DreamWorks Distribution | Release Date: March 18, 2005
2.9
USER SCORE
Generally unfavorable reviews based on 148 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
27
Mixed:
30
Negative:
91
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
lucaugmatJun 27, 2017
'O Chamado 2'
Fiquei um pouco decepcionado com a sequencia , ele começa bem , mais depois vai caindo , isso mais pro final , SPOILER : Aidan deveria ter morrido , era uma situação perfeita , iria dar um peso pra série , uma pena.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
OlegRicherMay 2, 2017
Very interesting plot and special effects cool. The film is at the level of 1 part, worthy. The high-quality acting game of Naomi and Dorfman - allows to get even deeper into the atmosphere of the film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
MovieMasterEddyApr 3, 2016
"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"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
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
horcrux2007Jun 7, 2015
It took me too long to finally get around to watching this. Being such a huge fan of the original, and hearing dreadful things about the sequel, my expectations were rather low. While it's nothing exceptional, The Ring Two is a moderatelyIt took me too long to finally get around to watching this. Being such a huge fan of the original, and hearing dreadful things about the sequel, my expectations were rather low. While it's nothing exceptional, The Ring Two is a moderately creepy sequel, even if it does seem like a departure from the original's themes. In The Ring Two, Rachel and her son, Aidan, have moved away to Oregon to get away from the terrifying events that occured in Seattle, but Samara has followed them and plans on taking Aidan's life for her own. Something you'll notice from the very first scene is how much different this movie is to its predecessor. Where The Ring used the seven-day time limit to create tension and simple, yet haunting visuals to scare its audience, The Ring Two seems to focus more on big, flashy special effects to overwhelm the viewer. That becomes a huge distraction throughout the entire film, as the CGI looks cheesy and outdated today. This tone of the movie also seems very unfocused. The tone meanders throughout the entire film, going from your average ghost flick to a mystery-thriller like the original to a sort of evil child movie. That's not to say it isn't engaging; The Ring Two is, for the most part, rather entertaining, and it never tries, fortunately, it never tries to be too "intelligent", and then end up being convoluted and confusing. The plot itself is very tight and controlled. It's just tonally inconsistent. I also want to mention the incredible score. It's seriously one of the best and most memorable scores to any horror film in recent memory, and it really adds to the creepy atmosphere of the movie. The Ring Two is certainly not a remarkable film, but it is an entertaining and creepy little supernatural thriller. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
MovieManiac83Apr 23, 2015
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 theAs 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
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
rotkuJul 1, 2012
Mediocre sequel which takes the originality of the first movie and ruin it with a tired concept which has been done over and over. The actors to their best but part of me still cant help dislike the kid.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
Nick5414Oct 4, 2011
Naomi Watts is great and the movie is incredibly scary.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
kaydenxmcgSep 3, 2011
Naomi Watts acted really well throughout the film, but that's about all that is good about it. The film has plot holes everywhere, and after a while, everything becomes a bore. A huge disappointment, especially compared to the original "TheNaomi Watts acted really well throughout the film, but that's about all that is good about it. The film has plot holes everywhere, and after a while, everything becomes a bore. A huge disappointment, especially compared to the original "The Ring", and the Japanese "Ringu". Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
GavinCJul 28, 2009
Not as good as the original, but it's just as artistic.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
5
beckyNov 3, 2005
Well because only it was disappointing whenRachel closes the well my 2nd mum says there will be a 3rd but i do not think so and when loads of people say that Adian will die and he did not get abused
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
dferrisOct 21, 2005
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
StanM.Oct 20, 2005
I was a huge fan of the first film so I was really disappointed by this half-baked piece of junk. This movie had none of the scares and definitely none of the creepiness of the first one. There were so many wholes in this story it was I was a huge fan of the first film so I was really disappointed by this half-baked piece of junk. This movie had none of the scares and definitely none of the creepiness of the first one. There were so many wholes in this story it was ridiculous. First, why the heck would Rachel even have a television in her house let alone a video player? Didn't the writer see Poltergeist and the all important last seen when the family shoves the television out of their motel room? And what was up with the deers? I mean were we supposed to believe that somehow deers can sense evil or was Aiden actually Damian from the Omen? And finally why didn't they just tell uswho or what Samara was? Maybe they think people will actually pay to see The Ring Three. If you haven't seen the first American version of The Ring see that and if you have don't waste your time on this. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
carlosOct 10, 2005
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AndyW.Oct 4, 2005
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. 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 Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
SamSep 12, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
IlzeS.Sep 10, 2005
The first part was better. Much scarier than this. This movie was good to look at. Naomi Watts was good. Anyway I like it.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
7
mobiusSep 1, 2005
Not to bad the story continues but this time it dont focus on the 7 day cycle, instead we have samara focusing on rachel and a new ajenda. at least it isnt a remake of the first film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
NickHAug 28, 2005
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
bobb.Aug 27, 2005
Pros: Acting. Cons: Makes absolutely no sense. overview: DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM!!!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
tylercAug 26, 2005
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
GlynnH.Aug 23, 2005
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 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 of 3 users found this helpful