THE RING II

REVIEWED BY BRETT WILLIS

Our rating: 2 out of 5

Because of: violence/terror, disturbing images, thematic elements, language, possession, glorification of killing one’s own child

Rated:  

The true original of this series is the Japanese-language film Ringu. I’ve never seen that film or its sequel, but reviews say they’re both extremely effective and scary. I can vouch for the fact that the English-language adaptation The Ring was effective and scary, a very strong film within its genre. So they wanted to make an English-language sequel. The basic plot could simply be pulled from the Japanese sequel. Naomi Watts and David Dorfman were ready to reprise their roles as Rachel Keller and her troubled son Aidan. Hideo Nakata, who directed both Japanese films, signed on as director. Sounds like a perfect setup. But it doesn’t work.

It’s been six months since Rachel saved her son from the curse of The Ring by making a copy of the killer videotape and thus dooming other people. Rachel and Aidan have moved from Seattle to Astoria, Oregon, trying to make a fresh start. But there’s no escape from the consequences of her actions. Aidan (rightly) resents what they did, and he emotionally distances himself from his mother. Then Rachel hears the by-now-familiar account of someone who apparently died of fright and has a distorted face. When she sees that the curse has indeed come to Astoria, she goes on the offensive. She actually destroys a copy of the tape. This takes her (and us) outside the already-known rules of how the curse works; but I guessed that it would make Samara’s ghost get up close and personal with Rachel and Aidan, and my guess was a good one.

As Aidan is slowly possessed by Samara, Rachel must do some new research. She returns to the horse ranch. She locates Samara’s institutionalized birth mother Evelyn (Sissy Spacek of Carrie fame) who, like her adoptive mother, tried to drown her. What’s with all the water? Evelyn has a theory about “the world Samara came from” which, if true, means that it was her duty to try to drown her, and it’s likewise Rachel’s duty to drown Aidan. Later, it seems that Aidan communicates with Rachel as she sleeps, giving her the same message. On top of the fact that possession by the spirit of a dead person is completely unscriptural, I can’t think of a worse Imitative Behavior message than the idea of “healing” your child by killing him or her.

Profanity is sparse, consisting of a “crap,” two uses of “Jesus” as expletives, one mild profanity, and a GD. During the violent final confrontation, Rachel tells Samara “I’m not your f-ing mommy.” I missed the first minute or two of the screening, and I understand that there was a spoken reference to sex in that opening. Aside from that instance, whatever it was, there’s really no sexual content. Violence is sparse but terror and the anticipation of violence are high. Yet the suspense level isn’t nearly the same as the first film. We expect jump scenes. We expect that, since the limits of Samara’s powers are not defined, some really weird stuff will be thrown at us. Like Rachel’s car being surrounded by a herd of angry computer-generated elk. Or Aidan (possessed by Samara) having the power (like one of the kids from Village of the Damned) to make someone commit suicide by sheer force of will. Or Rachel and Aidan passing seamlessly from one “reality” into another. But it all seems like the manipulative trickery it is rather than being a vital part of a story.

The acting is good, but not Oscar caliber . The production values are quite high. It was good to see Astoria again, with the steeply-slanted streets and the bridge over the Columbia River (I’ve been there in real life, and other movies have been shot in or near there). The computer-generated stuff was well done. On the other hand, there were a few times during an early scene of Rachel and Aidan in the kitchen where the boom microphones were visible at the top of the screen. One other thing bothers me, and this was true of the first film as well (and of other similar films hitting the market lately). Not only are the powers of the evil side of the supernatural world exaggerated, but we’re also given the impression that the proper way to fight against those powers is with human ingenuity. There’s no reference at all to good spiritual forces. The Bible says that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal (fleshly). You fight a spiritual force with a stronger spiritual force not by decoding the rules of “the curse” as though you were solving a Rubik’s Cube.

In conclusion, I’m saying what other reviewers are saying. As a sequel, this is a letdown. Even if you’re into this genre, you may want to skip it. It’s certainly not appropriate for young, unbalanced or impressionable viewers.

© www.charitysplace.com - all rights reserved.