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. 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.
  2. GavinC
    Jul 28, 2009
    7
    Not as good as the original, but it's just as artistic.
  3. 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 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.
  4. 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
  5. MarianaB.
    Mar 19, 2005
    10
    I thought this movie was great! I ran out of adrenaline by the end of the night!! Actually made me scream out loud.
  6. Martin
    Apr 10, 2005
    9
    AWESOME.
  7. AngelicaAnna
    Mar 19, 2005
    10
    I do not see the hour to see it!!! a film....the critic does not interest me who I will go it to see......they are curious of as it will go to end.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. EricR.
    Mar 17, 2005
    7
    It's getting really annoying to see every horror flick getting a less than average score. It seems that most critics vote on the genre more than the movie itself. It's a good follow-up, with satisfying frights. Note to directors: When something works, don't change it. More of Samara would have been just fine.
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. GermanG.
    Mar 28, 2005
    1
    It is plainly a bad sequel; nothing more. No tension, no logical plot, undefined murders, etc.
  14. wossname
    Apr 1, 2005
    6
    Despite the plot holes and predictable 'jumps', Hideo Nakata delivers tension where The Ring delivered boredom and the two leads (Watts and Dorfman) are both far better than in the original. The Ring and The Ring Two are both inferior to the Japanese originals but Nakata has improved the American franchise to a point where he has created a movie worth watching.
  15. becky
    Nov 3, 2005
    5
    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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. KevinH.
    Mar 21, 2005
    6
    Even though the movie is slower paced and not nearly as scary as the first, I will never look at deer, as I pass them on the side of the road, the same way again! "DON'T STOP!!"
  19. 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.
  20. ClintM
    Mar 22, 2005
    6
    I would say don't go into the movie expecting to walk away with the same creeped out feeling or fear that the first ring left you with. This one is much slower paced and in places feels a little ... anti-climactic? Like all the reviews say, the story of the video tape is basically gone, and the real focus is on Samara and her search for a human body to take over/a mommy of her I would say don't go into the movie expecting to walk away with the same creeped out feeling or fear that the first ring left you with. This one is much slower paced and in places feels a little ... anti-climactic? Like all the reviews say, the story of the video tape is basically gone, and the real focus is on Samara and her search for a human body to take over/a mommy of her own/and of course she's up for creeping us out too with that stringy black hair! There were a few genuine scares, and yes, the deers were more than a little disturbing. But ultimately I left feeling a little let down. I wish the tape would have been more of a focus because it worked so well in the first movie and definitely made me a little afraid of the VCR! Expand
  21. TonyB.
    Mar 20, 2005
    7
    Wow. Jake really hit it in the nail. However, I think that the movie was enjoyable anyways. The one thing I think was missing the most out of this movie, as opposed to the first, is the mood. The first Ring never let up the overbearing depressive feeling, throughout the whole movie. Whether it be rain, overcast clouds, odd camera angles...it all just piled on top of you. The Ring Two Wow. Jake really hit it in the nail. However, I think that the movie was enjoyable anyways. The one thing I think was missing the most out of this movie, as opposed to the first, is the mood. The first Ring never let up the overbearing depressive feeling, throughout the whole movie. Whether it be rain, overcast clouds, odd camera angles...it all just piled on top of you. The Ring Two doesn't really try to keep this mood at all. It obviously has it's part...but the overall sense of doom just isn't there. Still a good movie, doesn't ruin the first...but certainly not as good as the first. Expand
  22. robertb.
    Apr 17, 2005
    0
    It's stupd, boring and it's not scery!!!
  23. jefff.
    Apr 20, 2005
    4
    A little bit better than the first one but thats not saying much. Not scary. What were all those deer doing in it anyway?
  24. 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
  25. EliotT.
    Apr 9, 2005
    9
    While this installment was as scary/tension-filled as the first one, it was great to see more parts of the puzzle...this is more of a thinker movie than a firght movie.
  26. ChrisR.
    May 7, 2005
    5
    The Ring Two is a horror flick and a sequel to 2002 blockbuster The Ring and, although this movie can stand on its own, it's helpful if you've seen the original to understand the background. The premise of the original is based upon an urban legend that if you watch a certain video tape, you will die a gruesome death in 7 days at the hands of an evil spirit .... unless you make The Ring Two is a horror flick and a sequel to 2002 blockbuster The Ring and, although this movie can stand on its own, it's helpful if you've seen the original to understand the background. The premise of the original is based upon an urban legend that if you watch a certain video tape, you will die a gruesome death in 7 days at the hands of an evil spirit .... unless you make a copy of the tape and give it to someone else to watch, in which case you survive and this new person becomes the victim with the clock ticking and the same option. In this way, the tape "lives" through multiple reproduction with more potential victims. The premise in this movie is slightly different ... what happens if you don't watch the video and instead destroy it? Well, ... essentially you really, really anger the evil spirit and it comes after you and your loved ones with a vengeance. Like all sequels, this one tries to capitalize on the success of the original. And falls short. Most of the "scary" parts are the results of "theater tricks", i.e. sudden loud noises, unexpected quick actions (a hand from nowhere suddenly grabs the actor's shoulder, making everyone jump, that type of thing), etc. Wasn't that impressed; give this one a 5. Expand
  27. DamianP.
    Jun 18, 2005
    8
    I don't know why so many people disliked this movie. I thought it was great the way it was taken in a different direction to the Japanese Rings. Unfortunately, we won't have a remake of my favourite - Ring 0. I thought this movie had a lot of strong points, but I watched it here in Tokyo, not in an American cinema with the usual comentary from the audience throughout the movie.
  28. 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.
  29. bobb.
    Aug 27, 2005
    2
    Pros: Acting. Cons: Makes absolutely no sense. overview: DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM!!!
  30. mobius
    Sep 1, 2005
    7
    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.
  31. 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.
  32. StanM.
    Oct 20, 2005
    4
    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 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
  33. Jake
    Mar 17, 2005
    5
    Tedious the original Ring was not - the mortal urgency of Samara's assured promise upon viewing the tape (seven days...) made sure that the inevitable narrative was as propulsively nervewracking as it was relentlessly inevitable. The Ring 2, while luring us in initially with a scene that neatly echoes and twists the opening of the first film, proceeds to make a complete hash of all Tedious the original Ring was not - the mortal urgency of Samara's assured promise upon viewing the tape (seven days...) made sure that the inevitable narrative was as propulsively nervewracking as it was relentlessly inevitable. The Ring 2, while luring us in initially with a scene that neatly echoes and twists the opening of the first film, proceeds to make a complete hash of all that made the first film a success - momentum being the chief casualty. Ring 2 mostly lurches for one baroque set piece to another, defying even the maddening internal logic of the first. Trying to assemble a purposeful narrative out of its disparate part is mostly a waste of time - it doesn't necessarily have to make SENSE, but I'd like for each scene to proceed with some necessity. This never happens. Ambiguity and uncertainty are also victims here - I won't spoil anything, but you'll probably find out more about Samara than is good for underlying terror of what she is and represents. But the main concern here is a simple one - Ring 2 just isn't very scary. The Ring accomplished a neat bait and switch, luring in you into what you thought was another teenager/urban legend schlockfest, before upending your expectations quite suddenly, transforming itself into a pretty diquieting violation of movie/audience trust. But, and I'll say this for this film, Ring 2 never really purports to be a horror film, and if watched with this in mind, becomes an interesting psychological thriller centering around the maternal anxiety that was merely a peripheral to the original. So...a middling 5, but this might actually be better if you hadn't seen the original and come into it fresh. Expand
  34. MaxC.
    Mar 18, 2005
    7
    It definitely wasn't as good as The Ring, but I still enjoyed watching it.
  35. LaurenceH.
    Mar 19, 2005
    8
    A sequel really worth seeing : chills, disturbing images with horrific and screechy sound effects. Excellent visual quality, strong acting (Watts surprises... again) and, of course, a storyline that keeps redefining itself. Wow.
  36. BobbyS.
    Mar 19, 2005
    9
    I was very happy with how different this movie was from the first, and how it really pulled itself away from the Japanese series. It is a very well made, wonderfully acted, and creepy film. Yes, it has some weak spots, but in the end, I was to drawn in by the relationship between Aiden and Rachel to really care. The movie is a horror movie, yes, but it is also one that tries to test the I was very happy with how different this movie was from the first, and how it really pulled itself away from the Japanese series. It is a very well made, wonderfully acted, and creepy film. Yes, it has some weak spots, but in the end, I was to drawn in by the relationship between Aiden and Rachel to really care. The movie is a horror movie, yes, but it is also one that tries to test the bonds between mother and child. That whole underlying theme makes the movie that much more disturbing. Don't go in expecting more of the tape and seven days. Instead, be ready for a very moody ghost story more in the vain of The Uninvited. Expand
  37. J.Swenson
    Mar 20, 2005
    3
    This movie was well directed with good cinematography but the story was borish and dull.
  38. 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
  39. Warlok
    Mar 21, 2005
    6
    Worth seeing if you loved the original. Some plot holes and also some silly parts, but still has some of the chilling Samara scares. Not even remotely as scary as the first one, but really, how could it be? Bad: The "air injection" scene is pretty silly. Good: Samara's climbing skills!
  40. MorganK.
    Mar 25, 2005
    9
    As a big fan of the original Japanese films (well, Ring 0 was pretty terrible) I had very high expectations for what Hideo Nakata would do with this one, as Ringu 2 leaned so heavily on it's science angle which I didn't think would fly with a US audience. I highly enjoyed the movie, and enjoyed seeing a different take on the story - it's didn't tie up a lot of plot As a big fan of the original Japanese films (well, Ring 0 was pretty terrible) I had very high expectations for what Hideo Nakata would do with this one, as Ringu 2 leaned so heavily on it's science angle which I didn't think would fly with a US audience. I highly enjoyed the movie, and enjoyed seeing a different take on the story - it's didn't tie up a lot of plot threads or fill all it's plo holes, but Japanese horror rarely does, even when it's all dressed up like an American film. i'd recommend it for fans of the originals, and people intrigued by the ongoing story of The Ring, and I would not recommend it for those looking for a by-the-numbers hollywood horror movie. Expand
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. SangHeeJ
    Mar 28, 2005
    6
    The original Ringu was much better than the Ring. I personally like the Japanese originals of movies like these. This movie was too predictable. You could tell exactly what was going to happen during the "scary" parts and you could put the puzzle together before the actors on screen had been able to. the movie was trying too hard to par up with the original and made itself too easy to The original Ringu was much better than the Ring. I personally like the Japanese originals of movies like these. This movie was too predictable. You could tell exactly what was going to happen during the "scary" parts and you could put the puzzle together before the actors on screen had been able to. the movie was trying too hard to par up with the original and made itself too easy to figure out. There was too much of the distorted faces than there needed to be and Samara's water-levitating scene looked like it belonged in a martial arts film. It was good for the moment, but I would never go to see it again. Expand
  44. MurrayD.
    Mar 29, 2005
    9
    Very scary. Made me scream just as it did in the first movie. Definetally scarier then the first!!
  45. KevinW.
    Apr 10, 2005
    0
    This movie SUCKED, I'd rather watch the village and i stilll want my money back for that movie.
  46. 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.
  47. Natalia
    Apr 28, 2005
    4
    The only reason that I am even giving this anytthing above a 1 is because honestly the movie was just plain funny. I really walked out thinking I had just seen a comedy. The whole movie was a joke and the deer attacking the car, I was just hysterically laughing at that part, that's just how random, funny and completely ridiculous that scene was. Other than that nothing of the plot The only reason that I am even giving this anytthing above a 1 is because honestly the movie was just plain funny. I really walked out thinking I had just seen a comedy. The whole movie was a joke and the deer attacking the car, I was just hysterically laughing at that part, that's just how random, funny and completely ridiculous that scene was. Other than that nothing of the plot stood out. It was not intriguing, or scary and just too convoluted and implausible. Expand
  48. MarkH.
    Apr 4, 2005
    9
    Although, I did like the first one. But i found it to be totally not scary. But, in my opinion, The Ring Two is twice as good as the first one! (not to mention, creepier) I saw this movie twice and found it to be really creepy both times. This is now officially my most favorite horror movie. (but since "The Amytiville Horror is coming out soon, we'll see about that.)
  49. DwightV.
    Apr 6, 2005
    7
    It wasn't bad at all, you have to take it for what it is, they're not aiming for Oscars. Yes there are some plot holes and it wasn't that scary. But it was suspensful, strange and entertaining.
  50. 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 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.
  51. DanielJ.
    Mar 17, 2005
    9
    Horrifying and powerful. A true good movie!
  52. Bobby
    Mar 19, 2005
    8
    I actually enjoyed this movie alot more than i thought i would. I liked it alot more than The Ring.
  53. AshtonA.
    Mar 19, 2005
    10
    Awesome....a must see scary thrill ride.
  54. DaveP
    Mar 19, 2005
    9
    The film really worked for me, and I think Jake is onto something which explains a lot of the bad reviews: it's more of a psych. thriller and in that respect I found it engaging for the full running time. Some really cool set pieces (the deer attack, the floaty water, and of course Samara's actions at the end of the film) really delivered for me. I'd recommend it w/ one The film really worked for me, and I think Jake is onto something which explains a lot of the bad reviews: it's more of a psych. thriller and in that respect I found it engaging for the full running time. Some really cool set pieces (the deer attack, the floaty water, and of course Samara's actions at the end of the film) really delivered for me. I'd recommend it w/ one major qualifcation: expect something very different from the 1st film (especially the "rules" of the game)! Expand
  55. Tony
    Mar 19, 2005
    8
    Good horror movie that delivered some jumps.
  56. [Anonymous]
    Mar 19, 2005
    9
    The film is by no means greater to the first film. There's a lot to be desired at points in the film (all due to the script). The direction and scares, however, are all top notch. I can't say that this is a "classic" horror film. The Ring was brilliant because it had a great story to go along with everything else. The story here was good but it could have used some improvement The film is by no means greater to the first film. There's a lot to be desired at points in the film (all due to the script). The direction and scares, however, are all top notch. I can't say that this is a "classic" horror film. The Ring was brilliant because it had a great story to go along with everything else. The story here was good but it could have used some improvement (especially at the end of the film). Should there be more sequels? I'd like to think so. But I wouldn't want them to deterierate over time. We need to find out more about Samara's past and her father of the sea. Anything improving on the plot would be great. I'd like one or two more films but only if they can offer up more in the story department. As far this one goes: there are some geniunely interesting ideas. They just don't get to develop the way they would have had the film taken a few risks. As it stands, This was a highly entertaiing film. Just don't walk in expecting an absolute classic film. Expand
  57. 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
  58. TiarnanO.
    Mar 31, 2005
    8
    While The Ring had a dark foreboding feeling that became worse and worse as the days passed quickly and you could feel the walls closing in, The Ring Two has a less tense atmosphere. That said, theere were some absolutly fantastic scares, and while some of the script was poor and there were a few silly parts, there are 3 scenes which prove that this film doesnt use the cheap BOO frights While The Ring had a dark foreboding feeling that became worse and worse as the days passed quickly and you could feel the walls closing in, The Ring Two has a less tense atmosphere. That said, theere were some absolutly fantastic scares, and while some of the script was poor and there were a few silly parts, there are 3 scenes which prove that this film doesnt use the cheap BOO frights found in The Grudge and Boogeyman: The scene in the ambulance with smara, the derr attack, and the disturbing well climb with the way samara moves being particularly freaky. I loved this film and i would recommend it to anybody who even remotly liked the first, although they are different. Expand
  59. Oct 4, 2011
    10
    Naomi Watts is great and the movie is incredibly scary.
  60. Jul 1, 2012
    6
    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.
  61. Sep 3, 2011
    5
    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 "The Ring", and the Japanese "Ringu".
  62. 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 and a lack of creepy imagery that was used in the first film.
  63. Jun 7, 2015
    6
    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 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 toIt 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
  64. 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
  65. 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.