*** Official "THE RING" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Mark Palermo]

Hate to bring the room down, but I didn't think The Ring was all that. There's some good atmosphere, but it drags severely in the middle, and becomes just another uninteresting collect-the-clues puzzle movie.

Mark

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Hopefully the success of The Ring will lead to a domestic release of the original and it's sequels.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Hopefully the success of The Ring will lead to a domestic release of the original and it's sequels.

I doubt it, for the same reasons the respective releases of the English version films did squat to any hopes of a domestic release of their original foreign language counterparts: Abre Los Ojos and Erik Skjoldbjærg's Insomnia.

~Edwin

 

[Phil L]

Insomnia was released domestically. I remember seeing it in NYC 3-4 years ago. I also remember Ebert giving it a positive review.

As for The Ring, I saw it Saturday and was kind of disappointed. I guess I was just hoping for something more.

I'm tired of the "there was always something wrong with that child" motif in horror movies. I also noted a lot of similarities to The Changeling.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

Phil L,

While that's a much used motif, it is eerie to see, plus I like what they did with it.
The little boy saying, "Why did you help her? You weren't supposed to help her. Don't you see? She never sleeps" I thought was very creepy."

 

[Nathan V]

I missed the sneak preview, which was sold out. I think we can expect big numbers for opening weekend. Hopefully this film will have box-office legs.

Do we know how long the film is? (I love long movies)
How wide is it? Does anyone remember?

I'm glad this is dreamworks; we can expect a good dvd.

nathan

 

[Mark McLeod]

Do we know how long the film is? (I love long movies)
How wide is it? Does anyone remember?

The film is 1 hour and 45 minutes plus credits. It'll open on 1800+ screens next Friday

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Call me skeptical, but from what you guys are saying here, I'm not real excited about seeing this remake. The original version is a masterpiece. One person in this thread mentioned that the remake is borderline "campy", which the original certainly had none of. Another made reference that they picked the pace up for the MTV-generation audience. This bothers me as well, as I thought the original was paced perfectly.

My problems with it can somewhat be summed up with the movie's incessant desire to EXPLAIN everything, to force rationality on something that's essentially irrational.

The original explains very little! I don't know, this sounds like another remake that is dumbed-down for American audiences.
This brings up another subject: When is a remake necessary? I can only think of one really good remake and that was John Carpenter's The Thing. I think it was better than the original in that it was truer to the original story and visual effects had come a long way since the days of Howard Hawks. A few other recent remakes that come to mind; Vanilla Sky, Insomnia, and Psycho all failed to live up to the originals.
Jeff

 

[Dave Smith]

I don't think you need to worry, Jeff. The film is no more or less "campy" than the original (a word I would never use to describe either version), and explains exactly the same things. There's no "dumbing-down" going on.

Whether you feel the remake is necessary or not is going to be up to you. Personally I loved it.

 

[Justin_S]

Jeff, don't see it if you don't think it'll be worthy of the original, but I am a huge fan of the original, and this remake is more than worthy, and that is putting it lightly! I also don't see how anyone could call the original campy, and the remake is NOT dumbed down. Not at all.

 

[Dana Fillhart]

I believe that was me. Here's my entire quote, in context:

) that perked up that sagging middle.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Alright, I'm obviously being too hard on a film I haven't seen yet. I may get around to seeing it this weekend. I guess I just haven't gotten over seeing the remake of House On Haunted Hill opening day.
I still highly recommend the original Ring to those who haven't seen it.
Jeff

 

[Justin_S]

Saw this classic two more times today, and will be seeing it more! Anyone here first time view it today?

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Bo-RING!

That seems to be the sentiment from most of the major critics I follow. I was hoping to see this one today but will now have to wait due to lackluster reviews.

~Edwin

 

[Patrick Sun]

But it's tracking so well on Rotten Tomatoes. Just up to around 70% favorable.
I saw it, it was okay, and does build on the previous scenes until it gets to its conclusion. It is a bit on the eerie side.

 

[Joe Hsu]

i just got back from the theater...and man did I enjoy that. I haven't seen teh original, but I can only assume that it's just as good if not better than this version, and that's rather daunting. This has to be the scariest movie I've seen in theaters for a long time...granted, I'm rather young and wasn't around when most of the older more classic shockers were released.

I actually let out a little yelp at one point...let's just say when she was in the "dark place".

Now I'll just sit back and read what everybody else has to say. This movie would be great to take a date on. Assuming she doesn't have any heart conditions.

 

[Josh Lowe]

Bo-RING!

That seems to be the sentiment from most of the major critics I follow. I was hoping to see this one today but will now have to wait due to lackluster reviews.

You're declaring the movie boring, but you haven't even seen it?

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

You're declaring the movie boring, but you haven't even seen it?

You must have misunderstood what I said. Read it again.

~Edwin

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

I'm not sure how scary the film is but it's certainly creepy. I didn't find it boring at all.

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

Saw this classic two more times today, and will be seeing it more! Anyone here first time view it today?

I did. Here's what I think.