Thought provoking, but something is definitely missing

Rating: Null/10 (2 November 2002)

Beware, thar be SPOILERS ahead.
I enjoyed most of the film, and it has made me think about it past having seen it, so I think that is automatically a good sign. But knowing nothing about the original Ringu or the apparent fact that this was based on a book, it was obvious there was something missing from The Ring. I thought most of what they kept in the movie was cleverly done, but the fact that apparently this evil child is the result of an unholy union between her mother and, in Ringu (from what I have been able to read), the sea (which has its own unholy interpretation in Japanese mythology) I had to look up on discussion sites. I think that adds an interesting twist, also tying her spirit more closely to the water. Okay, so I am sucker for motif.
But what baffles me in the end is wondering if Samara is actually evil or just the result of evil. There seemed to be plenty of evidence in the film that she is a manifestation of evil, but perhaps not evil herself. She knows that she is hurting people, she tells the doctor. She is sorry, but she can't stop. She can make images and videotapes and wants to be heard. The result of hearing her story is feeling her pain. Is that the curse she had in life that led to her being murdered? And then, after being murdered, she still wants to be heard, and her message now leads people to share the pain of her death. In this way, Samara really is sorry for what happens, but she is unable to be a normal child and bad things simply happens when she tries to be. As a child needs to share, she is sharing all she has. In this case, it is pain and death. So is she sparing Rachel, or is it just that Rachel has shared her pain and doesn't require Samara to manifest herself to her? The other victims know nothing else of Samara. Even Noah, who learned everything Rachel did, was still spared from being in the well and truly understanding ("How long could you survive like that?" "Seven Days." He still misses what Samara is trying to share). Is *this* actually what spares Rachel? I am missing something of the symbolism here, probably due more to my own limited scrying ability than evidentiary lack.
Okay, so some rambling is going on. I am not trying to explain things, but pointing out that some more background on the child would have been only enlightening. The movie has the feel of Hollywood jumping to the conclusion that the audience will get bored if the movie is any longer and we just haven't had enough of "The End?" endings even after suffering through "The Blob" as children (well, some of us). That seemed a little too contrived. That I feel that way makes me think the movie must have been pretty good. But I think a lot could have been elucidated (and still plenty left to ponder) with an additional ten minutes in the film. But I am one for closure. If you are not so dependent on it, and enjoy being left to come to your own conclusions, then you might really enjoy this one.
Still, someone brought up the point that if Rachel finds a murderer, has her son show him the tape, then does this absolve them of the cycle? If a pilot and co-pilot view the tape and then exactly seven days later they are flying a bunch of nuns and Rachel and Aiden to China, do they all plunge to their deaths when the pilots die? Is evil just that random? Knowing nothing else about the cycle makes you wonder silly things like that.