Author |
Message |
matatonio
Teh Mexican
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:56 pm Posts: 26066 Location: In good ol' Mexico
|
:woo: its official im going to see it tonight!!
i dont know what hour but im going to see it!! BYE!!
|
Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:42 pm |
|
 |
Eagle
Site Owner
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm Posts: 14631 Location: Pittsburgh
|
|
Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:52 pm |
|
 |
Libs
Sbil
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 48678 Location: Arlington, VA
|
I enjoyed The Ring Two. The quality is nowhere near the level of the original, though. The Ring Two employs the strange tactic of almost completely disregarding the "killer videotape" aspect in favor of a "possess the kid" plot. That's not to say that it doesn't provide a hefty number of shocks and "scares", despite not exactly being a flat-out horror film. The tension is high and every scene is well-paced by the director. Oh, and the creepy, distorted faces from the first movie are back, in case you need to shield your eyes. B
|
Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:57 pm |
|
 |
Libs
Sbil
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 48678 Location: Arlington, VA
|
Oh, by the way, whoever thought having that "killer deer" sequence in the movie would be a good idea is an idiot. That was hysterically bad.
|
Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:53 pm |
|
 |
jb007
Veteran
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:47 pm Posts: 3917 Location: Las Vegas
|
This movie is pathetic. Big difference is probably Gore Verbinski's absence. The Japanese director did not come up with a single good idea in this movie except for one good line at the end. I got tired of watching Aidan in this movie.
C-
_________________ Dr. RajKumar 4/24/1929 - 4/12/2006 The Greatest Actor Ever. Thanks for The Best Cinematic Memories of My Life.
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 12:04 am |
|
 |
Korrgan
problem?
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:52 am Posts: 15515 Location: Bait Shop
|
I think the deer scene was suppose to be like the horse scene in the first movie. Animals can sense Samara's evil presence, and they could sense it on Aidan at that time, hence the attack. But yes, it was the lamest scene.
_________________
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 1:15 am |
|
 |
sako
Indiana Jones IV
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:07 pm Posts: 1684
|
The Deer scene made sense becausewhen Rachel is at the Morgan's house you see the antlers, meaning that they killed deers. thats what I think anyways.
I got back from the movie and it was good, nowhere near the first one. I think that for a HORROR sequel, it was great, because not many are. I thought that they could have done much more with the story and it was at times a little too plain. The acting was not weak, but not very good either. From the trailer you would expect something scarer. Overall I was happy with it. The Ring, I gave an A-, this I give a B-. It could have been more.
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 2:08 am |
|
 |
Eagle
Site Owner
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm Posts: 14631 Location: Pittsburgh
|
Don't get me started on the deer scene ... yth it made sense but COME ON it looked like they photoshoped the deer in there.
As for the scares ... where were they ... though I will admitt the line at the end was wixked good. Naiome (sp?) did a good job throughout or this movie coulda been worse.
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 3:20 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Blah, I see disappointment all around 
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:19 am |
|
 |
KC
Team Kris
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:57 pm Posts: 1036
|
Well I left very dissapointed with this sequel. It doesn't come anywhere near the first. The deer attack scene in the woods has to be the worst CGI I have seen in quite some time. If they make a third, I hope Gore Verbinski returns to bring back the scares of the original. I have the original 9.5/10 after understanding it and this one gets a 6/10.
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 12:23 pm |
|
 |
matatonio
Teh Mexican
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:56 pm Posts: 26066 Location: In good ol' Mexico
|
Well i really enjoyde it, you cant compared it to the first, yes the Deer scene, was absolutely ridiculous and stupid and crappy effects!
some creepy scenes at the end but not all that scary
and the Line "I'm Not you're Fucking Mommy" was brilliant =D>
B-
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 2:04 pm |
|
 |
MovieDude
Where will you be?
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:50 am Posts: 11675
|
Well, it's not without flaws, but after hearing all this downplaying of it being so unscary and bad, I really liked it overall. There were a lot of bits that certainly missed (SPOILERS, highlight to read: The two main ones that I'd cite being the bathtub scene towards the end where Samara looked like the Mummy Returns ghost, and the elk scene. I mean, DEER? I didn't know The Polar Express got off in Astoria. . Hehe, my whole group laughed when I said "I think we lost them" after she stopped her car the second time)END SPOILERS), but I was surprised by how many got me. The faces didn't look half as nasty as the first time in my opinion, but they still definitely got me, as did most of the Samara scenes. And was I the only one who thought the climax was extremely reminescent of Nightmare on Elm Street? That crawling up the well... brrr. Naomi Watts and the kid were both just as good, if not better, then the first film, but some of the other acting was a bit hit-or-miss. Overall, it's not as good as the first movie, but still very well done. B+/B
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 3:31 pm |
|
 |
baumer72
Mod Team Leader
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:00 pm Posts: 7087 Location: Crystal Lake
|
This has to be the most disappointing sequel since Nightmare on Elm Street 2. Without sugar coating anything, this is about as bad a movie as you can find. Why they got rid of Verbinski is beyond me. He made the first one...he carried the first one with his frenetic style of film making and his acute eye. This one may boast that it has the original director from Ringu, but the hack job he does on this film is unbelievable. There is nothing scary about and the pace is just lilliputin. I made a thread earlier this year at mojo saying that the Village is one of the worst movies ever, well this rivals it. I'm glad Naomi got paid a heap load to do this because she ain't going to be doing a third. To sum it up....no scares, terrible direction, a soggy script by Krueger and a snails pace makes this one one of the all time duds and disappointments. At Friday the 13th Part 2 stayed true to it's form and deviate from what made it famous, this isn't even in the same ballpark as the first. A terrible terrible waste.
1/10
_________________ Brick Tamland: Yeah, there were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.
Ron Burgundy: Brick, I've been meaning to talk to you about that. You should find yourself a safehouse or a relative close by. Lay low for a while, because you're probably wanted for murder.
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 3:48 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
baumer72 wrote: This has to be the most disappointing sequel since Nightmare on Elm Street 2. Without sugar coating anything, this is about as bad a movie as you can find. Why they got rid of Verbinski is beyond me. He made the first one...he carried the first one with his frenetic style of film making and his acute eye. This one may boast that it has the original director from Ringu, but the hack job he does on this film is unbelievable. There is nothing scary about and the pace is just lilliputin. I made a thread earlier this year at mojo saying that the Village is one of the worst movies ever, well this rivals it. I'm glad Naomi got paid a heap load to do this because she ain't going to be doing a third. To sum it up....no scares, terrible direction, a soggy script by Krueger and a snails pace makes this one one of the all time duds and disappointments. At Friday the 13th Part 2 stayed true to it's form and deviate from what made it famous, this isn't even in the same ballpark as the first. A terrible terrible waste.
1/10
Is it really THAT bad, or is it just that bad in comparison to the original?
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 3:51 pm |
|
 |
baumer72
Mod Team Leader
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:00 pm Posts: 7087 Location: Crystal Lake
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: baumer72 wrote: This has to be the most disappointing sequel since Nightmare on Elm Street 2. Without sugar coating anything, this is about as bad a movie as you can find. Why they got rid of Verbinski is beyond me. He made the first one...he carried the first one with his frenetic style of film making and his acute eye. This one may boast that it has the original director from Ringu, but the hack job he does on this film is unbelievable. There is nothing scary about and the pace is just lilliputin. I made a thread earlier this year at mojo saying that the Village is one of the worst movies ever, well this rivals it. I'm glad Naomi got paid a heap load to do this because she ain't going to be doing a third. To sum it up....no scares, terrible direction, a soggy script by Krueger and a snails pace makes this one one of the all time duds and disappointments. At Friday the 13th Part 2 stayed true to it's form and deviate from what made it famous, this isn't even in the same ballpark as the first. A terrible terrible waste.
1/10   Is it really THAT bad, or is it just that bad in comparison to the original?
BOTH.
The original is what I consider to be the best modern horror film. By that I mean since the rebirth after Scream's debut in 96. The Ring just scared the fucking shit right out of me and that is not easy to do being the huge horror fan that I am. But the fact that this pales in comparison to the first is part of the problem, but even if you took it on its own, not as a sequel, it is a terrible film, maybe not 1/10 terrible, but 4/10.
_________________ Brick Tamland: Yeah, there were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.
Ron Burgundy: Brick, I've been meaning to talk to you about that. You should find yourself a safehouse or a relative close by. Lay low for a while, because you're probably wanted for murder.
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 3:57 pm |
|
 |
The Dark Shape
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:56 am Posts: 12119 Location: Adrift in L.A.
|
baumer72 wrote: This has to be the most disappointing sequel since Nightmare on Elm Street 2. Without sugar coating anything, this is about as bad a movie as you can find. Why they got rid of Verbinski is beyond me. He made the first one...he carried the first one with his frenetic style of film making and his acute eye. This one may boast that it has the original director from Ringu, but the hack job he does on this film is unbelievable. There is nothing scary about and the pace is just lilliputin. I made a thread earlier this year at mojo saying that the Village is one of the worst movies ever, well this rivals it. I'm glad Naomi got paid a heap load to do this because she ain't going to be doing a third. To sum it up....no scares, terrible direction, a soggy script by Krueger and a snails pace makes this one one of the all time duds and disappointments. At Friday the 13th Part 2 stayed true to it's form and deviate from what made it famous, this isn't even in the same ballpark as the first. A terrible terrible waste.
1/10
TRANSLATION: Why wasn't it like the first one? Why?! I wanted to see the same damn thing happen to different people!!
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 4:16 pm |
|
 |
makeshift
Teenage Dream
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am Posts: 9247
|
Well, it's not as bad as some of you are making it out to be, but it's definitely not a great film by any stretch of the imagination. The first hour or so was actually quite good, with some effective scares, a quick pace, and some incredibly artsy direction (loved the overhead shot of the kids in the sprinkler). Once Rachel went back to Seattle (and Aidan was fully possessed), though, the film just came to a screeching hault. The pacing dropped off the map, the scares completely stopped, and the story started to unravel on it self and the film stopped making sense. The only good thing about the last part of the film was the well scene, and even that wasn't as scary as it should have been because we had seen Samara too many times in the film for her to still be scary. Hideo Nakata and Ehren Kruger committed two cardinal sins when dealing with a horror villian - they showed her too many times throughout the film and gave her speaking parts. Samara was not scary in the slightest in this film, whereas in the original she was terrifying. Also, was I the only one that thought David Dorfman (Aidan) was terrible in this film? So, yeah, undoubtedly a mamouth disappointment for those of us that loved the original, but when compared to the other dreck we've seen from the horror genre this year (White Noise, Boogeyman), it's not that bad. I give it a B-.
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 4:25 pm |
|
 |
Libs
Sbil
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 48678 Location: Arlington, VA
|
makeshift wrote: Well, it's not as bad as some of you are making it out to be, but it's definitely not a great film by any stretch of the imagination. The first hour or so was actually quite good, with some effective scares, a quick pace, and some incredibly artsy direction (loved the overhead shot of the kids in the sprinkler). Once Rachel went back to Seattle (and Aidan was fully possessed), though, the film just came to a screeching hault. The pacing dropped off the map, the scares completely stopped, and the story started to unravel on it self and the film stopped making sense. The only good thing about the last part of the film was the well scene, and even that wasn't as scary as it should have been because we had seen Samara too many times in the film for her to still be scary. Hideo Nakata and Ehren Kruger committed two cardinal sins when dealing with a horror villian - they showed her too many times throughout the film and gave her speaking parts. Samara was not scary in the slightest in this film, whereas in the original she was terrifying. Also, was I the only one that thought David Dorfman (Aidan) was terrible in this film? So, yeah, undoubtedly a mamouth disappointment for those of us that loved the original, but when compared to the other dreck we've seen from the horror genre this year (White Noise, Boogeyman), it's not that bad. I give it a B-.
Pretty much agree with everything. I hate to bash a child actor, but David Dorfman was not good in this film. I thought he did a nice job in the first movie, but his scene where he was fully possessed by Samara was cringe-inducing.
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 4:28 pm |
|
 |
Michael.
No Wire Tampons!
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 12:27 am Posts: 23283
|
Hmm; too bad no ones liking it - i was really looking forward to this movie.
I think it can be compared to The Village in that alot of people were expecting another twisty supernatural thriller when actually it was a romantic epic tied to a twist that would offend both horror fans and romance fans... it had almost no scares at all; isntead building tension that was never released in long, un-necessary shots.
I have way more faith in the Grudge 2 as the Ring 2 promos have been imo quite weak.
_________________ I'm out.
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 5:33 pm |
|
 |
Anonymous
|
It takes huge balls to gather up everything that was great about the original and toss it out the window for the sequel. The worst sequel ever? No. But terribly boring and silly and riddled with continuity errors.
D-
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:13 pm |
|
 |
Goldie
Forum General
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:38 pm Posts: 7286 Location: TOP*SECRET ******************** ******************** ******************** ********************
|
loyalfromlondon wrote: It takes huge balls to gather up everything that was great about the original and toss it out the window for the sequel. The worst sequel ever? No. But terribly boring and silly and riddled with continuity errors.
D-
But how was the grammer?
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:31 pm |
|
 |
Goldie
Forum General
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:38 pm Posts: 7286 Location: TOP*SECRET ******************** ******************** ******************** ********************
|
I agree with the ones who said the movie was OK.
It wasn't in the same class as a horror movie as the first ring movie and yes this was just an effort to cash in on the success of the first movie.
But while it isn't a horror movie, it is more like a thriller. ( I used to have a discussion with Lecter about the Sixth Sense - I commented that movie was much more a thriller than a horror movie. )
Or these are just very light-weight horror movies compared to the past - thus just omitting the horror aspect.
The thing that this movie did was add alittle to the story ( was there really going to be a whole story in this) and made an enjoyable night at the movies.
--------------
- Glad one person was paying attention and there was more to the deers than just them on the road - que the cellar scene.
- Also as no one mentioned, I like the first scene with the girl. I wanted that college PUNK to get his due.
------------
Only negative was alittle too much of the kid - He ain't no Haley Joel.
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:33 pm |
|
 |
Jeff
Christian's #1 Fan
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:25 pm Posts: 28110 Location: Awaiting my fate
|
The Ring Two
It would be hard to create a film that is as masterful, psychotic and chilling as 2002's The Ring. And The Ring Two is no exception. Nowhere near the sheer brilliance of the original it lingers in mediocrity. The script is only decent and does little to advance the story. The scares are few and far between but are good when they do happen. A great first film sadly does not give good inspiration to its sequel. A dissapointment, but not as bas as some make it out to be.
6.5/10 (B)
_________________ See above.
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:55 pm |
|
 |
MovieDude
Where will you be?
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:50 am Posts: 11675
|
baumer72 wrote: This has to be the most disappointing sequel since Nightmare on Elm Street 2. Without sugar coating anything, this is about as bad a movie as you can find. Why they got rid of Verbinski is beyond me. He made the first one...he carried the first one with his frenetic style of film making and his acute eye. This one may boast that it has the original director from Ringu, but the hack job he does on this film is unbelievable. There is nothing scary about and the pace is just lilliputin. I made a thread earlier this year at mojo saying that the Village is one of the worst movies ever, well this rivals it. I'm glad Naomi got paid a heap load to do this because she ain't going to be doing a third. To sum it up....no scares, terrible direction, a soggy script by Krueger and a snails pace makes this one one of the all time duds and disappointments. At Friday the 13th Part 2 stayed true to it's form and deviate from what made it famous, this isn't even in the same ballpark as the first. A terrible terrible waste.
1/10
Baumer, lord knows I think you're the man, but every now and again your reviews kinda blow things out of proportion, like when you said Kill Bill was one of the worst movies ever made. I mean, c'mon, 1/10? That's not even Son of the Mask bad, that's like Gigli or Battlefield Earth terrible.
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:19 pm |
|
 |
Eagle
Site Owner
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm Posts: 14631 Location: Pittsburgh
|
I think Baumer is just expressing his dissapointment. I think he would really put it right around where I did ... D+
|
Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:52 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|