THE RING


A review by Camilo Arenivar




While it is not an all out horror film, The Ring is a pretty spooky and trippy movie to see. It is also one of those movies where there are not a lot of bloody killings, or any kind of typical horror, this is a dark twisted film that works better if you suspend disbelief. It is, after all, supposed to be a movie about videotape that after you watch it you die in 7 days! It turns out to be closer to The Sixth Sense than to Scream type horror.

The Ring opens in a very cheesy typical way, kind of like all the Scream movies did but without a slasher, instead a videotape. Quickly and thankfully we are moved into the future away from this clichéd beginning and we meet Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts), a journalist for the local Seattle newspaper. It turns out her niece who was close to her 5 year old son is the girl that died. After hearing different things at the wake, Keller decides that there is enough evidence for her to begin researching the videotape urban legend as a news story. And then, well, things get a little weird for her. Slowly but surely, they do. A journey ensues and she enlists the help of another guy (Martin Henderson) who ends being the father of her son and they become determined to solve the mystery behind the video. But will they? I'll neveeerrr telll.



This is a movie that has more of a classic feel to it, kind of a 1970's weird scary feeling to it, kind of like Burnt Offerings or The Omen with a mix of The X-Files. Naomi Watts' (Mulholland Drive) acting is very good once again. The direction is very good and this movie slowly grips you and twists your mind.

The Ring, is a very enjoyable old fashioned horror film that doesn't require a body count to satisfy your need for fear. It is not a film without faults, some of the acting is weak and the story is very far-fetched. There are many times where the characters clearly are not doing what you think they should be doing and this can be frustrating. Overall, the movie works as a scary movie with class, but nothing really superior. The reason all the critics like it is because they love movies that don't explain what happened and make you feel confused at the end. Film critics love a movie that does not have a conventional ending (anyone remember Naomi Watts' other movie, Mulholland Drive? That's a prime case in point. Will the average moviegoers like this movie? Yes, it's very good but not great. It's one of those movies you will be trying to figure out after it's over. If you don't like movies like that, skip this!


Rating: 84

Comments? Discuss this review at the CurrentlyPlaying.com FORUM!

Webmaster@CurrentlyPlaying.com


Back to:


Rating Scale:
90-100: Run to it,youre dead or a jealous aspiring screenwriter if you don't like it! Okay to pay full price! (Excellent= A)
80-90: Good, but not a classic. If you like this genre, you will like the film. If you're not sure that you like these kind of movies, a matinee would be a safer bet.(Good = B)
70-80: There are redeeming factors to this movie, and it has high points and low points. Worth a matinee depending on how close to 80 the rating is, a video rental if closer to 70. Nothing real special about it. (Fair = C)
60-70: Barely passing! Only slightly entertaining, not worth paying for at the movie theater. Rent it if you like this type of film otherwise stay away! (Poor = D)
50-60: Don't even rent this! Unless you like BAD movies. (Failure = F)
0-50: Run from it! Boycott the video store that would carry it! This is HORRIBLE, how did it get made?
E-mail me your reviews and Comments or Sign Guestbook on CurrentlyPlaying.com Home Page

© 2002 webmaster@currentlyplaying.com