Before seeing "The Ring", read this...

Rating: Null/10 (30 November 2002)

"The Ring" has acquired a reputation. When you watch the commercials on T.V. with these teenagers wearing the "cool & hip" brands of clothes, that have spiky hair, and that look like clones taken from the legion of main-stream teenagers of America saying: "It's the scariest film I've ever seen!", you should know what "The Ring" really is. This is a remake of the Japanese film entitled "Ringu", released in 1998, so if I counted well, four years ago. And they do a remake. But wait, the word "remake" is not really appropriate here. I would say Amercian version. Americans (in general) are not very opened to difference...and let me tell you that, for those who've seen some, a Japanese film is totally different from an American film...the acting is completely another thing, as well as the directing. Personally, I haven't seen "Ringu", but I don't care. I've seen "The Ring", and that's enough, even though I would have preferred to see "Ringu" instead.
Here's a little overview of the movie: A woman investigates on the mysterious death of her niece, who apparently died after watching a video cassette. She watches it, and it contains several successive images that don't really seem to have a meaning. But, going further in her investigation, she discovers the origins of the tape and the meaning of every image. But things get more complicated (and confused!) when she learns that she only has seven days to live after the viewing. So, that gives her seven days to find the solution. Original? A little. Scary? Unfortunately, a little. The only scary part of this film lasts about one minute and a half, and it's the viewing of the tape. It's mysterious, creepy, and great. THAT part was nice, and it somehow gave me shivers. But that's it. Actually, that's the only creepy part because that's the only one where we truly disconnect from reality. The rest of the film keeps a tone that I would describe as too sober for that kind of film. I mean, there are surnatural events, but they are either very ordinary (in horror films) or flawed. (Spoilers) Yes, seeing a woman going out of the television is not such a bad concept, it can be used cleverly and give a good scare, but, first, we saw it many times in other films (and I don't really consider that as a problem, because any idea can be used dozens of times and still be original, it all depends on the way it is delivered) and also, in "The Ring", the directing is not good enough to make it scary. Another thing is the constant use of sound to make the audience jump out of their seats. Okay, you can use it once, or twice, in very special occasions, and it will work...but in "The Ring", they overuse it, I mean, they always put a loud sound effect for any action the character is doing, that's gratuitous. If I hadn't seen it in a theater, it would not have been the same film. Those who will see it at home better have an excellent surround sound system, because in the opposite case, they'll fall asleep. The key of a great and truly scary horror film is the atmosphere. It has to be constantly creepy, to keep the audience in the mood, and that's what I meant by "a sober tone". Yes, one minute you start going in the mood of the film, but the first thing you know is that, thirty seconds later, you come back to reality, and the audience's progress is ruined. The ending tries to mix up reality and the horror, but it seems like the reality tone is stronger, and that ruins the whole potential of the film. Those who want to see the creepiest film ever, and also one of the most brilliant films should definitely watch Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining".
The directing by Gore Verbinski is ordinary, except, once again, for that minute and a half of bizarre and creepy images. He seems to like giving us fake scares (like playing a creepy background music and showing the heroin getting near a door and opening it slowly, making us believe that something horrible is hidden behind it and that we're going to jump off our seats when we see what it is (and, just a little comment, these days it's not even the image itself that scares, it's the sudden loud sound) and simply not doing it, so he fools us, creating mild suspense and trying to avoid cliches).

The acting is average. The little boy tries to scare us with his constant neutral facial expression, but fails. Usually, a boy of that kind in an horror film is one of the scariest aspects of it, but in this case, he simply doesn't fit, and he simply has no importance. He's not quite Danny Torrance (played by Danny Lloyd, in "The Shining"), let me tell you that. The other actors are okay, there is not much to mention about them.

The plot is needlessly complex. It tries to be complicated and everything, and in the end you realize it cannot explain itself. Somebody explain to me the nosebleeds, why the boy can talk to the girl from the tape, the hose jumping off the boat...they put lots of weird things, explain some of them, and try to make us forget the other ones they can't explain. For a good plot in an "horror" film, see Bill Paxton's "Frailty", it is a hundred times better, and it really works! It unfortunately doesn't seem to be the case for "The Ring".
I've read the discussion forums for this film on IMDb. One of them was "The Ring is the scariest film of the last twenty years". That's ridiculous. Those who say that have truly been hypnotized by Hollywood. "The Ring" happens to be a very overrated film that a generation of ignorants will find truly scary because they haven't seen anything else and have no cinematic culture...someone that says "The Ring" is the scariest film doesn't know anything about foreign or underground films...they only watch Hollywood blockbuster crap that is to cinema what McDonald's is to food...Last year, there's been a much scarier movie than that, and it IS a Hollywood film, I'm talking about "Frailty", from Bill Paxton...excellent film. Anyone remembers "Bram Stoker's Dracula" from Coppola? That was beautiful and creepy...that was not junk..."Interview With The Vampire", from Neil Jordan, anyone? Yes, it seems that these years (and I mean from 1996 to today) horror films have taken an atrocious turn into the category of SUSPENSE movies, which are a totally different thing....Wes Craven's Scream (an awful film, by the way) is a SUSPENSE, not an horror film! And, again, they had to ruin good things even worse, so they made awful suspense films with monsters or ghosts in them, and they wrapped it with leading actors and actresses with bigger chests than talent, and they've got a Box Office success that every ignorant North-American will find scary...congratulations...Anyone who thinks he or she loves horror movies has to watch "The Shining"...if you don't find it scary, then you don't know what a REAL horror movie is. Before I see "The Ring" again, it will see mine, if you know what I mean.
Overall, it is a very ordinary thriller, with some suspense, brief horror scenes, and it is a flawed horror film. At least it really tried to be a horror film, and ruined itself. It is average, deceiving in the thrill factor, but it still has better entertainment value than the majority of today's horror flicks from Hollywood...
5/10