Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

American Remake Of RING Changes Title'! Plus A Sneak Peek Review!!

eh by Mumford Jr.	Jul 26th, 2002 10:37:18 PM
It's probaby going to be pretty mundane....so mundane no one cares enough to post about it--probably too busy staring at harry's unholy defilement of our eyes.
I dont like every detail explained... by Kabuki Man	Jul 26th, 2002 10:38:58 PM
In horror movie the evil doesn't have to have a reason. It just is. Screw this reviewer.
Details, Details, Details... by Bright Cucumber	Jul 26th, 2002 10:41:47 PM
It seems that many American movies these days tend to have too much exposition and less subjectivity....sometimes less is more.
RING! WATTS! YES! by Chaka015	Jul 26th, 2002 10:52:06 PM
YEAH! I LIKE HORROR MOVIES! I LIKE MRS. WATTS! SHE IS ENJOYABLE TO WATCH! I AM EXCITED.
What's this review? by atomicfreak	Jul 26th, 2002 11:09:07 PM
What's with this guy who reviewed the film? He's like one of those idiots who say that Ridley Scott should leave the "slow motion" shots to John Woo. Is the reviewer even properly educated? Perhaps he would prefer the American version of Godzilla, which explained everything... and was horrible because of it. The Ring is about an urban legend. Perhaps if the reviewer had taken time to do his research, it's based on a rather old urban legend that exists in Japan and has made its way to Hong Kong. Obviously, the movie is a little more exciting than the actual tales that people speak of, but the legend exists for certain. As for not giving details... well, when you explain everything, then you take away the legend's power of fear and the unknown. I've seen the original Japanese version and although the story was okay, it was creepy as hell (mostly because of that one scene which I can't tell people). I was impressed by that. Well, either way, it doesn't matter. Looks like the remake is going to be "okay" at best, just because it's Hollywood and people there like to screw up good things. People like the reviewer.
dont use this reviewer ever again harry by themidnighter23	Jul 26th, 2002 11:13:12 PM
my god this person is some moron. Maybe he should look up the word "ring" to figure out why the movie is called "ring". And since when do horror movies have to be logical? Is it logical to have some manaic going around killing people? is it logical to dress up in tighst and call yourself Batman? Is this reviewer logical? HELL NO!!! did this idiot even watch Minority Report? what a fuckin moron.
atomicfreak by themidnighter23	Jul 26th, 2002 11:14:53 PM
oh yeah, that scene still gives me chills just thinking of it. If anything, Ring gives this atmosphere that's really creepy.
Horses scare me, man by MimiRogers3rdNip	Jul 26th, 2002 11:18:30 PM
Have you ever seen the teeth on those beasts? Reason enough to put them in every horror film. Mute psychopaths in Shatner masks? Bring them on. Zombies waddling around ? Bah, reminds me of my ex-girlfriends drunken redneck relatives. Young girls head spinning, swearing, and puking bile? Who hasnt babysat worse than that! Now you throw a horse in and and all horror breaks loose! Black Stallion is the scariest film Ive ever seen. What happened to the kid in that? Did he become a big star? NO. Because the fucking horse ate him!
Why should they have to change the title... If people get confus by chanfanuk	Jul 27th, 2002 12:12:42 AM
The reason why it is called ring is because of what you have to do to survive, making a copy/showing someone else the tape... a vicious circle or a ring if you will. It just keeps going. It obviously loses a little something in the translation but is still I think a perfectly good title. Now I hate dodgy remakes of perfectly good films in the first place. I know I haven't even seen "Seven Days" yet so it may at points be different to Ring and I may be arguing a lost cause but I doubt very much that I'll bother watching it. One of the only reasons anyone could possibly want to see this instead of the Japanese original is because they are lazy and cannot be bothered to read subtitles. I just call that stupid. By the way in Ring the child does not have an ability to interact with the dead, it is sadako posing as the dead childs friend who is then convinced to watch the tape. Now I used to agree with you on the horror films point, I would usually say that it is just a load of cheap thrills hashed together with a bad storyline and even worse acting but there are obvious exceptions. I'm not sure if you would necessarily call it a horror film(it is scary and shocking though) but Audition is a fine example of one of these exceptions. At points it is very funny. The montage of all his auditions for a bride are brilliant and it is a superb piece of black comedy when she (sorry if anyone reads this and thinks i'm spoiling something)throws his foot against the window. The movie theatre(unfortunately only about 40% full) shook with laughter at that point. All I'm saying is don't write of horror. Oh and the reason behind the killings(in Ring at least) is sadako's anger at being thrown down the well. It would have been an awful piece of exposition if they had explained the movie completely. I know people necesarrily don't want to think too hard when watching films but if a film doesn't make you think and lays it all out there people like us will have nothing to write about. Check out Audition if you get the chance sometime though...
The Keen Guy.... did you WATCH minority report or sleep through by Ridge	Jul 27th, 2002 12:16:20 AM
Ok stick with me on this one guys : Keen Guy wrote in his article : In MINORITY REPORT, the whole movie is sprung from the precogs' vision of a murder that would NOT have occurred unless the precogs had predicted it, which they predicted of their own volition. They saw a future that would not have happened unless they saw it, and of course, they would not have seen it unless they wanted to will it to happen. Why did the precogs decide to instigate a murder? There is no logical reason. -------------------- Ok first of all TOTALLY wrong sir. In Minority report the precogs simply saw what was going to happen, they didnt influence people to murder at all. In the movie the future was set to happen in one particular way, the precogs were used to intervene. The murder at the beginning was going to happen wether the precogs liked it or not, but the intervention of the Pre Crime squad via the Precogs vision stopped the murder. In essence, they, in the movie, did NOT cause the murders to happen, they merely saw ahead on a timeline enabling someone to alter it. Knowing the results and advising someone who didnt on the best way to avoid them. A good example for this : Person A stands in a puddle of petrol. They know what will happen if they light the petrol, they will burn to death. Person B doesnt, and wants to experiment to see what would happen. (Obviously a dope... but read on) If Person B is allowed to go on, without the knowledge of what will happen, they will surely be harmed/die from the injuries. HOWEVER if person A intervenes and tells B what will happen, then the possible fate will have been avoided and no harm come to the person. Your logic is wrong, your view of the movie is wrong, and I really have to ask, did you sleep through it or watch it with your eyes closed?
I just wanna say... by hank quinlan	Jul 27th, 2002 12:23:07 AM
...how fucking hot Naomi Watts is. And yes you assholes, I have a girlfriend. Anyhow, I think Verbinski is a very smart, very visual director. This might turn out to be pretty cool. The Japanese version laid out all the beats. It would take a moron to mess it up. If it's halfway decent they might even have a hit. And Mothman was slam bang excellent. Very adult. Creepy and geniunely thematic. I mean that scene at the end where Gere admits to missing his wife so much...honestly, you realize what the whole thing is REALLY about. Very underrated.
Spoon Feeding Time For The AICN Critics by Mako	Jul 27th, 2002 12:25:24 AM
You didn't get THE MOTHMAN PROPHESIS because you left the freakin' film moron, before you found out any more info. You baby suckers. Why must everything be explained to you? "Oh... and there was this horse.. yeah... and he... has... uh... no point in being there... cause... uh... they don't set him up... uh...." Okay Mr. Beavis And Butthead of a critic. He's a freeakin' horse!! "I was confused..." Good!! Cause your confusion will actually stimulate our brains into talking about it and enjoying it long after you figure out what Yield signal actually means.
Reviewer slagging.... by chanfanuk	Jul 27th, 2002 12:28:12 AM
It's just not on now is it. I posted my comments before I saw any others, otherwise I would have remarked about it then but give the guy a break for christs sake. Whats up with atomicfreak saying "Is the reviewer even properly educated?". Maybe we should all post our qualifications before we are allowed to say anything. How does that sound to you? Oh and lets be honest. There is nearly always something that drives someone to killing, possibly insanity or anger or perhaps both in this case but I just think everyone should lay off The Keen Guy. Personally I didn't see anything wrong with his Minority report comments, just because they weren't necessarily written in the best of english does not mean that he is not making a worthwhile argument. Oh and it's called RING not THE RING. I hate it when people do that!
Melted, eh? by Christopher3	Jul 27th, 2002 12:48:52 AM
Maybe that could be the new title: "Melt"!
Ring is about the phone call or when a phone "rings" by VirgilHilts	Jul 27th, 2002 12:49:38 AM
That's what it means.
sigh by sinople	Jul 27th, 2002 01:12:05 AM
It's CALLED Ring because it is a RING (circle) that continues. A lot of the original Ringu movies assumes you have a working knowledge of urban legends and spirituality/early 20th century ESP research of Japan.
I'm okay, criticize away by TheKeenGuy	Jul 27th, 2002 01:16:36 AM
I'm alright with the fact that people disagree with me. I wrote this review late last night after watching the movie and it is a rambling review with awkward sentences and fragmented points. I didn't write the review because I think my opinion is the best opinion about the movie. I wrote it because I have seen the movie, because I am willing to talk at length about how it affected me and I hope my opinions interest others (whether you like them or not). I encourage you to disagree, to see the movie for yourself, get your own take on it. I want to hear everyone else's opinion on the movie just as much as I want to speak my own, you know? It's all really enjoyable.
TheKeenGuy by BloodandPopcorn	Jul 27th, 2002 01:37:09 AM
Have you seen the original Ring (Ringu)? It's from Japan, and is fucking amazing. You could probably try to over analyse that, too, and come up blank, but you'll probably shit your pants first. And that's why the title should be Ring, though the more I tihnk about it the more I want it to be changed. I just know they're going to fuck it up badly. The original is so Japanese... Definitely not the feel of any even fairly recent American film. Maybe this new version will do something good for the old--finally get us a Region 1 dvd (to bank off of this version) and make it be at least fairly good quality. What I will say for this, though, is that the marketting scheme is brilliant. If some of you don't know about it, or haven't "found it out for yourself", I won't spoil it for you. But it's really something.
To the Keen Guy by Ridge	Jul 27th, 2002 01:38:51 AM
Hey dude, with my former comment, sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you. I didnt mean it to, was moreso trying to point out that minority report thing. All morning Ive been trying (note the word TRYING) to do my taxes and its left me in the worst of moods. So, sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you personally.
I've seen this remake, the 'Ring' is briefly explain by Psyclops	Jul 27th, 2002 01:47:05 AM
It is an image that appears on the tape, the last image in fact. You find out what the 'ring' really is at the end of the movie. Oh, what is up with the Chris Cooper character? He wasn't in the cut that I saw but I read about him appearing in the movie somewhere.
WHAT THE HELL IS THE RING?!? by FD Resurrected	Jul 27th, 2002 02:44:14 AM
Ring...ring...ring...RING!!!!! !!!!"YOU WILL DIE IN SEVEN DAYS..." silence It's a friggin' phone call!!!!!!! Get it? I finally saw the Japanese version of The Ring on shitty video transfer from an awful Chinese VCD with some friggin' annoying English subtitles unreadable against the white backgrounds and frontgrounds...and, despite my gripe, it's a NEAR MASTERPIECE OF HORROR! Blows The Sixth Sense out of water cos it actually scared the SHIT out of me at least three times! Damn, that's a good movie! I haven't seen a really good, suspenseful, nonshitty horror movie in years...until THE RING! Take that, The Others! Don't see a piece of shit R rated American remake, it won't do the Japanese original justice...get Japanese version of The Ring on NTSC Region 0 DVD available in dutch auction on eBay! I saw the movie three times in one week and FORCED my sister and her girlfriend (who normally refuse to watch a foreign movie) to watch the movie...and it scared them shitless! Yes, the movie's script is muddled but maybe that's because of VCD's shitty English translation. Find The Ring on bootleg video or DVD, it has gained a huge CULT following you won't be disappointed! Count me in as a new fan and will definitely be watching Ring 2 and buy the English translation of Ring novel! Beats that piece of shit The Blair Witch Project which never scared me once and irritated me immensely and constantly during the mind numbingly tedious viewing. BWP is one of the worst movies ever made, bar none. Oh the TV just turned itself on...wha, what the hell...who's this strange woman lurching towards me...?!
WERE IS THE SPOILER WARNING THIS SITE SUCKS!!! by Nomak	Jul 27th, 2002 03:07:23 AM
"That's right, this is almost the same character as the children in THE SIXTH SENSE and STIR OF ECHOES." Good point too bad both those films came out AFTER Ringu. Much like everything looks like the Matrix, unless you have EVER watched any Kung-Fu from 93 on!
this reviewer SUCKS by illerphenom	Jul 27th, 2002 03:45:17 AM
Actually , that's just based on the review up until he said he walked out on Mothman Prophecies halfway through. I walked out on reading his review because it sucked.
This guy wins the "Most moronic reviewer" Award by fuldamobil	Jul 27th, 2002 03:48:10 AM
Hey, if you do not understand what a movie is, don't go see them. To dismiss an entire genre disqualifies you as a reliable reviewer. Some of the smartest and most subversive American films are horror movies. "Night of the Living Dead," "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," "The Haunting," etc., etc. RING is an interesting premise. I'm not the biggest fan of the original, but it is genuinely spooky. And the "ring" of the title refers to the phone call you get after you watch the cursed video.
scary by Carey N.	Jul 27th, 2002 03:56:23 AM
I always thought the main criterion for a horror film to be good or interesting was that it is scary. I don't know, maybe it's just me.
I don't like this kid by Vern	Jul 27th, 2002 04:05:45 AM
I know I don't like it when I write a review and then everybody goes on
Formal or Informal logic? by Lobanhaki	Jul 27th, 2002 04:21:09 AM
Formal requires nice neat bows. Every conclusion is necessary (read: absolutely certain), if the premises are correct and the argument is valid. everything must fit into a nice neat collection of rules. Nothing external can create truthful notions within the system. Informal logic is the kind of logic where one can step outside of the system and rework it. The stuff in Minority Report works for most people, because they are comfortable with the idea that the system is not necessarily predetermined, and that information is never complete. Choice always exists because human thought is built on informal terms.
Keen Guy doesn't know what he's talking about by bigherbs	Jul 27th, 2002 04:22:18 AM
I'm with Vern on this one. Keen Guy doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm a horror movie fanatic and it is abundantly clear that Keen Guy doesn't know the first thing about the genre he is so quick to cut down. Hell, he doesn't even understand Minority Report! Vern said it all really well already. People, do not take this review seriously. Keen Guy needs to learn a few things about film, especially horror films.
A Brad Pitt-like boyfriend? by KONG33	Jul 27th, 2002 05:28:05 AM
Something tells me this will not be art, but a more pedestrian, modern horror movie. Something girls can curl up with popcorn to, but not get, y'know, scared or uncomfortable about. Man, when it comes to horror, all you have to do is watch NOSFERATU and it puts these films to such shame, why can't films like NOSFERATU be made today, or at least have an aged visual style like it.
Retitling.... by EricAlan69	Jul 27th, 2002 07:08:18 AM
It's 'Ring.' Then, the U.S. version is retitled 'The Ring.' Then changed back when they showed a teaser for it in Japan a few weeks ago so as not to confuse people. And now we're going to call it 'Seven Days?' I don't think so, 'cause they're going to have to change too much promo stuff to do so, and it would be sort of ridiculous at this point, 2 and 1/2 months before the film is release in the US. Also, 'Seven Days' sounds like a fucking Sandra Bullock prequel, and that CAN'T be a good thing.... // e.
The Keen Guy's not too bright is he? by Veidt	Jul 27th, 2002 08:52:56 AM
I won't go over what others have already gone to detail about but let's get this straight - Keen Guy couldn't follow Minority Report, he doesn't understand why Ring is called Ring, he couldn't stick with Mothman Prophecies, and he clearly has no understanding of the horror genre. Add it up and you get one pathetic review. I won't even mention his asinine take on The Sixth Sense - I'll just hope he was trying to be ironic. Too bad about the Ring title change but I guess it's something we should've seen coming. God knows we'd hate to have the simple minded public confused. "Why is it called Ring?" "Is this the sequel to Lord of the Rings?" But while Seven Days isn't the worst possible title, it doesn't have that classic, ah, "ring" to it.
Americanization by robbiez666	Jul 27th, 2002 09:30:59 AM
This was clearly bound to be an awful remake. The joy of the original Ring Films lies in the Japanese Godzilla films. Its stuff that a lot of people don't get. It is certainly something that Hollywood doen't get. I can imagine the films makers sitting round and saying. "We need tension, we need jumps, we need tense build up music" Until Hollyood realizes that it cannot take something which is inexerably enshrined in another counry's culture and Americanize itthey will keep making horrible remakes. As for the review. I suggest if you don';t "get" horror films then not to watch them.
Mothman rocks! by Movieteacher	Jul 27th, 2002 10:40:39 AM
Ok so the movie was a little slow, but you never just walk out on a movie like that...look at Unbreakable!! COmmon!!!
name changes by ring rasen loop	Jul 27th, 2002 11:10:10 AM
Hadn't heard anything about a change to "seven days." Can't see it happening unless D'works is planning on scrapping their official website: http://www.ring-themovie.com/ Which still features "the ring" as the title. Speaking of which, someone above mentioned that they hate it when people call the original movie "THE Ring" instead of just "Ring." The Japanese language does not use articles, so yes, if we were speaking Japanese, we would refer to it as "Ring"... but beginning with the novel orig. published in 1995, every piece of video, poster, and comic art has clearly shown the title as Ring in Japanese and "the Ring" in English.
I by benway	Jul 27th, 2002 12:05:48 PM
with either horror genre or the original Japanese RING, and this poor soul obviously has no clue about either. Vern already said most of what I would tell this guy, including the list of assignments (to which I add: EVERYTHING BY CRONENBERG, Santa Sangre, Hardware, Alien, Peeping Tom, The Shining, Carrie, Birds...). How can you even dare speak about horror and putting Needless Shit in the same sentence with The 6th Sense and Evil Dead? Is there ANYONE out there who
More Jumping on the KeenGuy by Anton_Sirius	Jul 27th, 2002 12:37:23 PM
I'm with Vern here- KeenGuy sounds like he means well, but he also sounds like he's trying really really hard to sound like a film school grad, without actually having been to film school, or at least stayed awake through any of the classes he audited. I won't blame anyone for walking out of the Mothman Prophesies- that's just self-defense- but Sixth Sense a take on racism? Ummm, OK, I'm sure that's what M. Night had in mind, given it's all-white principal cast (see Living Dead, Night of the, for a horror film that really examines racism). As for the 'illogic' of the Ring, it's called a curse. Look it up. Really, KeenGuy, next time don't try so hard to impress anybody. I mean, dude, it's AICN!
Sixth Sense a horror movie that has a parable on racism?! by NeoAngelus	Jul 27th, 2002 01:14:09 PM
Where the hell did you dig up THIS guy? The warning signals on how warped this guy's opinion was evident even before he called The Sixth Sense a horror movie. A HORROR movie?! Ugh. I don't even want to continue on this. I haven't read any of the TalkBacks yet, but I can already assume people have torn this guy apart... And rightly so.
FearDotCom??? by SalaciousR_Crumb	Jul 27th, 2002 01:56:04 PM
I just saw a trailer for a movie called FearDotCom that looks like it has the same exact plot as the ring, except it's a web site instead of a vhs tape that the victim views. Does anybody know if this movie is also a remake of the ring? Movie's web site is feardotcom.com
Minority Report Mix-up by Ozmotic	Jul 27th, 2002 02:14:39 PM
I think the reviewer was commenting on how if John Anderton never saw the pre-cogs vision he would have never embarked on the chain of events which led up to it. This seems paradoxical unless we accept that there can be many paths to the same destination. From what we know of the movie, John didn't NEED to see the vision in order to end up in the "room". The pre-cogs didn't predict a path or chain of events, they just predicted the outcome. Anderton chose his path. The reviewer wasn't suggesting that the pre-cogs "cause" murder, because not everyone can see their pre-cog "future" (and if they did, they probably would change it, hmm, thats something to think about). The pre-cogs didn't "cause" anything in the case of John Anderton either, he made all his own decisions (even if they were influenced by his knowledge). And (SPOILER-SPOILER) the resolution shows that it was in the pre-cogs' best interest that the events occurred as predicted. So if the pre-cogs did conspire to have Anderton follow through, it was all to improve their status anyway.
Keen Guy deserves the ribbing he's getting by The_Black_Hair	Jul 27th, 2002 02:57:03 PM
I realize that this site utilizes non-professional, unpaid reviewers and it would be unfair to hold them up to standards that even paid reviewers aren't held up to... but there is one thing that simply can't be tolerated in any movie reviewer: the inability to even attempt to review a film on it's own merits. After the first paragraph, Harry should have immediately deleted this email without further consideration. That's certainly more justified than commenting on a film you walked out on. If someone considers themselves too high brow to believe that making a scary movie isn't a legitimate purpose for movie making, leave him to discuss it with his seven dollar latte drinkin, beret and goatee wearin college town pseudo-intellectuals. Christ, listen to this guy. He doesn't want to admit he liked the Sixth Sense because it was entertaining, so he has to pull some hoodoo out of his ass about how the movie is an allegory for racism? If the director was white, he wouldn't have been able to pull that out of anywhere, no matter how far he reached. If Shyamalan was so concerned about racism, why is the only minority he casts in his movies himself? (Oh yeah, I forgot, when he wanted a feeble psycho killer as the foil for the white indestructable all-American superman, he cast a black dude)
Sort Of Melted, Eh? by Spelunker Gregg	Jul 27th, 2002 04:40:34 PM
She just sort-of melted? Are we talking like a cheesy melting ala the dead woman from the end of "The Terror," a half-assed melting like the dude in "The Amazing Melting Man" or are we talking about full-on, balls-to-the-mother-fucking-wa ll, no holds barred, Wrath Of God melting like Toht recieved at the end of "Raiders Of The Lost Ark?" Inquiring minds wanna' know...
Take two by Vern	Jul 27th, 2002 05:09:27 PM
Wow, that's something I don't hear often here: "I'm with Vern on this one." Anyway I'm feelin bad because I know this kid meant well and we're talkin all this shit about him. I will say this Keen Guy, in your favor, you do have an adequate use of punctuation and capitalization. No, just pullin your leg there jack. Look, in case you haven't figured it out yet, you rubbed alot of individuals the wrong way right from the outset because your first paragraph blasted the entire horror genre, which is one of the top two or three genres covered and enjoyed by the ain't it cool news. And more importantly you did it without appearing to understand the appeal or intentions of the genre even on their most basic level. Let me go through your opening paragraph piece by piece here. "Let me say this first about horror films. It is my opinion that it is usually the worst film genre there is." I'm glad you realize that it is important to reveal your biases here. But it makes it clear from sentence two that we can't take your pan too seriously (even though most of us think the movie is gonna suck). "It's easy to write, because it doesn't have to involved any sort of theme whatsoever." This is ridiculous, bud. If it was easy to write a horror movie, why would it end up being the worst genre? It's as easy to write a bad horror movie as it is a bad anything else. Such as a bad movie review. The hard part is writin a good one. "People are getting killed, and you can't say that's not interesting, so that's your movie!" Actually people getting killed can be very uninteresting, that's why there are a shitpile of bad straight to video and not straight to video horror movies, action movies, etc. It's not fair just to take an element of a genre and say that it's all there is to it. Like, 'Comedy is easy to write, because people laugh, and you can't say that's not interesting.' 'Drama is easy to write, you just have Susan Sarandon crying and there's your movie.' "My opinion is this, for a horror movie to be interesting, it has to either be tongue-in-cheek (like the EVIL DEAD films) so that it is entertaining" If all EVIL DEAD was was tongue in cheek, nobody would ever even know what the fuck it was today, unless they were in it. The first EVIL DEAD is brutally serious, on the surface anyway, and its the relentlessness of the violence and stylization that made it such a phenomenon. It would be pretty fuckin hard to argue otherwise. Yet relentless violence and stylization are two things you probaly consider crutches of the genre. The "tongue in cheekness" of the movies in my opinion led to their downfall. Part 2 is my favorite because it is such a balance of humor and real horror. The third one is funny but it just gets too silly and falls apart in a bunch of skeleton fights at the end. "or it has to have characters so interesting that it would make for an interesting film even if it wasn't a horror film (like, say, NEEDFUL THINGS)." I don't know what to say about this one. I never heard of anyone who liked NEEDFUL THINGS, but I haven't seen it. The problem is, some of the most interesting characters in horror movies, like the hitchiker in TEXAS CHAIN SAW, would have trouble fitting in in a Merchant-Ivory film. Although I'd like to see him take care of a few of Kerwin Smith's characters. "Oh, and I guess there's a third category for horror films that actually deal with compelling themes (which isn't often), like THE SIXTH SENSE, which not only falls in the second category, but is also a parable for racism. Once you get past how a person looks, once you actually open a line of communication with them, you realize they are basically good! people. THE SIXTH SENSE's message about how ill-communcation is the root of most problems is really interesting, and the horror element is just a way of getting to that." Let's pretend for a minute that there was some remote chance that M. Night Shyamalan really had that corny bullshit in mind when he made THE SIXTH SENSE. Don't you think its a little condescending toward his work to claim that the story is just there as a vehicle for the message, like some Chick comic book you find in a phone booth? No, I'd say if there was a reason SIXTH SENSE caught on besides it being a well made, quiet thriller starrin my man Bruce, it would be because of the element of communication between the living and dead. That's something that means alot to alot of people, because alot of people die. I like to have a subtext in a horror movie as an added bonus. But it doesn't need to be there. And if it's all that's there, that ain't enough. For example, I enjoyed Wes Craven's PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS as an allegory about racism, classism, and Reaganism (which, I guess, is racism and classism). But it really doesn't cut it as a horror movie and that's why I don't remember it too fondly. On the other hand Mr. Craven has some works that can't be interpreted as literally, like A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, that are still considered classics. So anyway buddy, we're gonna convert you so don't you worry. As long as you are willing to put a little elbow grease into it you're gonna be a-okay. thanks buddy.
******(MASSIVE SPOILERS) the meaning of the title by argento123	Jul 27th, 2002 08:14:09 PM
It's not called ring because of the ring of the phone. It is called ring because in the book and the Korean remake and tv series of ring, Sadako doesn't come out of tv's, she kills by infecting the watcher of the video with a variation of the small pox virus, which she got from the guy how pushed her down the well (after he discovered she was a hermaphrodite). In the second part rasen the virus is explained as being sadakos method of being reborn. Those who are compatible give birth to sadako mark 2 and those that are not die of the virus. At the end of this part the world is comsumed by the virus. So the ring is in fact to do with the idea of the virus and the complete takeover of and destruction of all the human race.It creates a ring of people and also the telephone thing isn't always relevant because you only receive the call if you are in the vicinity of the well Sasako was thrown in.
precog motivation by harrloki	Jul 27th, 2002 09:43:20 PM
correct me if i'm wrong, but the whole plot of "minority report" also involved the solving of a murder of the mother of the "most talented" precog? it made perfect sense and seemed quite logical to me.
Another hairsplitting observation on the little "Ring vs. The Ri by Guitarman555	Jul 27th, 2002 11:35:21 PM
While the Japanese language doesn't use articles, it doesn't stop them from using katakana (the alphabet used in Japan to write foreign words) to try and approximate them every so often. For example, when you watch the Japanese version of the trailer for the American remake of The Ring that was posted on AICN last week or so, you'll notice the title spelled out in Japanese as well as in English. The katakana used for the title is literally "Za Ringu", which, of course, translates as "The Ring" and not simply "Ring".
The Keen guy by Jango Matt	Jul 28th, 2002 03:18:55 AM
Keen Guy, You are a fucking moron. "Horror movies are easy to write because they have no theme"? How much glue was your mother sniffing before she gave birth to you? I'm going to take what one talkbacker said a step further Harry...do not only never use this idiot reviewer again, but take him out to a field, tie him to a post, beat him to a bloody pulp with a shovel, and leave him to the coyotes. If this idiot would get "Ring" confused with "Lord of the Rings" Because they share the same word in the title...and doesn't realize that they called it Ring because the ORIGINAL FILM IT'S BASED ON was called Ring..then he isn't worth the time.
Jesus guys.. by SimplyStupid	Jul 28th, 2002 04:19:18 AM
I read most all the post here at aint it cool..and I hardly ever post. Except, if the topic interest me very much, or someone is getting the crap kicked out of him. Bring him to a field, tie him to a post, and beat him with a shovel? Jesus, his "review" (which I'll admit, wasn't up to quality with the other "great" reviews of this site) wasn't THAT bad. You don't have to pummel the holy water out of him. "He called it THE Ring, it's Ring, now you must die!!" Calm down! Quit the bashing. Go vent your frustration out on your dogs or kids or something. Just keep the bashing to a minimum. Well, now that that is said...Harry, what the #### is that in the corner? I see your fat ass..and..is that Moriarty? SICK..I wanna know, who the f*ck are those 3 guys watching, because I'd hang myself in that situation.
Ahh, thanks argento... by Mr_Sinister	Jul 28th, 2002 07:26:30 AM
For finally mentioning that a phone call does not always succeed a viewing of the tape. That aspect is played up so much in writings about the original and it doesn't even occur that often. I wonder if they've changed it for the remake though.
About Minority Report... by Christopher_atUC	Jul 28th, 2002 10:59:45 AM
I agree with this reviewer about Minority Report. It centers on the fact that, in a story where time is linear, certain things don't make sense. The reviewer wasn't talking about the original crimes predicted by the pre-cogs, but the one crime that involves Tom's character, the pre-cog cop. The only way that Tom's character could have been in the place of the murder, and at that time of the murder, was by investigating a pre-cog vision of him committing that murder. Do you see the flaw? In all of the other crimes, the event was going to happen without any involvement of the pre-cogs, they just knew it was going to happen. But in Tom's character's case, the only way that the crime could happen is if he saw the pre-cog vision, and went to investigate that vision. So, since Tom's character knew nothing about the intended target (unlike the husband and wife at the beginning), and since he had no motive (even though it was a 'red ball', or premeditated crime), how and why would he ever have ended up in that building, on that floor, in that apartment, at that moment without the information provided by the pre-cogs? This is a case where the pre-cogs weren't foreseeing the future; they were creating it. I agree with this reviewer on Minority Report and, while I haven't seen 'Ring' yet, I don't think this was a poorly done review. For me, personally, there are times when a film is a fun romp and can be enjoyed without logic (Armageddon), and there are times when an attempt at coherent logic is crucial to the integrity of the story (Deep Impact). They have always attempted logic in slasher movies (Jason wants revenge, Freddie wants revenge, Carrie wants revenge...hey). Of course you go into the theater knowing it's built upon a weak premise. Sixth Sense needed to hold to a certain amount of logic for the plot to hold together and then they tried to build their "unreality" around it. That's what made it scary and creepy. Anyway, I don't think this was such a terrible review. Some people are detail-oriented people. Just because this review may cater to another type of personality, one that pays close attention to details like those mentioned, you shouldn't be so harsh. I thought this review was informative, and an understandable statement of this person
"Mommy, when i grow up i want review movies" ....dumbass. by Riko	Jul 28th, 2002 12:44:56 PM
Getting the title confrused with Lord of the Rings?Stir of Echos - which i remind everyone that this schmuck only sat through half of.Buddy if your gonna patronise us with your bullshit atleast try and sound clever by making a comparrison with a film you've actually seen. I'm with ATOMICFREAK, this guy sounds like he sat though two periods of his film class and now he thinks hes a big shot. Has he really seen the original? The fact that the origin of the tape isnt given in detail only adds to the mystery, which in lies the horror. This means that when the poor souls on the screen watch the tape, the audience are forced to say "what the fuck?This is some wierdass shit"(okay, obviously not everyone would talk as if they were a member of NWA, but you get the point). therefore we are sharing the confusion.Like Atomic said URBAN LEGEND. Oh come on,like Evil Dead was supposed to make any sense. Though i do agree with Drew Barrymore opener. I loved the Ring. The story was'nt amazing but it was brilliantly made. Espicially, the "oh God i've just shat my pants" scene.
Damn, this sounds exactly like what I was afraid of... by ThePoleOfJustice	Jul 28th, 2002 01:59:56 PM
While the original RING did indeed leave some stuff unexplained, it sounds like this version turned the unexplained into plot holes. When a film functions as literally as the vast majority of American horror films have in the last few decades, ambiguity falls flat on its ass. The kid "talking with the dead" was very much implied in the original, sounds here like he was converted into the SIXTH SENSE kid. And what's with the "melting?" The look of terror on people's faces was perfectly creepy, thank you, without over-done SFX. And while I agree with the sentiment that obscurity can make a film more eerie, it sounds like the obscurity here is a result of hamfisted execution, not supernatural hinting. I will see this, and reserve ultimate judgement until then, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think this is anything but exactly what I feared: a hackneyed remake of a classic.
To CHANFANUK by atomicfreak	Jul 28th, 2002 02:49:08 PM
As a matter of fact, I am properly educated in film, and therefore, it lead to my comment. Now that I think about it, it was rather arrogant of me to state that, and I feel that I should take at least part of it back. However, I do insist that the reviewer did not take time to understand the film, nor did he take time to do some research before writing his review. Perhaps I was taught differently than he was. Anyhow, I do admit that I was being arrogant and a bit too harsh. There is a difference between stating one's opinion and simply mouthing someone off.
One last thing about minority report...(SPOILER) by Ozmotic	Jul 28th, 2002 03:04:50 PM
Ok, this probably doesnt belong here, but about the comment of the pre-cogs "creating" the future. (SPOILER) Lamar set up that guy in that room for a reason, so that John wouldn't solve the mystery of Ann Lively's disappearance. Now let's suppose that John never sees the pre-cog's vision. Is it still possible that John could have ended up in that room at that moment with Agatha and Crow? Most definitely. What if John wasn't present to see the vision, the vision could have been different but still involved him murdering Crow. But since he WAS in the room and DID see the vision, Agatha saw that specific vision. Sure John has never met this guy, but if he could ever put a face to his son's abductor, he'd kill the man in cold blood. Even if the pre-cog did "create" the future (she DIDNT put crow in that room BTW) it was all for her benefit.
All I want to know is... by Smeg For Brains	Jul 28th, 2002 03:09:06 PM
...will Harison Ford and Anne Heche reprise their roles in this new sequel "Seven Days"? I hope so because it wouldn't be the same without their classic characters. I was dieing to see if they would make it off the island and away from the smugglers.
Ring and Minority Report (spoilers) by Doc Daneeka	Jul 28th, 2002 09:13:37 PM
I believe the title of "The Ring" in the upcoming American remake refers to the main image seen on the video tape, which is a ring of some sort whose meaning becomes clear toward the end of the movie. As for the lapse of logic in Minority Report, I'm not a huge fan of the movie and I agreed with the reviewer at first that the precogs seeing Tom's murder was illogical since Tom hadn't thought about killing anyone at least UNTIL he saw the precogs vision, nor had he been aware of his intended victim's existence. . However, Max Van Sydow was the character who set the crime in motion, so does it make sense that the precogs were feeding off of Sydow and not Cruise for their vision?
This will SUCK! by drain6969	Jul 28th, 2002 11:03:28 PM
OK I'll admit that I only skim read the review (I was immediately p***ed off with the reviewer's narrow-minded attitude) but from what little I read and already know, I am sure of this....THIS FILM WILL SUCK! I suppose you can't blame Hollywood. They have gotten so used to recycling classics as pap (The Jackel and Rollerball leap to mind) that it is only natural that they will start to rip off the Japanese as well. Do yourself a favour. Ignore this film and go rent the original Ring, Ring2 and Ring 0. Of course that might be a problem because I think it was never released in the US. A similar thing happened with Audition and that was a brilliant film. By the way, the mythos of the 7 day rule was only really mentioned by a couple of students in the original Ring. Most of the film was the search for Sadako. I won't spoil it more for anyone wanting to see the original (I do keep harping on about that don't I?) but I did notice the reviewer mentioning that the tape is never explained. In the Japanese version it is. Dear god Hollywood should get off their butts and take a chance for a change. It happens but Oh, so rarely. When did the pursuit of profit at the expense of arty become an artform in itself? What's next, a hollywood version of Battle Royale? Yeah I can really see that being good!
Listen to yourself by ring rasen loop	Jul 28th, 2002 11:55:25 PM
"from what little I read and already know, I am sure of this....THIS FILM WILL SUCK!" So basically you're asserting that, while you know next to nothing about the remake, your opinion should be considered definitive?! Well, next time I need a review on a restaurant you've never been to, I'll be sure to give you a call. The original movies are landmarks, yes. Hollywood has a pretty solid record of screwing up remakes, yes. Do you see me throwing a tantrum that this movie will suck? No. Why? Because I haven't seen it yet. And neither have you.
The Ring by Mr_Sinister	Jul 29th, 2002 02:58:24 AM
I saw the Entertainment Tonight episode with the fall preview just today - it was delayed here in Australia over the weekend. They did indeed show a brief clip of 'The Ring', but they called it by that name and NOT 'Seven Days'. The title even came up on screen while the clip played.
Yes, remake BATTLE ROYALE by Vern	Jul 29th, 2002 04:43:32 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again, and then I will say it again after that. They gotta make an american version of BATTLE ROYALE starring Freddy Prinze Jr. before he turns 30. This could be some good shit. It would make a real good slumber party double feature with BULLY. But seriously though. That aside, BATTLE ROYALE would be a better japanese movie to remake than most. It's really the premise that is great, the movie itself is not perfect. I mean you just get a parade of kids and they all die before you get to know them. It's still entertaining but it's not dead on execution like THE RING so it wouldn't be as offensive to redo it. Furthermore, the themes could definitely be altered to fit american culture a little more closely (think Columbine). The one major problem is that you would have trouble casting anybody as great as Takeshi Kitano. Because I doubt Clint Eastwood would do it.
THAT REVIEW SUCKED by Snuggleskunk	Jul 29th, 2002 04:45:12 AM
ONe get someone who likes horror films or even someone who liked the original to write the review. We know what Ring as a film is like we want to know if the remake is any good. And what the hell is with all this backing up every point by referring to another film. Is this some film studies guys mid-term or what?
They put an actual Ring in it??!!?? by Captain Dobie	Jul 29th, 2002 06:53:12 AM
I can't believe i'm the only person to greet this news with such incredulity. Somebody thought that if they put an actual Ring in it then this would explain the title to people too stupid to tie their own shoe laces....I don't know whether to laugh, cry or just stab my eyes out now. DEAR GOD!!!!!
What the fuck?!?!? by lucreangst	Jul 29th, 2002 11:33:17 AM
Have any of these "reviewers" seen the original? They continue to make comarisons to lame American horror films and don't even realise this movie is Japanese and most likely NOT influenced by American shit. Come one Harry, no more Ring reviews until someone sees the original. I don't expect much from an American remake, but a fresh perspective would be nice. The real info is here: http://www.somrux.com/ringworl d/ If you want to see Ring-meets-Omega Man, get the VCD of PULSE. As a side note: I think it would be a lot safer if Moriarty were on top.
Hollywood remakes... by Faulkner	Jul 29th, 2002 11:34:46 AM
Depressing depressing depressing. The Vanishing, Nightwatch, and now Ring. Honestly, what is the point?? Anyway, more importantly does anyone know of any plans to release the original Ring on DVD in the US? Or a new release in the UK? The one we have in the UK is crap quality, taken from a terrible print and with often unreadable subtitles. Audition received the same poor treatment and I have heard the same said about the Battle Royale release on DVD. Yes, it's a good thing that these films are readily available over here, but that doesn't matter one jot if what you're buying is little better than bootleg quality material. Ring is a classic - one of the finest horror films of recent years - and it deserves the kind of treatment usually given to much lesser films. I'm not even asking for a Special Edition...! Is it likely or not?
Why it is called, "RING"... by lucreangst	Jul 29th, 2002 11:50:37 AM
It's not the ring of a phone. The Japanese have a specific phrase/word for that, and it is not RING, or RINGU (the original title in Japanese.) It does not refer to a piece of jewelry. Most believe it is about the cycle of the "virus" (a term used in one of the sequels). But, it is never actually stated what RING refers to, and has not been commented on by the director or screenwriter. They have been very Lynch-like in this regard. You should watch RING 2 to get an even better idea of what is going on, although, it is pretty much spelled out for you in the original. If you watched it and still don't get, you need to watch more movies and graduate high school before you're 30. While "Keen" isn't very eloquent or informative in his review, there's no reason to crucify him (though I know it's fun.)
RING on DVD by lucreangst	Jul 29th, 2002 11:58:05 AM
I assume Dreamworks owns the ditribution rights and won't release it till the remake comes out. The unfortunate thing is many American companies are gobbling up foreign rights and holding on to them, waiting to see if they want to do a remake, and we have to suffer with often unwatchable HK VCDs. If RING bombs, Dreamworks may be reluctant to release the original, or do it as cheaply as possible. AUDITION is available as a region 1 DVD (an excellent print with lots of extras) but as far as the U.K. is concerned, I'm not sure of the quality of the releases there. The remake of Insomnia sucked, too. Thank the movie gods that Criterion got their hands on those movies first.
Why it is called, "RING"... by lucreangst	Jul 29th, 2002 11:59:37 AM
It's not the ring of a phone. The Japanese have a specific phrase/word for that, and it is not RING, or RINGU (the original title in Japanese.) It does not refer to a piece of jewelry. Most believe it is about the cycle of the "virus" (a term used in one of the sequels). But, it is never actually stated what RING refers to, and has not been commented on by the director or screenwriter. They have been very Lynch-like in this regard. You should watch RING 2 to get an even better idea of what is going on, although, it is pretty much spelled out for you in the original. If you watched it and still don't get, you need to watch more movies and graduate high school before you're 30. While "Keen" isn't very eloquent or informative in his review, there's no reason to crucify him (though I know it's fun.)
What the fuck?!?!? by lucreangst	Jul 29th, 2002 11:59:46 AM
Have any of these "reviewers" seen the original? They continue to make comarisons to lame American horror films and don't even realise this movie is Japanese and most likely NOT influenced by American shit. Come one Harry, no more Ring reviews until someone sees the original. I don't expect much from an American remake, but a fresh perspective would be nice. The real info is here: http://www.somrux.com/ringworl d/ If you want to see Ring-meets-Omega Man, get the VCD of PULSE. As a side note: I think it would be a lot safer if Moriarty were on top.
The Best Site for RINGU Info by Paul Allen Voiq	Jul 29th, 2002 02:11:08 PM
If anyone wants to know anything about the Ring Films,books or Even the remake check out this cool site that has some creepy ass wallpaper. http://www.somrux.com/ringworl d/
(The) Ring(u) by BlankTom	Jul 29th, 2002 03:40:52 PM
Just a couple quick things. First off, I think the review has been criticized to death, so I don't even plan to go there, exept to show my disapointment at the BIG SPOILER that was needlessly inserted into the review. I'm not going to repeat it but if you saw the origional you know what i'm talking about. Also about the title. I guess it would be a good thing to change it. Not just because it will be confused with The Lord of the Rings but a lot of people (including myself at one point) will mistake Ring for meaning the Ring of the telephone. Of all the possible meaning behind the title, this is definatly not one of them. Also, i forget who mentioned it, but i checked out "FearDotCom" on imdb.com and it seems like a rip off of Ring except it uses the internet and the time limit is reduced to 48 hours. Does anyone know anything about this movie. Of course they don't go too much in depth in the discription (like why the people are dying and who/what is killing them) but from everything that is said, it looks almost identical to Ring... People die a mysterious and gruesome death a specific amount of time after viewing the site... The main character views the site himself and must find the mistery before his time is up... Even the site they view sounds an aweful lot like the video from Ring. I'm sure this could be an origional work that just sounds similar to Ring... but I have my doubts. Anyone have any input?
First KeenGuy points out that it's a supernatural movie, the by Niiiice	Jul 29th, 2002 04:03:59 PM
If this movie explained everything and broke down the exact scientific reasons things happened the way they did, then it wouldn't be "supernatural" it would just be "natural". The whole point is that it can't be explained, that's the horrific part about it. In the original, they try to find how the tape gets started and BEGIN SPOILER there comes a moment towards the end where Ryuji finally comes to the conclusion that it's an inexplicable product of Sadako's psychic rage. END SPOILER I don't know about the remake, but the best thing I liked about the original was that Reiko and Ryuji attempted to investigate and find a logical explanation behind the tape but were forced to realize that no logical explanation existed. Oh yeah, and it was in poor taste to expose Ring's big secret in the review, too.
RE: (The) Ring(u) by lucreangst	Jul 29th, 2002 04:51:40 PM
The movie you're thinking of is called PULSE by Kiyoshi Kurosawa (no relation to Akira). Very Ring-like but deals with the internet and the supernatural presence is on a much larger scale. Wes Craven is said to be remaking it.
Name change? They'd better get on the stick... by ThePoleOfJustice	Jul 29th, 2002 09:13:20 PM
The theatre I work at just got a trailer for "Ring," and it's labeled..."Ring." We JUST got this today, so maybe all the pistons aren't firing on the name change just yet...
This review contains SPOILERS by TheKeenGuy	Jul 29th, 2002 10:05:41 PM
In my original e-mail to AICN, I did state that the review had huge spoilers for both RING and MINORITY REPORT. That section of the review was excised when published. I do not approve of that decision.
RE: RE: (The) Ring(u) by BlankTom	Jul 29th, 2002 10:29:00 PM
Actualy, there is an "origional" movie coming out in the end of August "Feardotcom" SalaciousR_Crumb first mentioned it a couple posts up. So i checked it out and heard it being compared to "ring" and "pulse". I'm interested to see what it is like, so far i haven't heard too much about it.
RING means what you want it to mean by Vern	Jul 30th, 2002 02:37:36 PM
I always thought it was the ring of the telephone, but whatsisdick had a good argument for it not being that (since he says there is a different word for ringing telephones in japan). But why would it matter if people thought that was what it meant? I like the title because it has multiple meanings: the telephone ring, the ring of tapes, and the round object in the video which I will not say what it is on account of that is a spoiler.

Talkbacks

American Remake Of RING Changes Title'! Plus A Sneak Peek Review!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks