Metascore
44

Mixed or average reviews - based on 37 Critics What's this?

User Score
4.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 132 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , , ,
  • Summary: The story picks up six months after the horrifying events that terrorized Rachel Keller (Watts) and her son Aidan (Dorfman) in Seattle. To escape her haunting memories, Rachel takes Aidan and moves to the small coastal community of Astoria, Oregon, to start fresh. However, Rachel's resolveThe story picks up six months after the horrifying events that terrorized Rachel Keller (Watts) and her son Aidan (Dorfman) in Seattle. To escape her haunting memories, Rachel takes Aidan and moves to the small coastal community of Astoria, Oregon, to start fresh. However, Rachel's resolve quickly turns to dread when evidence at a local crime scene-including an unmarked videotape-seems eerily familiar. Rachel realizes that the vengeful Samara is back and more determined than ever to continue her relentless cycle of terror and death. (DreamWorks) Expand
Watch On
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 37
  2. Negative: 9 out of 37
  1. Watts is wonderful, and the story's forsaken-child theme still has plenty of horrific power.
  2. 63
    You have to admire Nakata's skill at letting the dead run free while hinting that we may have more to fear from the living. With a braver step in that direction, this middling movie would ring more than box-office bells.
  3. The movie works while you watch it, with plenty of scares both sudden and psychological.
  4. 50
    Kruger's elaborations on the original mystery are superfluous, but Watts gives this everything she's got.
  5. The film is a dud in the tradition of such weak horror sequels as "Exorcist II" and "Dracula's Dog."
  6. 40
    A perplexing compound of the silly and the glum.
  7. 20
    It's only at film's end that you realize the whole soggy, overlong mess isn't going to go anywhere.

See all 37 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 33 out of 63
  2. Negative: 22 out of 63
  1. GlynnH.
    Aug 23, 2005
    10
    Not as perfect as the first, but miles beyond anything else out there. I think that some of the things that don't make sense are because Not as perfect as the first, but miles beyond anything else out there. I think that some of the things that don't make sense are because we have still yet to find out a bunch of stuff that will come in the form of the 3rd movie being a prequel. Because we still need to know why Samara is the way she is, that is not answered in this movie. Expand
  2. IlzeS.
    Sep 10, 2005
    8
    The first part was better. Much scarier than this. This movie was good to look at. Naomi Watts was good. Anyway I like it.
  3. Sam
    Sep 12, 2005
    7
    While thr first time I saw it made me jump a few times, all in all, this movie just wasn't that scary. Sure, it was better than the While thr first time I saw it made me jump a few times, all in all, this movie just wasn't that scary. Sure, it was better than the first, but like the first, it's only entertaining if you expect a good, well-done plot rather than a terrifying film. Also like the first one, it's only scary the first time. Expand
  4. Apr 11, 2013
    4
    The Ring Two does have an entertaining opening sequences, but then it because a boring, scare-free and completely dumb sequel with bad CG andThe Ring Two does have an entertaining opening sequences, but then it because a boring, scare-free and completely dumb sequel with bad CG and a lack of creepy imagery that was used in the first film. Expand
  5. Apr 23, 2015
    3
    As far as I'm concerned, it's official: Hollywood has lost the art of how to make horror films. Consider this year's entries as Exhibit A -As far as I'm concerned, it's official: Hollywood has lost the art of how to make horror films. Consider this year's entries as Exhibit A - everything from White Noise to The Ring 2 has been horrible. There's not a worthwhile film in the bunch. And nowadays, it has become popular to remake incoherent Japanese ghost stories into less cogent English-language versions. The Ring and The Grudge are prime examples of this kind of bankrupt storytelling philosophy. Give me Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, or The Shining any day.

    I was not a fan of the American edition of The Ring. It did too little with an intriguing premise, offered a confusing and often dumb storyline, and was low on the creepiness scale. But compared to its successor, The Ring was pure genius. The Ring 2 is slickly made garbage - a dull, plodding horror movie that ventures into the realm of idiocy when it isn't busy remaking the first film. This is yet another example of what happens when money, not creativity, drives the production of a sequel. Despite its flaws, The Ring worked as a self-contained story. Opening it up for a second installment is a mistake. The evidence is on the screen.

    If you're expecting scares from The Ring 2, you will be disappointed. Except for a few half-hearted "boo!" moments, this film has little to offer that will raise the nape hairs. The horror, to the extent that it can be called by that word, is standard, by-the-book stuff that has been neutered in order to appeal to a PG-13 crowd. It's stale. Even the one potentially edgy aspect of the movie ends up being blunted to the point where it couldn't cut butter. And, because The Ring 2 doesn't have a clear idea of where it's going, its rules and restrictions regarding the ghost and her behavior are arbitrary.

    With the exception of an opening sequence that echoes that of The Ring, the most intriguing element of the first movie - that watching a video tape can result in a death sentence - is eliminated. Maybe the reason for this is that the VCR is fast becoming obsolete, joining the 8-track deck and the record player in garage sales. Can a DVD have ghostly beings encoded on it? Although The Ring 2 doesn't do much with videotapes, it offers something new: Bambi run amok. Watch and see why it's a good idea to allow hunters to thin the herd.

    Naomi Watts and David Dorfman have the thankless jobs of reprising their roles as Rachel and Aidan Keller. Everyone else from The Ring gets this film off. Replacements include Elizabeth Perkins as a psychologist, Simon Baker as a reporter, and Sissy Spacek as Carrie 35 years older (or something like that). None of these secondary characters comes close to growing a personality, but that's pretty much true of the leads as well. We identify with Rachel and her son because we have known them longer.

    In many ways, the film's production history is more interesting than the resulting movie. After Gore Verbinski (director of The Ring) decided he would rather go chasing pirates than try on a second Ring, the producers approached Hideo Nakata, who made both Ringu (the Japanese original) and Ringu 2 (the Japanese sequel). However, while The Ring was a remake of Ringu, The Ring 2 has nothing to do with Ringu 2. So this means Nakata got a chance to make two different first sequels. At least he can't claim that someone else messed up the American version of his franchise. He did it all by himself.
    Expand
  6. bobb.
    Aug 27, 2005
    2
    Pros: Acting. Cons: Makes absolutely no sense. overview: DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM!!!
  7. tylerc
    Aug 26, 2005
    0
    There is nothing entertaining about this movie. Would someone please explain to me the scene with the deer? I didn't get it. There is There is nothing entertaining about this movie. Would someone please explain to me the scene with the deer? I didn't get it. There is nothing scary about this move and I have no idea how they got Sissy Spacek to play a cameo. Expand

See all 63 User Reviews

Trailers