OK, but no Ringu

Rating: Null/10 (29 March 2004)

Some great scary scenes, and some respectable acting. But now that I've see Ringu, I wonder, why did they make this film? They copied certain aspects of it so closely that it seemed like a "why bother" remake. But what mystifies me is the things they changed from the original that they SHOULD HAVE copied. The story in the U.S. version is so convoluted, and some of it simply doesn't make sense. I walked out of the theater a bit trembly from the effective shock scenes ... then I started thinking, "Hey, wait a minute... what about ... and how did ... ??" All these questions popped into my head later, little things that just didn't add up. Soon after that, I rented Ringu, which was so beautifully done -- slick, streamlined story, tight acting and editing, great suspense build. It left me wondering why the U.S. filmmakers went to so much trouble to screw up a simple story that made a lot more sense, when they were determined to copy to a "T" so many other aspects. Oh, and KUDOS to the earlier poster who bemoaned the fact that the U.S. version didn't mention the original in the credits; for shame! Suffice to say, the shocks that made me jump in The Ring didn't stick with me, while the suspense and poignancy of the original still comes to mind.