Back in the mythological times of Ancient Greece, many ancient warriors wanted to claim the head of the snake-haired Gorgon sister, Medusa. Medusa was so hard to attack because one look into her eyes would spell your demise.
In “The Ring” a new film from Dreamworks, a mysterious videotape is watched by a pair of teenage girls. The tape drives one girl to end up in a mental institution and the other to mysteriously die. The tape eventually makes it into the hands of Rachel Keller, a single mother (Naomi Watts of “Mulholland Drive“) and her young son, Aidan.
Rachel is a reporter and begins an investigation to what happened to the two girls (one of the girls happens to be Rachel’s niece). Rachel finds herself slipping down a very slippery slope as she soon discovers that others who had seen the tape had only lived for 7 days after seeing the tape. The tape turns out to be the summit of a giant mystery that will bring Rachel and the people she cares about to the brink of death. What kind of power is housed within the tape? What are the secrets surrounding the tape?
“The Ring” is a nail-biter from the opening frame. It is a roller coaster for the mind that doesn’t let go till every pinpointed detail is revealed. 
I loved the feeling of this movie as it plays with your mind as the cleverly conceived plot unfolds. The film isn’t afraid to slowly release detail after detail very slowly and methodically. A lot of films these days tend to bash us over the head with a shock-ending or gross-fest but this film is too clever for either movie invention.
I loved that the film was multi-layered in that if you guessed a section of the secret you wouldn’t be disappointed when it came to the final frame. There are just so many twists and turns.
The film is a remake of a 1998 Japanese horror film called “Ringu” which I have never seen and I am sure that this version will the first time Western audiences are exposed to this story. If anything it may help Western audiences to look more closely at Japanese horror. Or at least open our eyes to the possibility.
Director Gore Verbinski (“Mouse Hunt” and “The Mexican“) wasn’t afraid to get dark and spooky with this project. Verbinski’s cinematographer Bojan Bazelli photographs the film very gritty but invokes the camera to do some very interesting angles. Bazelli’s dark gritty gift of camera photography was also witnessed in some of his other works like 1993′s “Kalifornia” and “Boxing Helena” as well as 1992′s “Body Snatchers“. Bazelli created a very lush look for 1998′s “Dangerous Beauty” but he seems to have gone back to what he does best with “The Ring“.
I really enjoyed Naomi Watts in her breakthrough role in “Mulholland Drive“. Naomi continues her strong screen presence and knack for being able to soar in experimental projects with grace and acting passion. 
There was darkness in “Mulholland Drive” which could have been overtaken by a weak actress but Naomi stood her ground. She continues the trend by making Rachel Keller a real and strong female character. I will be interested to see what she does next.
My only slight problem with the film was the strength of Rachel Keller’s romantic interest, Noah (played by relative newcomer Martin Henderson (Windtalkers)). I found that we never got a chance to know Noah except through the eyes of Rachel and Aidan. I also found Henderson’s performance a little lacking. I never felt he contributed much to the feelings in the film and that he was just there. I wonder how he was used in the Japanese version of the film.
What make films like this so draining and an unreal experience are the conversations that tend to awaken when you exit the theatre. You want so badly to debate and discuss what you have just witnessed. There hasn’t been a thriller this clever since the “Sixth Sense” and it surely will be looked at as the thriller of the year. This is one of the best films of the year.
4.5 out of 5
So Says the Soothsayer.
There have been a lot of great horror series in the course of Hollywood history. From Freddy’s razor sharp claws to Michael Myers’s ghostly face to blood-stained hockey mask of Jason Voorhees. Ok, all them aren’t great but the series were still a lot of fun.
Like Amityville and other psychological horror series, The Ring’s sequel seems more or less like an after thought then a continuation of the series. The film barely chugs along and has little or no punch. There are no real scares or creepiness about the film, it is just there.
The core of the film seems to be a metaphor for “postpartum” depression which in a lot of ways really bugged me. I know it’s a film but when it came down to this angle it left me quite hollow inside. If we are supposed to cheer for this struggling heroine why unleash such an unforgivable angle. It seemed like an odd choice on how to carry on the series or even in the development of the Rachel character.
Movies have always challenged us and given us unique perspectives on things we didn’t consider. Some of the greatest arguments of our time have been fought out on the silver screen. From abortion to evolution, these memorable debates are powerful and always deliver both sides of the story. Emily Rose’s story is one of those debates.
As the film progressed I often found myself remembering scenes from the 1960 classic “Inherit the Wind” where a teacher is put on trial for teaching evolution in a devote religious system. The film was a blood-boiler as both sides of creationism and evolution were debated in fiery detail. It is still one of the best courtroom films ever made.
This lack of passion in an intriguing case reminded me of the controversial 1989 TV movie “Roe vs. Wade” where a pregnant mother (Holly Hunter) wants to have an abortion in Texas, where the procedure is illegal. The film itself had a good argument but the film itself is heavily flawed and never is each side of the case fairly represented. Especially the prosecution since the film is biased to one side. I felt the same was evident in “Emily Rose”.
In 1973, a little film directed by William Friedkin (The French Connection) was released that caused mass hysteria, fainting and undying controversy. The film launched new comer Linda Blair into the spotlight and set a benchmark for psychological horror films to come. The film was “The Exorcist”.
Stellan Skarsgard is quite impressive as the struggling Merrin and it his performance that accents a lot of the credibility housed in this film. You can see this man’s pain and how he conflicts with everything he witnesses. Even in the attraction scenes with the younger Scorupco, Skarsgard doesn’t allow his character to find any raw emotion.
What was so fun about the original was that it was highly psychological even though we did have that infamous “pea soup” scene. It dove into the mind of not only Linda Blair’s 12-year old girl but the struggling of Father Merrin. In the new film we seem to lose the psychological element as the true evil is finally revealed.
“In the final act, all bets are off.” Says Patrick Dempsey’s Detective Kincaid in the third installment of the popular horror series Scream.
And the humor seems to be back for this sequel. Putting aside the classic styled horror scene involving voluptuous Jenny McCarthy, Scream 3 has a lot of new horror gimmicks and surprises to offer.
The year was 1921 and a genius director was sculpting the most horrific movie ever conceived. Little did the director know that he would in fact have to sell every ounce of his humanity to create his infamous masterpiece. So tells the story of the ultra-classic German silent film, “Nosferatu”.
As the production begins the film crew departs for a suburban inn tucked into Eastern Europe. Murnau is fluttered with questions as to why they haven’t met the star of the film. Who will play their vampire? Murnau explains that their star is a method actor who has to remain in costume, makeup and will embody the scope of the film’s atmosphere at all times. He continues to explain that their vampire is a perfectionist and that the crew must actually go to him. Unbeknownst to the crew, Murnau has made a deal with a devil to complete his insane but masterful vision. The deal is struck with a local derelict named Max Shreck (Willem Dafoe), who in fact is a real vampire who has an appetite for youthful specimens. As the production absorbs their vampire into their mix, Murnau begins to see what kind of demon he has unleashed on his unsuspecting crew.
Shadow of the Vampire hovers on genius for 90% of the film. If you are a film historian or major buff then this movie will ooze magic for you. I mean you actually feel like you have been transported into their world. As the regular style of film crops and fades into the standard style of silent films we are engulfed into the magic that the mad director was trying to capture. It’s amazing how such a grainy and subtle picture can evict so much passion.
As I watched “Shadow” I was reminded a lot of one of my favorite directors. The director I mean is Tim Burton. What could he have done with this little film. He did such a brilliant job with “Ed Wood” and “Sleepy Hollow” it would have been very interesting to see his magic spin this yarn.
I guess for me some of the circumstances didn’t really allow me to use my imagination and because of that I felt a little pushed. What made those grainy poorly cut films of yesteryear so precious was how much they did leave to our imagination.
Where does the barrier between grisly and mainstream films begin?
Not for one moment do we care and all we want to see is more of what is going on inside the bathroom.
Have you ever felt like an urban zombie?
When the film’s characters finally uncover what is really going on it becomes your typical zombie film right down to the humans making their last stand. When the comedy eventually evolves into gore and panic, I felt it really never lived up to the magic of the film’s first half.
In the late 1880’s, a lone man held a city in his grasp with fear, torture and murder. The city was London and the man was only known as Jack.
Within this macabre fest is a brilliant performance by Johnny Depp who continues to impress me with every film he does. He is one of the best actors of his generation. He has the encompassing power to electrify an audience with a look or expression.
The character of Mary needed an actress who could display sensuality, torment, and an ounce of innocence in her scenes with Abberline. Graham couldn’t do any of them. She was excellent in “Boogie Nights” but I haven’t really seen her in anything since that shows that she can display the detailed emotions needed to flesh out Mary further. It is also hard to take her performance when her accent flickers instead of sticking.
The clash of titans, the rumble of heavyweights, thunder of the monsters?
In the film that finally finds the horrific titans facing-off, Freddy Krueger decides he has one last master plan on how to once again raise terror and destroy the people of Elm Street. Freddy invades the dreams of serial killer Jason Voorhees and uses Jason’s unstoppable body to slay the victims of Elm Street. Freddy’s master plan doesn’t go smooth as he becomes jealous of Jason’s power and that some Elm Street kids (Monica Keena, Katharine Isabelle and Kelly Rowland) begin fighting back against Jason. Can Freddy control Jason long enough to exact his revenge? If not how will the battle play out? Who will reign supreme?
“Freddy vs. Jason” is full of slasher clichés, ridiculous gore, outrageous stunts, and laughter-induced legacy speeches. But all these elements are what these two horror fiends have been delivering for over 20 years. Believe it or not, it has been 23 years since Jason rose from Crystal Lake in 1980. Did we also forget that New Line Cinema is infamously known as “The House that Freddy Built”? What else could one expect when you bring these two characters together?
