|
Shame.
| | Added by Gizmola on 2005-03-20 19:01:25 |
To me the saddest thing is that this was directed by Hideo Nakata, the director of the original. I like to see innovative foreign directors get their shot, especially when their films inspire successful hollywood remakes. When you look at Ang Lee, John Woo, Guillermo del Toro and the long history of bringing talented foreign directors to Hollywood, it's sad to see someone with a fresh eye and potentially innovative ideas fall flat.
With that said, in my opinion the US remake was and is simply a way better film than the original, which I have on DvD. I've seen people I respect opin that Nakata's done much better work than he did with the Ring, which was full of ideas, but in many ways is a complete mess, albeit one that was done on a shoestring budget. What we got with the US Ring was a film that had the benefit of drawing from a series in order to deliver one fully realized plot. Maybe at this point, there just wasn't any fresh ideas to draw from.
Nakata in his Japanese films has show he can deliver a good scare even in an otherwise medicore film... his "Ghost Actress" as an example. Of course the jury is still out on this, since we don't know yet how it will do at the box office. It seems that sequels almost always out perform the original, even though they are almost always pale imitations. It would be nice to see Nakata get a chance to do an original film rather than reprise a storyline he's already done multiple times in Japan. A shame this was the project he got his chance to do here. On the other hand, when you consider directors like Takashi Miike either has no interest or scares Hollywood too much, its no surprise we get bland failures from people who appear to have so much talent. Seems to me that probably it's the Hollywood system that prevents the very people they seek out from bringing the innovation and fresh point of view that attracted interest to them in the first place.
|
|
|
$36 Million opening
| | Added by Gizmola on 2005-03-20 19:33:19 |
Seems they expected $40 but still a good showing, and #1 for the weekend. Putting it in perspective, the original opened with $15 mil.
|
|
|
Re: Ring 2, The (2005)
| | Added by David on 2005-03-26 04:19:00 |
All that most be said is men you will hate it but take your girl friend to see and they will be scared into your arms
|
|
|
Re: Ring 2, The (2005)
| | Added by Joe Rickey on 2005-03-27 01:47:49 |
I personally found the sequel while structurally inferior compared to the )American) original, ended up still being a relatively entertaining two hours. Watts once again gives a good performance, almost singlehandedly keeping my attention when the film devolved into cliche at times, and once again the film has a fairly decent opening and an ending I found to be adequately thrilling if not predictable. I would welcome a third film (I've heard a prequel with a new cast is in the pipeline) but it remains to be seen if it will get made since the sequel is underperforming (I, for one, expected an opening of over 40 million since 'The Grudge' grossed around that its opening weekend). The sad thing is that many consider 'The Grudge' to be a rip-off of 'The Ring' and when a "rip-off' outgrosses "the one that started it all" as the ads like to proclaim, you know you're in dangerous territory. Anyway, I still believe that a prequel is a possibility but hopefully Dreamworks gets a new director (I'd thought that I would never say this but Jonathan Liebesman, the director of 'Darkness Falls' and the 'Rings' short film would be a good choice based on the aforementioned short film which is far scarier than the sequel and perhaps even more thrilling on a base level than the original).
|
|
Add new comment
All comments are owned by their posters.
Please e-mail [email protected] with complaints.
|
