Why another remake?

Rating: 7/10 (9 October 2003)

Why another remake?
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed The Ring, a relatively good quality remake of the classic Japanese "Ringu". It was rather faithful to the original, made good use of atmospheric elements as well as providing a good setting for some fairly good acting. But, unfortunately, it was incapable of keeping the viewer's attention focused on the atmosphere and had to rely on what I deem cheap camera fast-panning tricks (*rapid movement* followed by "Boo, are you scared yet?") and gore (blood/decomposing bodies), something that the original had none of, which leads me to believe that Hollywood is incapable of making a horror film that will keep the viewer on the edge of his/her seat without the use of these two rather amateurish features.
This film does make me wonder why everytime a quality film is made in a non-Hollywood studio, America always has to vandalise this original piece of work and attempt to Americanise it by remaking it into a white-Caucasian, adrenaline joyride. Are our colonial cousins incapable of savouring an original piece of work in its original form? Or is this simply a testament to a fast-food culture where reading subtitles is simply too much effort?
Anyway, I'm getting carried away once again. The Ring was a good remake of a classical masterpiece.
However, do yourself a favour and stick with the original. It is far better.