed single "f" word that the MPAA would allow for a PG-13 movie.

Saw the press preview last night-- I was VERY unimpressed with it, but I didn't like the original at all, either.

My gripes & comments. **Spoilers Ahead!**

1) They never explained how the tape at the beginning (in the Scream-ish knockoff scene) made it to Rachel's town so fast without ANYONE ELSE NOTICING. It establishes that she's just recently moved, however, the tapes seem to have spread cross country in that time...

2) The deer attack was laughable. It has to be seen to be believed.

3) I genuinely DID NOT believe that the love-interest-to-be character was going to get offed. I thought that they would pull back at the last moment. That was OK, but...

4) Then they wussed out and didn't kill the kid. I realized, of course, that they wouldn't... but I still had hope!

5) The end came out of the blue, in my opinion. Climb out & shut the well? THAT'S IT?? It took an hour and a half to get HERE?
Reply
#42
http://chud.com/reviews/1935
Reply
#43
Thats too bad I was expecting more with Nakata helming this one.

I imagine the problem was Krueger's script. Perhaps Dreamworks will let Hideo come up with the story to the next installment.

Still i'll check this out.
Reply
#44
Quote:

Originally Posted by devincf


Pretty much agreed with this review, and was stunned that I wasn't the only one who thought the whole thing is about a single mom not wanting a gay son. The signs are all over the place, really.

Tell me, what do you think was the significance of the burning tree?
Reply
#45
I thought it was from the first film.
Reply
#46
So is this thing going to hit home video with the title Cock Ring?
Reply
#47
Saw it a couple hours ago and I'm so disappointed. What a fucking snooze-fest. I would argue that the only scene worth seeing was the CGI deer (or elk apparently) attack. It was just so bizzarre.

The sense of dread and urgency so omnipresent in the first one was no where to be found here. I'm just baffled as to how this went so badly.
Reply
#48
I really think I kind of loved it. It's so completely different from anything I was expecting, and the Rachel/Aidan/Samara dynamic kept my eyes glued to the screen.
Reply
#49
I went into this movie expecting to be at least a little bit spooked, what I got were terrible scenes to which my friend and I literally burst out laughing.


Spoilers:
The Elk/Deer? What in the name of god were they thinking? Almost everyone in the theatre was laughing..it ruined the mood, I didn't even get where it fit in. Aiden saw them at the fair and afterwards attack the car? Ouu..scary? Then afterwards some antlers are found in the basement?..argh
The tub scene where she walks in and it looks like some sort of water works? And when she fell..I again started to laugh.

This movie did nothing for me..my friend said it was 'pretty good, tied up some loose ends.' But none of it was scary. It was all predictable and over-done. I was more scared after watchin The Grudge than I was this. Two thumbs waaay down.
Reply
#50
Saw it yesterday. Was not impressed. Bland, dull, heavy "Seen It Before" factor. The creepy son, who was only a background character in the first one, is all over the place here, and he bugged the shit out of me. He and Dakota Fanning need to be locked up somewhere and re-engineered.

Elizabeth Perkins and Sissy Spacek have two of the most thankless roles in recent memory. I love how the dangerously unbalanced Spacek character was still allowed to have scissors in her cell. Oops!
Reply
#51
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skittles

my friend said it was 'pretty good, tied up some loose ends.' But none of it was scary. It was all predictable and over-done.

How the hell did it tie up loose ends? All it did was make everything twice as confusing (does Samara try to take over kids every few years? How does burning the tape force Samara out? What happens to the other tapes then? If Samara's mothers have always treated her like crap why does she still want them? Why does an 8 year old boy want to spend his time at antique fairs? Why does Samara-boy give the mom all the clues needed to explain her back-story and, as a result, defeat her? Why does the movie need to have both a homosexual AND creepy incest vibe?).

Did anyone else find it really funnythough that the creepy son only acted like a normal kid when he was possessed? I mean, all the girl really did in his body was watch cartoons.
Reply
#52
So, so bad.
Reply
#53
Quote:

How does burning the tape force Samara out?

That had nothing to do with it. Rachel thinks it does, but the dialogue later says otherwise. "My mommy came looking for me -- that means she loves me." Samara was looking for Rachel, planning to do it for awhile. Even in the ambulance Samara says "I found you!" well before Rachel decides to barbecue the video tape. It was a red herring.
Reply
#54
Quote:

Originally Posted by Slater

So, so bad.

Agreed.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)