The Ring Two
Originally Written: March 2005
Here’s my fearless prediction- “The Ring Two” will not be as popular as Gore Verbinski’s stunning 2002 thriller. Yes, I know, it’s a stretch to think a sequel will not be as popular as the original, and a horror sequel no less (so few are even good). But here’s my rationale for such a risky statement- the director is Hideo Nakata, who directed “Ringu” and “Ringu 2” over in Japan. It’s not that he’s a bad director- far from it- but it’s that he’s Japanese director.
Now before I get accusations of being prejudice, allow me to explain. You see, Nakata is a neophyte at making American movies, much less American horror movies. He doesn’t understand that most American horror movies are supposed to be about young, pretty actors and actresses getting gutted and strung up by their entrails while spewing ironic and hilariously bad dialogue when they’re not in some form of nudity. It’s not just him- even Stanley Kubrick- one of the greatest of all directors- didn’t get it when he made 1980’s “The Shining,” one of the best horror films of all-time. Ditto Lawrence Kasden- one of the best American movie writers- when he slummed to make the 2003 guilty pleasure “Dreamcatcher.” Wes Craven, he gets it, and he can play it like a fiddle when the material is good (the “Scream” trilogy, “Nightmare on Elm Street,” and “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare” are brilliant examples, and the teaser for his upcoming “Red-Eye” looks like another bit of greatness). Sam Raimi, he got it when he directed the iconic “Evil Dead” trilogy in the ’80s and ’90s. Nakata, though, he doesn’t get it. Neither him nor his countryman, Takashi Shimizu (who directed last year’s underrated “The Grudge,” a remake of his own “Ju-on”), get the American way of making horror movies. We don’t want well-developed concepts, intelligent characters, methodical suspense, and creepy sound effects that simply suggest what we fear. We want blood-splattered violence, coarse language, and the occasional bit of gratuitous nudity. Blood and boobs, boys. Blood and boobs.
Bless Nakata and Shimizu for not getting it. I’ll admit that the above was a gross generalization of American horror. For one thing, I’m forgetting a LOT of classics (such as “The Exorcist” and “The Omen”), and a few gifted genre filmmakers (John Carpenter and Tobe Hooper above all). But it seems as though the above rant is all-too-true about modern horror movies…which is what makes “The Ring,” “The Grudge,” “The Ring Two,” and other such gems of the genre so important. The underlying idea of remake popular Japanese horror films with American actors is completely about making a profit, but that none of these three films have been compromised by less-than-stellar talent shows there’s an artistic ambition behind the idea. The latter two benefit greatly by bringing in the directors of the original Japanese films, a move that isn’t original (Hitchcock remade his 1934 gem “The Man Who Knew Too Much” 22 years later with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day), but what it allows the director to do- find new slants on previously-explored ideas, as well as introduce their skills to a new audience (in the case of Nakata and Shimizu)- is a gift for the audience. These are not movies of low-concept, factory-line production, neither in their thinking nor in their values (meaning cast and crew)- these are smart, high-concept risks- even at a low-budget (by today’s standards) as the $10 million “Grudge”- by studios and filmmakers looking to get away from hack clones by taking chances. They may not make a whole lot of sense- hey, they’re still horror movies, a genre not prone to logic- but that’s not their purpose of being. Their purpose is to freak you out, both in their ideas and in their visuals. For me, “The Ring” and “The Grudge” did that. My question was…would “The Ring Two” do that as well?
To the extent those two did? No, “The Ring Two” didn’t do that, but probably because I knew the rules after the first one (or thought I did), that opening scare- though as perfect an example of movie justice as I’ve seen- just lacks the freshness of the original. Still, once the plot- which follows a “fresh start” for the first film’s Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts, who continues to hold her own as a high-concept movie leading lady, even if she isn’t allowed the show off earth-shaking acting) and her son Hayden (David Dorfman, at first annoying, then hilariously crazy, though never really creepy)- kicks into high gear, Nakata and writer Ehren Kruger (who wrote the original “Ring” and “Scream 3”) begin to take their hold in creating a sinuous psychological thriller that owes a lot to the likes of “The Exorcist” and “Rosemary’s Baby,” though by the end has become a distinctly haunting horror drama in its’ own right. Like I said, it doesn’t make a Hell of a lot of sense, and it seems to rewrite the rules of the original (when in fact it could just be introducing some new tricks fans of the Japanese series are aware of), but when Samara (that creepy-ass girl from the original) resurfaces to “thank” Rachel and Hayden for keeping her cycle of terror alive at the end of the first one (in the deleted scenes from the original “Ring” DVD (it’s that experimental short film), you know how), that’s when the movie begins to take hold with a bravado- visually (Nakata creates some stunning visuals) and musically (Martin Tillman and Henning Lohner riff on Hans Zimmer’s themes from the original “Ring” effectively)- and confident creepiness that few contemporary horror films seem to conjure up. “The Ring” and “The Grudge” come to mind first in the company “The Ring Two” holds among modern entries of the genre, as does Wes Craven’s “Scream” trilogy, Craven’s underrated “New Nightmare,” John Carpenter’s “In the Mouth of Madness,” and a handful of others. What do the films I’ve mentioned have in common? The desire to turn the genre on its’ head, and go more for the suspense than the gore with intelligence and imagination. I like that way of thinking. If you give “The Ring Two” a chance, and forgive its’ many absurdities, I think you’ll feel the same way. Of course, it helps to see the first “Ring,” well, first. If not, don’t be freaked out when the long-haired girl comes out of the television set. Well, you CAN be- I mean, it IS a horror movie; that’s what it’s going for- but just don’t think too logically about it. Again, it IS a horror movie…and a pretty good one at that.
**P.S.- I know I do little actual talking about “The Ring Two” in this review. I just got on a thing about the genre itself. Partly because I started the review the day after I saw it, and it’s now about 10 days after I saw the movie that I’m finishing it. Partly because, well, I’d rather not ruin the movie by dissecting every inch of it for anybody interested in seeing it. You just want to know what I think about it, and why, and I think I’ve done that sufficiently. -BS
