The Ring Two

User Score
3.5

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 185 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 47 out of 185

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. NickH
    Aug 28, 2005
    3
    I'll say it now: "Damn you Ehren Kruger". I've never laughed at a bad horror movie before. Why? Because I'm always bored during them. And this my friends, is a BAD one. But, I encourage you to rent it for a laugh. This movie is funnier than some of the so-called comedies Hollywood is throwing out. This is the FIRST horror movie I've ever laughed during, there's I'll say it now: "Damn you Ehren Kruger". I've never laughed at a bad horror movie before. Why? Because I'm always bored during them. And this my friends, is a BAD one. But, I encourage you to rent it for a laugh. This movie is funnier than some of the so-called comedies Hollywood is throwing out. This is the FIRST horror movie I've ever laughed during, there's nothing scary about it whatsoever. Well... there may have been something towards the end that may have inspired fear in some people - but I was too giddy from laughing at the deer scene (I swear I was in tears) and the toliet scene. The so called scares were not scares at all, they were 'jump tactics' (i.e. Samara grabs someones arm). I also found humor in the fact that whenever Hideo Nakata wanted to show drama he whipped the camera around in a circle. Powerful? No. I was not impressed by his direction at all. The effects were also overdone and came off as silly excuses to spend money. The acting, if you can call it that, was just so... so... bleh. Thats the word. This whole movie can be discribed as "bleh." You'll find yourself discribing it to people as "bleh" before you tell them how much you laughed during that deer scene. This movie is really that funny, but it's not scary which is what it set out to be. For that, it gets a lowly.... ===3.3/10=== Expand
  2. carlos
    Oct 10, 2005
    1
    One star for not naming everyone in the credits Alan Smithee. You have to earn the other nine by making something at least marginally watchable. This is an hour and fifty one minutes of my life that I will never get back. Hideo Nakata, I hold you responsible.
  3. JedV.
    Apr 8, 2005
    3
    I'm amazed to see some high scores in this forum. What are this movie's redeeming qualities? Not scary, bad plot, bad effects, terrible dialogue, undeveloped characters, implausible behavior (would Rachel really leave her son at a stranger's house right after a horrifying episode with Samara just so she could go back to the house for pj's?), laughable attempts at I'm amazed to see some high scores in this forum. What are this movie's redeeming qualities? Not scary, bad plot, bad effects, terrible dialogue, undeveloped characters, implausible behavior (would Rachel really leave her son at a stranger's house right after a horrifying episode with Samara just so she could go back to the house for pj's?), laughable attempts at horror (the caribou, whose lesson is: "Don't collect antlers in your basement or we'll attack your ghost after you die"), etc. I agree that the ambulance scene and the well climb were effective scenes, but the latter was revealed in the trailers, and the rest of the scenes were woefully lame. Expand
  4. ChadS.
    Mar 23, 2005
    3
    If you suspect that "The Ring" shot its load when the waterlogged girl crawls out of the 2-D well and escapes from her televisied environs, "The Ring Two" will confirm your belief that Hollywood is all about the benjamins, and the achievement of art is often accidental. "The Ring" felt original, a horror classic of sorts, genuinely creepy and unsettling; but if Fat Albert and the Cosby If you suspect that "The Ring" shot its load when the waterlogged girl crawls out of the 2-D well and escapes from her televisied environs, "The Ring Two" will confirm your belief that Hollywood is all about the benjamins, and the achievement of art is often accidental. "The Ring" felt original, a horror classic of sorts, genuinely creepy and unsettling; but if Fat Albert and the Cosby kids can pull a Samari, the jig is up. What made the original film so much fun was trying to make sense of that ersatz avant-garde film. What happens to the little boy in "The Ring Ni" is nothing we haven't seen before. And if the screenwriters want to create situations for a mother to make the wrong move, time and time again; you can still cast Naomi Watts, but make her a crack addict. Is the film aware that she actually is a bad mother when the authorities prevent her from being alone with the kid? Expand
  5. EPS*
    Mar 20, 2005
    3
    The Ring 2 was very, very disappointing, seeing as how the first one was one of the most fear invoking movies of our time. All of the scariest points in the film (Samara scratching the wall ...) were shown in the previews, taking away any shock factor. The first film had a certain artistry to it - you were drawn into the video and were actually terrified by what awaited you at the end of The Ring 2 was very, very disappointing, seeing as how the first one was one of the most fear invoking movies of our time. All of the scariest points in the film (Samara scratching the wall ...) were shown in the previews, taking away any shock factor. The first film had a certain artistry to it - you were drawn into the video and were actually terrified by what awaited you at the end of seven days - this one did not. You do find out more about that freaky little girl, but so what? Is it worth your $7.50 to get a bigraphy rather than a good movie? I don't think so. Expand
  6. GermanG.
    Mar 28, 2005
    1
    It is plainly a bad sequel; nothing more. No tension, no logical plot, undefined murders, etc.
  7. AndyW.
    Oct 4, 2005
    0
    What's that? Did she just tried to kill her child with cocaine? And a group of deer just attacked the car? Oh wait a second, I know why this is happening. Oh I get it! Because it's meant to be the worst horror movie of all time. Wow, I've never thought of that. Hmmm
  8. JohnT.
    Mar 19, 2005
    3
    [***SPOILERS***] Naomi Watts does an absolutely heroic job and is utterly compelling but it if weren't for her I would give this a zero (and the original a 10). Yes it is that much of a disappointment. Why? I wil tell you. Every other recent horror film from 'Boogie Man' to 'Hide and Seek' to 'The Grudge' has obeyed a certain roogh narrative logic. This [***SPOILERS***] Naomi Watts does an absolutely heroic job and is utterly compelling but it if weren't for her I would give this a zero (and the original a 10). Yes it is that much of a disappointment. Why? I wil tell you. Every other recent horror film from 'Boogie Man' to 'Hide and Seek' to 'The Grudge' has obeyed a certain roogh narrative logic. This has none, indeed it has huge glaring chasms of utter illogicality, both psychological and causal. (MIILD SPOILERS) Are we realy supposed to believe (1) that a mother would leave her child in a state of acute hypothermia and possible demonic possession 'to pick up some things'. (2) That the authorities (who figure in the film in an utterly unreal way) wouldn't notice or come looking when t several people die in hugely mysterious circumstances?. Or (3) that the heroine's friend and colleague could see his bathroom destroyed by an invisible force that creates a water tornado AND NOT WONDER WHY OR EVEN COMMENT! I This is some of the laziest screenwriting in horror for years and makes a mockery of all those other writers of other films which have worked had on consistency and motivation. Its success is down purely to the earlier movie and a reasonable trailer and the superb Naomi Watts (who should speak up next time when she's offered motivation as flabby as this gets in places . Expand
  9. Shay
    Mar 20, 2005
    1
    I wonder if actually sitting through the two minutes on the videotape and then getting the spooky phone call would give me more of a scare than this. A total waste of time.
  10. robertb.
    Apr 17, 2005
    0
    It's stupd, boring and it's not scery!!!
  11. davo
    Apr 25, 2005
    1
    This film was god-awful. It's total lack of sense-making and constant over-stating the 'scary scenes' made me question the value of being able to see. Although just leaving the cinema may have been wiser than stabing my eyes out, during this film it sure seemed like a good idea. If Naomi Watts wasn't in this film I would have given it a zero. If they re-made this film This film was god-awful. It's total lack of sense-making and constant over-stating the 'scary scenes' made me question the value of being able to see. Although just leaving the cinema may have been wiser than stabing my eyes out, during this film it sure seemed like a good idea. If Naomi Watts wasn't in this film I would have given it a zero. If they re-made this film only using kittens, I would probably give it an 8. There would be kittens with antlers on their heads for the bit with the deer. Collapse
  12. 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 nothing scary about this move and I have no idea how they got Sissy Spacek to play a cameo.
  13. bobb.
    Aug 27, 2005
    2
    Pros: Acting. Cons: Makes absolutely no sense. overview: DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM!!!
  14. dferris
    Oct 21, 2005
    1
    All I have to say is "deer scene" I have never laughed so hard in my life. Not to say that the rest of the film could even salvage this horrible film, but that scene in particular was so lame that I had to show all of my friends...they all hate me now.
  15. J.Swenson
    Mar 20, 2005
    3
    This movie was well directed with good cinematography but the story was borish and dull.
  16. VinceH.
    Mar 21, 2005
    3
    The Ring 2 continues the line of weak-ass "horror" movies that have been released stateside over the past year or so (The Grudge, Boogeyman, Cursed, Darkness, Hide and Seek Exorcist: The Beginning, etc.) . Ironically enough, the phenomenon seems to have started after the huge sucess of the original "Ring" (amongst other reasons), and I think it should end here. I propose some sort of law The Ring 2 continues the line of weak-ass "horror" movies that have been released stateside over the past year or so (The Grudge, Boogeyman, Cursed, Darkness, Hide and Seek Exorcist: The Beginning, etc.) . Ironically enough, the phenomenon seems to have started after the huge sucess of the original "Ring" (amongst other reasons), and I think it should end here. I propose some sort of law that unless a filmmaker has some interesting and/or inventive ideas for a horror movie, do not make one. Simple as that. Ehren Kruger has forced himself to his computer to tell a story that is simply not there. The whole storyline feels forced and brittle as if the first movie was written in a free-form writing exercise and the teacher made Kruger keep thinking of ideas and dragging the story even when it's finished (see Legally Blonde 2, Weekend at Bernie's 2, and others for examples of this "sequel-itis". There are certain scenes here (one involving deer, another involving water dripping from the ceilling, almost suspended in time) that play like scenes from "Scary Movie 4", and the non-mom & son characters like Simon Baker as a reporter and Elizabeth Perkins as a doctor are wildly lame. Naomi Watts looks hot as always and underplays well (especially in the intense scenes with her son) but I'm pretty sure this was strictly a pay-job. Hideo Nakata deserved better for his stateside debut, given that he is a very good director adept and mounting chills and scaring the crap out of people...in his other movies, that is. Perhaps the most telling scene is the one where Watts visits Sissy Spacek in a mental hospitable - all I could think of was how much I'd rather be watching "Carrie" at that exact moment. Expand
  17. KelR.
    Mar 25, 2005
    3
    If this hadn't of been the sequel to my favorite horror film of all time (the reason I even liked horror films) the fist Ring than I would have given it a five because by its self it's about average. However, I had been waiting years for this sequel to come out, to finally get some answeres as to who Samara really was and where she came from. That's what the first movie If this hadn't of been the sequel to my favorite horror film of all time (the reason I even liked horror films) the fist Ring than I would have given it a five because by its self it's about average. However, I had been waiting years for this sequel to come out, to finally get some answeres as to who Samara really was and where she came from. That's what the first movie did, it was the intrigue, suspense, the twists and turns, and the environment that made the movie great, not to mention the awesome ending. But this movie lacked any of those qualities, the only scene where we got answeres was when Rachel went to Samara's mother and that was only for a couple minutes. Anyways like most of us die hard Ring 1 fans this movie was a HUGE disappointment, it was nothing more than a generic horror flick ment to impress with special effects but utterly failing with story line and everything else. Expand
  18. Kevin
    Mar 27, 2005
    1
    I loved the first ring. it was original, creepy, atmospheric, it had a strangely complex but simple plot. the acting was even good for a horror film, especially from naomi watts, and the kid was bearable, unlike most movies of this kind. the ring 2 completely ruined all that the first had going for it. instead of continuing its fresh, dark direction, it fell into cliches and had many more I loved the first ring. it was original, creepy, atmospheric, it had a strangely complex but simple plot. the acting was even good for a horror film, especially from naomi watts, and the kid was bearable, unlike most movies of this kind. the ring 2 completely ruined all that the first had going for it. instead of continuing its fresh, dark direction, it fell into cliches and had many more sobby quiet moments than it did scares. i was very freaked out from the first movie, especially all the disturbing images on the tape that were subtly snuck into the rest of the film. you know a movie has gone downhill when you are being attacked by possessed dear and you try to kill a ghost with peanut butter and jelly. there was a great atmosphere in the original. it was always raining and dark, and there were lots of creepy and fresh shots and camera angles. the sequel, for me, was oddly reminiscient of seeing the night of the living dead, originally filmed in black and white, remastered in technicolor. the seedy atmosphere was completely taken away, and the same is true of this movie. now about the plot. well, there wasnt much of one as i recall, but dont ask me, i was practically comatose for a majority of the film, but from what i remember it switched back and forth from naomi to "possessed" aidan, while meandering dully for 110 minutes through a series of special effects and tripping over huge and unaccounted for plot holes. we were expecting answers to where samara came from, but the 2 minute scene with sissy spaseck that could have brought some sense to the whole thing was cut short and ultimately seemed corny and simply as a tool to sell the film. let me also say that this was not naomi's best performances. in fact im pretty sure i can safely say it is her worst. her kick ass and take names attitude she had in the original is absent, and replaced by that of a soccer mom. i wanted aidan to die in this movie. thats pretty much all that kept me in it. the hope that he would die. but alas, all that build up and "the only way is for you to kill me" talk, the little smirking prick lives. damn you nakata. i realize that i should just be disappointed that another great movie that i love was ruined in a diabolical sequel, but instead i find myself feeling outraged that hollywood is corrupted by these money grubbing pigs that crap on a sheet of paper and trick us into buying it. damn nakata and everyone involved in this project for continuing the cycle of making good movies and trashing them in sequels. if you want to watch a good scary movie, stay home and watch the original ring or the exorcist. you know, movies with a shred plot or depth or originality, but please dont encourage directors like hideo nakata any more by giving them you hard earned money. Expand
  19. KevinW.
    Apr 10, 2005
    0
    This movie SUCKED, I'd rather watch the village and i stilll want my money back for that movie.
  20. BenV
    Apr 10, 2005
    2
    Sad. As a fan of romantic comedies... Wait! No I'm not! I just want to see Morpheus dodge bullets. Then I'd atleast give this a 5. Overall this movie is terrible. Just say no.
  21. EverettM.
    Mar 27, 2005
    2
    I was very disappointed by The Ring Two. It is one of those movies where a) you keep thinking "I would have done that differently" and b) you are constantly frustrated by unanswered questions, to the point where it's impossible to suspend disbelief and enjoy the movie. Also, there is no feeling of dread in this movie. Without herself being in any real danger (Samara's definitely I was very disappointed by The Ring Two. It is one of those movies where a) you keep thinking "I would have done that differently" and b) you are constantly frustrated by unanswered questions, to the point where it's impossible to suspend disbelief and enjoy the movie. Also, there is no feeling of dread in this movie. Without herself being in any real danger (Samara's definitely NOT trying to kill her), Rachel can kind of just take her time looking for answers to her problems. Most of those problems revolve around her son, and, even then they aren't all that dire...meaning that if she wanted to, she could choose to just forget about them and move on with having Samara as a "stand-in" daughter. Freaky, sure, but not life-threatening...and God knows her son isn't that affectionate anyway. Other times, the movie answers questions that should NOT have been, like the exact origins of Samara. The first movie hints that the parents went away and "came back" with a child, perhaps through some nefarious and even supernatural means. The Ring Two blows that out of the water, and introduces us to her birth mother and the nuns who cared for her. All-in-all, a very pporly thought-out and badly written sequel. Expand
  22. 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 - 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 GrudgeAs 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
  23. Apr 3, 2016
    3
    "The Ring Two" is the inevitable sequel to "The Ring," which, in turn, was a remake of the wildly influential Japanese horror flick "Ringu." Released in 1998, "Ringu" spawned several other films and turned its director, Hideo Nakata, into an international brand. It was only a matter of time before Mr. Nakata went Hollywood, and so he has at last as the director of, yes, "The Ring Two," the"The Ring Two" is the inevitable sequel to "The Ring," which, in turn, was a remake of the wildly influential Japanese horror flick "Ringu." Released in 1998, "Ringu" spawned several other films and turned its director, Hideo Nakata, into an international brand. It was only a matter of time before Mr. Nakata went Hollywood, and so he has at last as the director of, yes, "The Ring Two," the sequel to the remake of his original hit. (Got that?) Such creative cannibalism is of course part of the pleasure of genre movies, especially horror, where directors like Wes Craven ("Scream") and Takashi Shimizu ("The Grudge") return to the scene of the crime to scare up new frights and profits.

    Good horror, like George Romero's zombie trilogy, works by balancing the reassuringly familiar with the totally unknown: it's like getting tossed in the air as a kid: you shriek with a mixture of pleasure and fear, and then after you safely land, beg for it to happen again (and again). Sustaining that balance is tough, however, and even the most muscular directors soon grow weary repeating the same old tricks. Mr. Nakata has either become tired of the "Ring" premise - a murdered girl haunts and hunts those unlucky enough to watch her on videotape - or something went seriously awry during production. Whatever the case, despite Mr. Nakata's track record and the radiant presence of its star, Naomi Watts, "The Ring Two" is a dud.

    Once again, Ms. Watts plays Rachel Keller, a journalist and a single mom to a young son, Aidan (David Dorfman), recently relocated from Seattle to a small coastal town in Oregon. In the first movie, Rachel successfully escaped the marauding ghost in the machine and now thinks she has entered a new chapter. No such luck; she is actually mucking about on a slag heap of recycled scares, dumb lines and predictable entanglements, including some static with a potential boyfriend replacement (Simon Baker), an encounter with a guest star meant to lend either giggles or gravitas to the proceedings (Sissy Spacek in a fright wig) and a handful of disposable bit players. Once again, blood pools, water flows and the ghost comes calling through the magic of video, scaring to death anyone foolish enough not to have made the move to DVD.

    The mercurially talented Ms. Watts had to endure an unfair share of humiliation on her road from obscurity, including stinkers like "Tank Girl" and a host of similarly forgettable fare. Since her breakout appearance in David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" four years ago, she has followed the now standard trajectory that finds certain higher-profile screen actors methodically alternating between nominally independent boutique items, like "21 Grams," which helped lift Ms. Watts's serious-film profile, and bigger-budget, high-concept entertainments like "The Ring," which are meant to show that she can hold the larger-stakes screen and do the mainstream thing without selling out her talent. Or so the Hollywood thinking seems to go.

    When this formula pans out, you have a career like that of Ms. Watts's friend Nicole Kidman. When it does not, well, the hall of studio shame is lined with glossies of performers permanently stalled by the usual tabloid woes and too many wrong choices. One of Ms. Watts's current projects is Peter Jackson's remake of "King Kong," and while the real star of that show will be the special effects, the movie should help secure Ms. Watts pop-movie credibility. By the time "King Kong" opens, "The Ring Two" will have rotated to the DVD bargain bin. Meanwhile, here's hoping her handlers begin exhibiting as much prudence as Rachel Keller does in her fight against evil; an actress in Hollywood has a preciously short shelf life, and you can't build a brilliant career with expired goods.
    Expand
Metascore
44

Mixed or average reviews - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 37
  2. Negative: 9 out of 37
  1. While nearly every shock comes at predictable moments, there is genuine ingenuity behind many, and the movie is surprisingly fresh for one made by a guy on his third go-round with the same material.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    50
    Half-intriguing, half-tedious.
  3. The scariest thing in the not-scary-enough The Ring Two is the notion that even smart, attractive adults - yikes, even mothers - just never learn, either.