The Ring Two (2005)

Truly Dreadful Film

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

When it comes to horror films, sequels are usually very dangerous propositions (just look at the Halloween or Saw franchises). Fortunately, director Hideo Nakata follows the original "Ring" tale with another frightening, mind-bending tale.For a basic plot summary, "The Ring 2" sees Rachel (Naomi Watts) and Aidan (David Dorfman) on the run from the ghost of Samara. Of course, just when they think they are in the clear, the spirit of the long-haired little girl returns to wreak more havoc. While trying to put an end to Samara once and for all, Rachel must delve even deeper into her past to find the key to her destruction.This movie is really a tale of two halves. The first half falls a bit flat because it is basically an extension of the original (visits from Samara, exposition about the haunted videotape, etc.). However, the second hour of the movie redeems itself by delving into more original material, that being the origins of Samara. By that time, the sheer creepiness of Samara was starting to get a little thin, so an origins tale was a good idea.Overall, "Ring 2" is a very satisfying sequel that breaks new ground while still managing to provide some genuine new scares. If not for a bit of a repetitive first hour, this part two would have eclipsed the original.

The Ring (2002) is a great movie. This is better. Do not both with the Japan Ring movies the only good thing about then. Is if they had not been made. The American version would not have been made. This is a very scary movie. It is one of the scariest movies of all time. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. 5.4 is good ratting. But this is such a great movie that 5.4 is underrating it. I give it 10 out of 10. This is scarier then The Shinning and that is not easy to do. It not easy to be better The Ring (2002). It is easy to be better The Ring (1998). That movie is just boring. It is also easy to be better then The Ring 2 (1999). That one is also very boring. But this very scary. See it. This is scary then A Nightmare on elm street (1984) and that is not easy to do.

Deadly video tapes and the creepy long-haired girl crawling out of wells and televisions return for the sequel to the 2002 hit horror film. The sequel continues to follow Rachel (Naomi Watts) and her son Aiden (David Dorfman). They've left behind the horrors of the original film and started a new life in a small town. Rachel is a journalist at a small newspaper when she hears of a gruesome death of a teenager and a flooded house. Investigating the death, she sees the same deformed face she found on her niece and her son's father.Feeling guilty, Aidan has visions of Samara continuing to stalk him. Rachel tries to dispose of the evidence and move on with her life but she can't help but notice the strange behavior of her son. Animals continue to act weird like the horses in the first one but this time deer outright attack them, one of the more exhilarating scenes of the film. The horror in this film comes from Samara popping up repeatedly as she attempts to take over Aidan's body and received motherly love from Rachel.Check out more of this review and others at swilliky.com

The Ring was a novel concept, with surprisingly more depth than many horrors or thrillers, which at the time(IMHO) only sought to provide gore and scare with little thought. The Ring 2 however, as corroborated by WindDancer 1971, provides a continual energy and uneasy theme which leaves you feeling rarely "safe". (I thought the original similar to Jaws, which was edgy on/around water but gave a rest when clearly away).Not only this, but the style and back story are 100% improved (on an already good movie) to provide more depth and context.I really don't like or generally enjoy horrors/scary movies, but this was just a great movie, that happened to have these thrilling/chilling elements in its core.Strange because I've generally found IMDb scores to appreciate the more thoughtful movies, and to reflect such themes as I've seen them. I thought Cloverfield deserved a better score but this really was a surprise.