creepy and disturbing
question: How is the movie?, context: I'm curious about why so many reviewers made a point of saying this movie was nothing like The Ring other than the fact that both are Americanized remakes of the Japanese originals. The two films are very similar in that they are both ghost stories...very Japanese ghost stories. In fact, I kind of wish I had seen The Grudge before I saw The Ring because the Grudge (and the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu) explains why both films were so creepy and disturbing.At the heart of both film's effectiveness is the difference between Western and Eastern ghost tales. In the West, there is almost always some type of redemption: the wicked are punished, the innocent are damaged but wiser, and the ghost is at peace. In Eastern stories, ghosts (at least those of a person who died confused and angry) are always hungry for revenge and can never be at peace. In addition, anyone is fair game no matter how guilty or innocent. One of the shockers in The Ring is the false conclusion where we find out that what we thought put the ghost at peace had no effect at all other than to solve the mystery of how the girl died.The demons are also very Eastern: not the ugly, leering Christian demons from hell but ones that are unsettling and watchful. More portents of distruction than bringers.I actually appreciated the restraint with CGI and gore after having seen Exorcist: The Beginning just the night before. Although the thinking behind films these days seems to be that the audience expects lots of gore and special effects (otherwise they won't pay to see the film), I think the over-the-top approach usually detracts from the story as was the case in Exorcist I (which had potential but ended up being an abortion of a movie).The non-linear approach to telling the story didn't bother me; in fact I enjoyed it because it sustained the mystery. In another inevitable comparison to The Ring, I think The Grudge, is far more satisfying it it's explaination for why the vengeful ghost and why the seemling indiscriminate selection of victims.One more plus, the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu were a lot more enlightening than the typical gushing sound bites you find on most DVDs. They seemed to have left the over the top superlatives to the American performers.The movie has some weaknesses which is why I gave it only three stars.First, the pacing seems glacial: there aren't many extreme emotional events for the first 30 minutes. Even events that seem like they should be disturbing, left me feeling "why should I care?" Because Sam Raimi ("Evil Dead" and "Spiderman") isn't exactly the most understated of filmakers, I imagine the quietness and pacing of the film was a deliberate decision. For me, it didn't work.Second, the lead played by Sarah Michelle Geller, seemed to be not much more than a one-dimensional vehicle for keeping the story moving. If you're expecting Buffy kicking demon ass, you'll need to look at reruns or DVD compilations. Buffy is no where to be found in this movie.Bottom line: I recommend this movie IF you are open to the fact that it is a Japanese ghost story and with the exception of casting American actors, does little to Westernize the film. If you're expecting The Ring (the Westernized version) you'll be disapointed. 
How is the movie?
In fact, I kind of wish I had seen The Grudge before I saw The Ring because the Grudge (and the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu) explains why both films were so creepy and disturbing .At the heart of both film's effectiveness is the difference between Western and Eastern ghost tales.
I'm curious about why so many reviewers made a point of saying this movie was nothing like The Ring other than the fact that both are Americanized remakes of the Japanese originals. The two films are very similar in that they are both ghost stories...very Japanese ghost stories. In fact, I kind of wish I had seen The Grudge before I saw The Ring because the Grudge (and the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu) explains why both films were so creepy and disturbing.At the heart of both film's effectiveness is the difference between Western and Eastern ghost tales. In the West, there is almost always some type of redemption: the wicked are punished, the innocent are damaged but wiser, and the ghost is at peace. In Eastern stories, ghosts (at least those of a person who died confused and angry) are always hungry for revenge and can never be at peace. In addition, anyone is fair game no matter how guilty or innocent. One of the shockers in The Ring is the false conclusion where we find out that what we thought put the ghost at peace had no effect at all other than to solve the mystery of how the girl died.The demons are also very Eastern: not the ugly, leering Christian demons from hell but ones that are unsettling and watchful. More portents of distruction than bringers.I actually appreciated the restraint with CGI and gore after having seen Exorcist: The Beginning just the night before. Although the thinking behind films these days seems to be that the audience expects lots of gore and special effects (otherwise they won't pay to see the film), I think the over-the-top approach usually detracts from the story as was the case in Exorcist I (which had potential but ended up being an abortion of a movie).The non-linear approach to telling the story didn't bother me; in fact I enjoyed it because it sustained the mystery. In another inevitable comparison to The Ring, I think The Grudge, is far more satisfying it it's explaination for why the vengeful ghost and why the seemling indiscriminate selection of victims.One more plus, the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu were a lot more enlightening than the typical gushing sound bites you find on most DVDs. They seemed to have left the over the top superlatives to the American performers.The movie has some weaknesses which is why I gave it only three stars.First, the pacing seems glacial: there aren't many extreme emotional events for the first 30 minutes. Even events that seem like they should be disturbing, left me feeling "why should I care?" Because Sam Raimi ("Evil Dead" and "Spiderman") isn't exactly the most understated of filmakers, I imagine the quietness and pacing of the film was a deliberate decision. For me, it didn't work.Second, the lead played by Sarah Michelle Geller, seemed to be not much more than a one-dimensional vehicle for keeping the story moving. If you're expecting Buffy kicking demon ass, you'll need to look at reruns or DVD compilations. Buffy is no where to be found in this movie.Bottom line: I recommend this movie IF you are open to the fact that it is a Japanese ghost story and with the exception of casting American actors, does little to Westernize the film. If you're expecting The Ring (the Westernized version) you'll be disapointed. 
In fact, I kind of wish I had seen The Grudge before I saw The Ring because the Grudge (and the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu) explains why both films were so <hl> creepy and disturbing <hl> .At the heart of both film's effectiveness is the difference between Western and Eastern ghost tales.
I'm curious about why so many reviewers made a point of saying this movie was nothing like The Ring other than the fact that both are Americanized remakes of the Japanese originals. The two films are very similar in that they are both ghost stories...very Japanese ghost stories. In fact, I kind of wish I had seen The Grudge before I saw The Ring because the Grudge (and the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu) explains why both films were so <hl> creepy and disturbing <hl>.At the heart of both film's effectiveness is the difference between Western and Eastern ghost tales. In the West, there is almost always some type of redemption: the wicked are punished, the innocent are damaged but wiser, and the ghost is at peace. In Eastern stories, ghosts (at least those of a person who died confused and angry) are always hungry for revenge and can never be at peace. In addition, anyone is fair game no matter how guilty or innocent. One of the shockers in The Ring is the false conclusion where we find out that what we thought put the ghost at peace had no effect at all other than to solve the mystery of how the girl died.The demons are also very Eastern: not the ugly, leering Christian demons from hell but ones that are unsettling and watchful. More portents of distruction than bringers.I actually appreciated the restraint with CGI and gore after having seen Exorcist: The Beginning just the night before. Although the thinking behind films these days seems to be that the audience expects lots of gore and special effects (otherwise they won't pay to see the film), I think the over-the-top approach usually detracts from the story as was the case in Exorcist I (which had potential but ended up being an abortion of a movie).The non-linear approach to telling the story didn't bother me; in fact I enjoyed it because it sustained the mystery. In another inevitable comparison to The Ring, I think The Grudge, is far more satisfying it it's explaination for why the vengeful ghost and why the seemling indiscriminate selection of victims.One more plus, the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu were a lot more enlightening than the typical gushing sound bites you find on most DVDs. They seemed to have left the over the top superlatives to the American performers.The movie has some weaknesses which is why I gave it only three stars.First, the pacing seems glacial: there aren't many extreme emotional events for the first 30 minutes. Even events that seem like they should be disturbing, left me feeling "why should I care?" Because Sam Raimi ("Evil Dead" and "Spiderman") isn't exactly the most understated of filmakers, I imagine the quietness and pacing of the film was a deliberate decision. For me, it didn't work.Second, the lead played by Sarah Michelle Geller, seemed to be not much more than a one-dimensional vehicle for keeping the story moving. If you're expecting Buffy kicking demon ass, you'll need to look at reruns or DVD compilations. Buffy is no where to be found in this movie.Bottom line: I recommend this movie IF you are open to the fact that it is a Japanese ghost story and with the exception of casting American actors, does little to Westernize the film. If you're expecting The Ring (the Westernized version) you'll be disapointed. 
I'm curious about why so many reviewers made a point of saying this movie was nothing like The Ring other than the fact that both are Americanized remakes of the Japanese originals. The two films are very similar in that they are both ghost stories...very Japanese ghost stories. <hl> In fact, I kind of wish I had seen The Grudge before I saw The Ring because the Grudge (and the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu) explains why both films were so creepy and disturbing .At the heart of both film's effectiveness is the difference between Western and Eastern ghost tales. <hl> In the West, there is almost always some type of redemption: the wicked are punished, the innocent are damaged but wiser, and the ghost is at peace. In Eastern stories, ghosts (at least those of a person who died confused and angry) are always hungry for revenge and can never be at peace. In addition, anyone is fair game no matter how guilty or innocent. One of the shockers in The Ring is the false conclusion where we find out that what we thought put the ghost at peace had no effect at all other than to solve the mystery of how the girl died. The demons are also very Eastern: not the ugly, leering Christian demons from hell but ones that are unsettling and watchful. More portents of distruction than bringers. I actually appreciated the restraint with CGI and gore after having seen Exorcist: The Beginning just the night before. Although the thinking behind films these days seems to be that the audience expects lots of gore and special effects (otherwise they won't pay to see the film), I think the over-the-top approach usually detracts from the story as was the case in Exorcist I (which had potential but ended up being an abortion of a movie).The non-linear approach to telling the story didn't bother me; in fact I enjoyed it because it sustained the mystery. In another inevitable comparison to The Ring, I think The Grudge, is far more satisfying it it's explaination for why the vengeful ghost and why the seemling indiscriminate selection of victims. One more plus, the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu were a lot more enlightening than the typical gushing sound bites you find on most DVDs. They seemed to have left the over the top superlatives to the American performers. The movie has some weaknesses which is why I gave it only three stars. First, the pacing seems glacial: there aren't many extreme emotional events for the first 30 minutes. Even events that seem like they should be disturbing, left me feeling "why should I care?" Because Sam Raimi ("Evil Dead" and "Spiderman") isn't exactly the most understated of filmakers, I imagine the quietness and pacing of the film was a deliberate decision. For me, it didn't work. Second, the lead played by Sarah Michelle Geller, seemed to be not much more than a one-dimensional vehicle for keeping the story moving. If you're expecting Buffy kicking demon ass, you'll need to look at reruns or DVD compilations. Buffy is no where to be found in this movie. Bottom line: I recommend this movie IF you are open to the fact that it is a Japanese ghost story and with the exception of casting American actors, does little to Westernize the film. If you're expecting The Ring (the Westernized version) you'll be disapointed.