The Ring ... Scariest Movie I'd Ever Seen
10-21-02 | 06:36 PM
#76
Banned
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 4,802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: The City of Roses.
Well, like I said in my review. The film is much more about set pieces and atmosphere. That the plot is weak isn't a problem for me. It could have been better but what's there is worth seeing. No question.
10-21-02 | 07:02 PM
#77
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Chicago, IL
There are things that make little sense:
If it's on the cutting room floor somewhere I'd feel a lot better in that maybe the dvd will have some of it. I enjoyed the film and would recommend it but it's got plenty 'o probs
Spoiler:
If it's on the cutting room floor somewhere I'd feel a lot better in that maybe the dvd will have some of it. I enjoyed the film and would recommend it but it's got plenty 'o probs
Last edited by superstringtheory; 10-21-02 at 07:41 PM.
10-21-02 | 07:41 PM
#78
Difference of interpretation I guess. I still maintain there's a difference between things not making sense and things not being spelled out for the audience.
As I've said, there are a couple of plot points that don't completely mesh for me, but I think it's a lot closer to "not perfect" than "plot holes running rampant."
Just me though ... most of it works for me. Your mileage may vary.
das
Spoiler:
As I've said, there are a couple of plot points that don't completely mesh for me, but I think it's a lot closer to "not perfect" than "plot holes running rampant."
Just me though ... most of it works for me. Your mileage may vary.
das
10-21-02 | 08:16 PM
#79
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Chicago, IL
Originally posted by das Monkey
Difference of interpretation I guess. I still maintain there's a difference between things not making sense and things not being spelled out for the audience.
As I've said, there are a couple of plot points that don't completely mesh for me, but I think it's a lot closer to "not perfect" than "plot holes running rampant."
Just me though ... most of it works for me. Your mileage may vary.
das
Difference of interpretation I guess. I still maintain there's a difference between things not making sense and things not being spelled out for the audience.
As I've said, there are a couple of plot points that don't completely mesh for me, but I think it's a lot closer to "not perfect" than "plot holes running rampant."
Just me though ... most of it works for me. Your mileage may vary.
das
Feel free to let me know what you feel about #5 & 6, I have a feeling what you are going to say for them so I am ready, lol.
I think if some things had worked out better it would have gone down as a 'great' movie. I used rampant because by the end of the movie they all added up and were found throughout. Truthfully, if there are a couple of things that aren't relevant but turn out to be just me thinking too much then I just say 'eh, no biggie'.
I read Ebert's review after I saw it and found it extremely bitter. Bad popcorn, perhaps?
10-21-02 | 08:22 PM
#80
DVD Talk Hero
Ebert's review sounded like he was trying to find a reason on why the movie was boring to him, and so he stuck with whatever he could.
I would have just said "The movie is boring." if I thought it was, but 'eh his way works too.
I would have just said "The movie is boring." if I thought it was, but 'eh his way works too.
10-21-02 | 08:29 PM
#81
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: A little bit here and a little bit there.
Thumbs down.
The soundtrack turned up loud to try to scare doesn't have an effect on me. It's just plain embarrasing. Shame on you.
I love naomi watts, but not much going on here. Her role was terribly underwritten and she didn't have much to do but be nancy drew (hey wait, she did that in mulholland drive, too. What the hell!)
Hey, I've seen this plot before, I called it "stir of echoes" then.
Why 3 endings? Why over explain things torward the end?
Ooooh a twist ending. How very.
I do think the horse scene was the only tense piece of business in the film.
Going to watch the japanese version now. I'm betting its not that good as well since I hear the remake follows it pretty acurately, more or less.
PS
Anyone else think dreamworks should of sold the film to dimension since it seems like they are following that studios formula.
The soundtrack turned up loud to try to scare doesn't have an effect on me. It's just plain embarrasing. Shame on you.
I love naomi watts, but not much going on here. Her role was terribly underwritten and she didn't have much to do but be nancy drew (hey wait, she did that in mulholland drive, too. What the hell!)
Hey, I've seen this plot before, I called it "stir of echoes" then.
Why 3 endings? Why over explain things torward the end?
Ooooh a twist ending. How very.
I do think the horse scene was the only tense piece of business in the film.
Going to watch the japanese version now. I'm betting its not that good as well since I hear the remake follows it pretty acurately, more or less.
PS
Anyone else think dreamworks should of sold the film to dimension since it seems like they are following that studios formula.
10-21-02 | 08:47 PM
#82
DVD Talk Hero
'erm... this film in absolutely no way resembles Stir of Echoes. (I'm one of the few that seemed to prefer SoE to Sixth Sense as well.)
3 endings to stay true to the original. "Over explained" and yet half of the film going public was still confused :-\
And nope, Dreamworks horror pics, like 'em or not, have been a notch higher (Quality) than the slew of Dimension ones.
Oh and I thought the characters fit their roles nicely, only - watts was less of an airhead than the original chick.
3 endings to stay true to the original. "Over explained" and yet half of the film going public was still confused :-\
And nope, Dreamworks horror pics, like 'em or not, have been a notch higher (Quality) than the slew of Dimension ones.
Oh and I thought the characters fit their roles nicely, only - watts was less of an airhead than the original chick.
10-21-02 | 08:53 PM
#83
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Chicago, IL
Originally posted by RichC2
3 endings to stay true to the original. "Over explained" and yet half of the film going public was still confused :-\
3 endings to stay true to the original. "Over explained" and yet half of the film going public was still confused :-\
Spoiler:
I'm sorry, but that is really 'someone needs to be slapped on sight' for that one, lol.
10-21-02 | 10:18 PM
#84
Just saw it.
This movie actually stays VERY close to the original. I think the story itself is better explained in the American version. Maybe it was the hard to read subtitles in the Japanese video I saw, or some things were lost in the translation, but the original movie made me scratch my head so much it hurt. For the scary/shocker scenes, they're also very close to the Japanese version too, but here they're not as drawn out and rely more on quick cuts and loud effects/music to make you jump. In the Japanese version, the sense of dread is much stronger. For example,
The photograph thing was done better in the American version.
About a sequel, I'm not so sure, because there's actually a scene here that came from Ring 2:
.
Overall, enjoyable. A VERY refreshing supernatural horror flick, which I prefer over the slasher/gore horror films.
Oh yeah, it would be cool if Dreamworks puts a static-screen easter egg on the DVD release. When you're watching this with your friends, you can secretely grab the remove and turn on the static.....
This movie actually stays VERY close to the original. I think the story itself is better explained in the American version. Maybe it was the hard to read subtitles in the Japanese video I saw, or some things were lost in the translation, but the original movie made me scratch my head so much it hurt. For the scary/shocker scenes, they're also very close to the Japanese version too, but here they're not as drawn out and rely more on quick cuts and loud effects/music to make you jump. In the Japanese version, the sense of dread is much stronger. For example,
Spoiler:
The photograph thing was done better in the American version.
About a sequel, I'm not so sure, because there's actually a scene here that came from Ring 2:
Spoiler:
Overall, enjoyable. A VERY refreshing supernatural horror flick, which I prefer over the slasher/gore horror films.
Oh yeah, it would be cool if Dreamworks puts a static-screen easter egg on the DVD release. When you're watching this with your friends, you can secretely grab the remove and turn on the static.....
10-22-02 | 12:26 AM
#87
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RichC2
Ebert's review sounded like he was trying to find a reason on why the movie was boring to him, and so he stuck with whatever he could.
Ebert's review sounded like he was trying to find a reason on why the movie was boring to him, and so he stuck with whatever he could.
Heck if you disect a movie like some of you guys are (almost as if you were interpreting s Shakespearean play or an Orson Wells movie), nothing will stand the scrutiny. Geeze it's a horror movie. Did it grab your interest/attention and make your skin crawl? Well howdy doody...
10-22-02 | 12:30 AM
#88
DVD Talk Hero
I'm sorry but what was so scary about the horse?
Spoiler:
BTW everyone needs to listen to (if you didn't see it) the Ebert and Roeper review. It's, quite frankly, hillarious.
Funny when Roeper explodes after Ebert calls it a "Well-made boring movie." and tries to explain some things that eBert didn't get. Funny stuff.
Last edited by RichC2; 10-22-02 at 01:13 AM.
10-22-02 | 06:15 AM
#89
Yeah, I've been more disappointed with Ebert lately. I used to defend him, but now I'm not so sure. He seems more bitter with films he wants to dislike. The Ring is a good example. It's OK not to like it, but his explanation was just senseless justifcation of some predisposed hatred for it. This thread points out plenty things wrong with the film, but Ebert didn't even get that close. He got so far as "it was boring." Oh well. I've never let reviewers' opinions affect me much, but I used to look to Ebert more often than others just because he didn't seem like he was trying to get in the studios' pants by giving good reviews to crap. He seems to be getting more bitter with old age.
das
das
10-22-02 | 08:13 AM
#90
Moderator
My answer to some of superstringtheory’s “plot holes.” Some of this territory has already been covered up above:
Basically my comments can be sumamrized by saying: “Just because something isn’t explicitly explained doesn’t make it a plot hole.” What’s interesting in Ebert’s review is that he complains that the movie “explains and explains.” But it really doesn’t. There’s a lot left to the viewer’s imagination, which I like.
Spoiler:
Basically my comments can be sumamrized by saying: “Just because something isn’t explicitly explained doesn’t make it a plot hole.” What’s interesting in Ebert’s review is that he complains that the movie “explains and explains.” But it really doesn’t. There’s a lot left to the viewer’s imagination, which I like.
10-22-02 | 09:13 AM
#91
DVD Talk Legend
This movie really wasn't bad per se, it just wasn't what I wanted. I wanted House of 1,000 Corpses. I only got three with this one. Oh well, patience is a virtue.
Also, when Racheal was talking to the kids smoking and she made mention of her "girlfriend", did anyone else start having flashbacks of her with Laura Harring in Mulholland Drive? I know I did, and it made me long to watch that film instead.
Oh well, patience is a virtue.Also, when Racheal was talking to the kids smoking and she made mention of her "girlfriend", did anyone else start having flashbacks of her with Laura Harring in Mulholland Drive? I know I did, and it made me long to watch that film instead.
10-22-02 | 09:41 AM
#92
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Delaware
I never saw the original movie but have always heard its on everybodys top ten list for horror movies...I was pretty hyped up to see it...I went into the movie theater yesterday with an open mind...especially after reading all your comments & reviews...
The movie did not dissapoint me at all...I wasnt bored...The camera work was excellent...The atmosphere was dark & gloomy and the soundtrack was very good...It gave me chills & some nice jolts...not bad for a movie with no slasher type killing & some crazy looking monster....Overall....It was one of the creepiest/scariest movies I've seen in awhile...I actually had trouble sleeping last night because I kept thinking about the little girl...I would definitely recommend the movie...
The movie did not dissapoint me at all...I wasnt bored...The camera work was excellent...The atmosphere was dark & gloomy and the soundtrack was very good...It gave me chills & some nice jolts...not bad for a movie with no slasher type killing & some crazy looking monster....Overall....It was one of the creepiest/scariest movies I've seen in awhile...I actually had trouble sleeping last night because I kept thinking about the little girl...I would definitely recommend the movie...
10-22-02 | 09:58 AM
#93
DVD Talk Legend
Again, did I miss something? Maybe I just saw it in the wrong atmosphere or something like that. I just found it to be moderately frightening, not truly horrific. Granted, the actual tape and horse scene were freaky, and it had some suspense at the beginning, but other than that rather dull and run of the mill.
Maybe I've seen so much horror in my time from all the videos I rented in my earlier years that nothing scares me anymore.
Maybe I've seen so much horror in my time from all the videos I rented in my earlier years that nothing scares me anymore.
10-22-02 | 09:59 AM
#94
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Chicago, IL
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Groucho
My answer to some of superstringtheory’s “plot holes.” Some of this territory has already been covered up above:
My list was just basically very loose threads or things I noticed possibly countering what was being established. I had said previously I had a major plot hole but that wasn't the point taken by doing the list here.
This seems to be a very split decision: Too much info or not enough at all?
I adore things left to my imagination, honestly. One of my favorite movies of 2000 was American Psycho which handled content brillantly. (okay, I'll wait to be reamed for liking this one, lol)
To comment from someone else's post above that it's mere entertainment only, if this were really being passed off as just some average horror film I wouldn't have thought much actually. However, it's not just creepy atmosphere and Samara is not made to be your 'stock' killer. There is more psychological depth here so, in turn, I gave it more respect than that.
My answer to some of superstringtheory’s “plot holes.” Some of this territory has already been covered up above:
Spoiler:
Basically my comments can be sumamrized by saying: “Just because something isn’t explicitly explained doesn’t make it a plot hole.” What’s interesting in Ebert’s review is that he complains that the movie “explains and explains.” But it really doesn’t. There’s a lot left to the viewer’s imagination, which I like.
This seems to be a very split decision: Too much info or not enough at all?
I adore things left to my imagination, honestly. One of my favorite movies of 2000 was American Psycho which handled content brillantly. (okay, I'll wait to be reamed for liking this one, lol)
To comment from someone else's post above that it's mere entertainment only, if this were really being passed off as just some average horror film I wouldn't have thought much actually. However, it's not just creepy atmosphere and Samara is not made to be your 'stock' killer. There is more psychological depth here so, in turn, I gave it more respect than that.
Last edited by superstringtheory; 10-22-02 at 10:05 AM.
10-22-02 | 10:38 AM
#95
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
Granted, the actual tape and horse scene were freaky, and it had some suspense at the beginning, but other than that rather dull and run of the mill.
Granted, the actual tape and horse scene were freaky, and it had some suspense at the beginning, but other than that rather dull and run of the mill.
10-22-02 | 10:55 AM
#96
Banned
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 11,544
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Memphis, TN
Originally posted by superstringtheory
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
In any case, it was a good movie, IMO, and at least they had a twist at the end. I saw it with my brother on Sunday morning, and when
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Last edited by Otto; 10-22-02 at 11:00 AM.
10-22-02 | 11:00 AM
#97
Moderator
One reason the horse scene got to me personally was that as a little kid I was at a parade where some horses got spooked and stampeded, killing some people. I've seen what they can do. Another reason was that the scene went the extra mile for realism:
Spoiler:
10-22-02 | 11:03 AM
#98
Banned
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 11,544
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Memphis, TN
I'm waiting for the parody of it called "The Bling". You could have Mr. T in big gold chains crawling out of the TV.
"I pity the fool that watch my tape!"
"7 days, sucka!"
"I never sleep, fool!"
And so on.
"I pity the fool that watch my tape!"
"7 days, sucka!"
"I never sleep, fool!"
And so on.
10-22-02 | 11:06 AM
#100
Moderator
Originally posted by Otto
I'm waiting for the parody of it called "The Bling".
I'm waiting for the parody of it called "The Bling".