Hey folks, Harry here... Moriarty's top secret screening is actually... A REMAKE! That's right, a remake of a classic modern horror film called THE RING. Now years ago, Moriarty and I held an advance screening of GLADIATOR months before it came out... On that one, we approached Dreamworks and said that based on the test screening response at the time, which was fabulous, that we (Moriarty & I) would love to test the film ourselves up at San Francisco at the Metreon. They gave us the film - and the following year, they had the Best Picture. This time Dreamworks approached AICN and Moriarty with the idea of hosting a screening opposite the FANGORIA WEEKEND OF HORRORS to screen for the fans of horror films... the remake of THE RING. Moriarty and I had not seen the film, but we will be publishing all the reviews we get as a response... This first one is positive with no spoilers... Here ya go...
I really really enjoyed The Ring. I have not had that much fun at a horror film in a long time. Now I dont know about the other guys who went to the screening, as I came from my house and not from the Fangoria thing that was goin on, but when i heard we were watching the Ring, I was excited, but i also knew not to expect blood and guts.
There were some hecklers behind me who never gave the film a chance and I think its because they went in there with the wrong mindset... this was not a shove the blood and guts and horror in your face film, in was more suspense oriented, so i guess i can see their dissapointments. But I enjoyed the movie very much. The actual "tape" and what was on it reminded me alot of Salvador dali's Un Chien Andalou (which I watched before going to the screening ironically), and the actual tape itself isnt that scary... its just odd and ev! erything is slightly off, but every image in the tape has a meaning and is shown through the movie.
I have heard some complaints about plotholes, but I dont really see that many, there was a lot of subtle loose ends that were tied up without hammering it into you Signs-style. Maybe we saw a different movie, I dont know, but I was very surprised at how well made it was, I thought Naomi Watts was quite good and so was the kid (although there were some Shining rip off scenes), I really hope they just tighten up the ending a bit... it seemed to end like three times (but when the real ending came up, it was really worth it).
So overall, i would definitely reccomend this movie, it was very enjoyable, and pretty damn freaky. Im going to pay to see it in theaters just to see if they changed anything, and to see the soundtrack they put in (as the one that was there was a temp). Also please note, i have not seen the Japanese original, but on its own it is! quite good.
---From: God I wish I was Toshiro Mifune
This one, which does have spoilers - clearly marked spoilers - and is negative on the film. So here ya go...
Hi guys! KCMOSHer here with my take on the screening of The Ring awhile ago (about 40 minutes ago, by my watch). It was great seeing Moriarty in the flesh, though there were always too many around him to go say hi. (Not that you'd know me from Adam anyway, I'm not even a talkbacker.) Yes, this is HUGE. I suffer from the same thing as my idol, Stephen King: literary elephantisis. Edit me all ya like, I understand space constraints.
I'll tell you, I'm a conflicted man right now. This was a great opportunity, a major studio giving us a chance to sink our teeth into a major flick prior to it's release. Chances are, if the collected group hands their ass to them, this kind of thing will never happen again.
Well, I don't think it's gonna happen again. :(
I've gotta be honest: this isn't a stinker, but it's far from a hit and will probably be taken apart by the fanboys in attendance.
I'll remain spoiler free until a specific point where I'll warn. Past that, venture at the risk of ruining the film, as there is NO WAY discuss my complaints in full without ruining the secrets this movie holds.
We all know the setup: a remake of a major Japanese horror film, a modern classic, The Ring follows a videotape. When one sees this videotape, the phone rings, and a voice tells you that you have seven days to live. After seven days, you die.
In this version, we have Rachel, a working mom who appears to be less than an ideal parent. She seems to be focused on her work more than her son, Hayden. The film begins with the death of a teen at the hands of the tape. This teen is Rachel's niece, and her mother's desire to know how her daughter died (references to a stroke and her heart just stopping are heard) is what sets Rachel on the trail of this urban legend: the tape that kills.
I have to say, I haven't seen the original and I haven't read much about it past the fact that it's supposedly awesome and blows most western horror out of the water. I'm VERY curious, now, to see it. If it has this pacing and these plot problems.
See, watching this movie reminded me of playing an adventure game on the PC. One of those old Sierra games, maybe the Gabriel Knight series, where you link an item or a picture or a written clue to some location, go to that location and ask questions, and be led to another clue. It's tedious work and, honestly, so is much of the film. The plot of the movie isn't so much a plot, per se, as the concept of the film itself: there's this tape, and it kills, but why? Our leads take the whole film to find out the origin of the tape and how it works, because they've seen it and know they're going to die if they don't. It doesn't really follow the usual three-act pattern. More like a brief first act, a brief second act, and a REALLY long third act. (Following the old script writing adage, they put them in the tree fast, then throw one big rock at them...then it takes them two hours to get out of the damn tree!)
I hate to say this, but that isn't much of a story. We don't care about our main characters, in fact, both the male and female leads are particularly unsympathetic. She's a lousy mother and a bit of a bitch, he's an irresponsible dickhead. I was rooting for the tape to get 'em both by the end.
While watching the movie, I didn't find myself thinking 'this is slow', but afterwards, that feeling definitely hit me. 'It took them two hours to tell me THAT story?' Too many questions left unanswered, too little information overall. I summarized every fact we learned in less than 60 seconds, yet it took them 120 minutes. Hmm...there's a problem there, and I don't think tightening the editing will help. The problem is with the story and the characters, and how they develop. It just takes too long and we're stuck on this journey with people we don't really like, kind of like being stuck next to an annoying salesman-type on a long flight. It's not horrible, but you're anxious for it to be over.
Yes, there are creepy moments. Yes, the tape itself is disturbing and a little cool. Yes, there were some nice ooky moments mixed in with the usual cheap jump scares. Yes, the cinematography is very pretty and eerie.
But overall? I can't find a reason to recommend this to anyone. I also have WAY too many problems with the script, which I shall dive into now.
BE WARNED, MASSIVE SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT!!!!
The opening of the film made absolutely no sense when compared to the rest of the film. The story of the tape is so widespread, little miss teenybopper friend of the first victim just happens to know ALL about it. The rules of how it works, everything. After the girl is killed, Rachel interviews her friends outside at the funeral. All of them, especially this creepy Nick Brendon lookalike, happen to know EVERYTHING about it. Who watched it, who died, how it works...and that's it. These characters and the source of their knowledge never show up again. How do they know? Who else has died? What the hell?
This tape just showed up in the borrowing library at a small cabin resort/hotel up in the mountains. Of course, at the end of the film, we find out that the girl was killed in a well that the cabin was built to hide. How was the cabin built over the well to hide the crime when the family didn't own the resort? WHY a tape to begin with, when this is supposed to have happened 18 years ago (long before tapes were common)? How did these high school kids she talks to find out about the tape if it only showed up because the kids who watched it tried to tape a football game in the VCR in the cabin over the well that she died in? (Just READ that sentence and tell me we aren't on shaky scriptwriting ground here!)
SO many unanswered questions. What did the father have to do with it? Why did the mother kill her if she wanted a child so badly? References made to the girl hurting the mother...how? Why? What's the deal with the horses, why does the horse go berserk on the ferry? Why does Rachel have the distorted face if she isn't going to die? What, from now on, she's gonna have f'd up photos because she watched the tape?
Okay, so the little dead girl is an evil little bitch, but what's the big deal about 'freeing' her? She wasn't having trouble killing people from inside the well, why would it help her for her corpse to be outside the well buried in a graveyard? Are we gonna see a little rotted corpse hanging around tape duplication houses, chuckling to herself as she spreads her demonic evil? That whole deal just kind of blew the whole tale. The REASON for her killing was HER death, according to the REST of the story. Being alive for seven days in the well before finally dying, that explains the water, that explains the nearest TV turning on and showing the well before the people died, it explains the time limit. By having NONE of that matter, you blow away the whole point! So what will new people who watch the tape see before they die, a nice tidy gravesite with a pretty little headstone instead of water and a well?
It all feels really convenient and forced. It all feels like 'hey, we bought this GREAT concept, let's write a story around it!'
I'm really disappointed. I had high hopes. I'm still glad it wasn't Swimfan (EVIL, EVIL Moriarty for making us think we were gonna have to suffer through that obvious 'Fatal Attraction by way of Seventeen Magazine' shite!) but I can honestly say I'm not going to see the end product in theaters, and I won't recommend the picture to anyone.
Thanks again for the experience, let me know if you ever need a 'spy' for a screening, I'm always game. :)
I am...
The KCMOSHer
Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with a few more responses. I expect we'll get flooded with these over the coming few days. Talking with people after the screening, I heard very good and very bad responses, and a big part of the difference seems to be based on your personal definition of horror. Personally, I'm delighted that DreamWorks has made something that remains true to the spirit of the original and plays dark all the way to the end. I have some quibbles with the film, but I'll address those in my review sometime tomorrow night.
And in response to "Heywood Jablowmie" in the Talk Backs, I would offer this thought: I was very clear from the beginning that this was going to be a glimpse at something that isn't out yet, something from a major studio. No one deceived you. I never even suggested that it would be some obscure older film, so don't act disappointed. AICN has always been about offering you a look at something before anyone else, and today was fully keeping in the spirit of that. If you didn't like the film, that's fine. As I said to the crowd beforehand, the important thing is responding. Good, bad, whatever. NRG tries to stop you from telling people what you thought of the film, but today was the exact opposite. How precisely is it selling out if we run all the responses to the screening... including yours? Did anyone boot you from the Talk Backs because you didn't like the film? Did I say to the crowd, "Only send me positive responses"? Nope. This is as democratic as the process gets, and you had your say. Now quit your bellyaching.
Here's another reader's reaction to this afternoon:
First, thanks to Moriarty for running this screening so professionally. I usually loathe such free screenings because people often feel that because they didn't pay they can act like idiots and talk to the screen, much on their popcorn loudly, forget to turn their cell phones off etc. (go to an Entertainment Weekly free screening to experience that kind of lunkhead audience).
But then, this was an AICN crowd, movie buffs galore and the respectful, quiet audience this afternoon proves that AICN readers in general are a smart lot.
But onto the movie - THE RING remake!
Was very psyched to see this because I'd seen the original and enjoyed it (though I do think it's a bit over-rated).
Also, I'm a big admirer of Ehren Kruger's screenwriting (ARLINGTON ROAD particularly).
I just like his tone and style of writing and when I read in Variety he was offered the re-make writing gig for the RING, I was thrilled. A friend slipped me a production draft of the RING remake last month and it didn't disappoint - I read it in one sitting - and I rarely do that anymore.
THERE MAY BE SPOILERS FROM HEREON...
I'd say overall, the movie lived up to my expectations. HOWEVER I do have some criticisms:
1) In the draft of the script I read it was more apparent why the parents killed the daughter, and it's not clear in this version of the film. Storywise, this is the biggest flaw of the film. In the draft I read it was made apparent that the daughter was telepathically "imprinting" visual images into the parent's heads and they thought they were going insane because of this. That, on top of the horses' suicides, drove them to kill her. Dreamworks needs to fix this badly or there will be a lot of people shaking their heads when they walk out of the theater. The "creepy" factor won't be enough to please American audiences that need to know why things happen quite literally in their films.
2) What works on the page often doesn't work when executed on film: too much backstory told through the reporter (Naomi Watts) protagonist as she tries to uncover the origins of the tape and what it means. I hate it when characters talk to themselves just so we can have information pertinent to the story - this is probably my biggest criticism of Kruger's script. Verbinski directs these sequences as well as any other director could, but it just feels clunky to me to keep having montages of newspaper pictures, headlines and text to get the backstory across with an actor reading some of the text out loud.
3) In the first 20 minutes of the movie, the supers of the days ("Friday", "Thursday" etc.) up until Watts's character watches the tape are superfluous and add nothing in terms of tension. I would delete these. Also, they are confusing to the audience because they are of no consequence to the story. BUT after Watts watches the tape, THEN we need to know how many days have passed.
4) Changed ending from the draft I read, in which Watts takes her son to a video store to drop off the tape, and then some other customers come in and talk about the tape in rumor-mode: "...and she wants you to watch it" repeated over and over and over by different customers until the voices are complete static. This would have been a much more dramatic ending that really gets across the concept of a "ring" tape that gets passed around out of necessity.
As it is now, the film just kinda ends abruptly, as if someone just pulled the plug on the projector. Not very satisfying, at least to this viewer.
ON THE PLUS SIDE:
1) Great moody photography, lighting and camera work, which is key to a genre movie like this. Editing was also well done. Sharp cuts when needed for shock effect were nicely done.
2) Good acting all around - uncanny, though, how much Naomi Watts looks like Nicole Kidman here, but that's a compliment coming from this straight male ;-) Also, I think Brian Cox is the most underrated character actor going today. He was superb in his small role as the father.
3) I liked Kruger's addition of the suicidal horses plot element - freaky and works properly with the tone of the original story. It's been a while since I saw the Japanese original, but I don't think this was a plot element in it.
CONCLUSION:
Does Dreamworks have a hit on their hands? Potentially. I think the final score and sound editing will play a BIG part in locking in the right mood and texture. But there will basically be two camps to this movie: folks who like atmosphere and can accept a bizarre plot point (e.g., water coming out of phones, the lid of the well moving by itself, the girl crawling through the TV in the climax etc. - events for which no explanation is given - you just have to accept and go with it) will enjoy it. But those who cannot, who absolutely need everything explained to them, will hate it. If you like David Cronenberg films, I think you'll dig RING. I'm a big Cronenberg fan, so you know what camp I'm in.
As is, I did enjoy this, save for the above weaknesses mentioned. I'll be paying to see it for the final score/sound design and just to see how they change it - if they do.
Cheers,
Brendon
This guy strongly disliked the film. Let's see why...
I was at the screeing of The (Bo)Ring today in Pasadena. I'm just glad I got out of the theater in time to see George Romero and Bruce Campbell over at the Fangoria Convention, or it would've been a wasted day.
I've not seen the original, so I don't know how this remake stacks up, but I certainly have no interest in seeing it if it's anything like what I saw today. The first 10 minutes or so were poorly executed, and failed to build any kind of tension for me. As the film progressed I kept wondering why I was supposed to care about any of these characters. The lead actress played an absolute moron, showing the tape (with little reservation) to the first person she could find, and then leaving it lying around for a child to see when she knows it might be dangerous.
The plot plays out like a typical ghost story, at times reminiscent of The Changeling, The Others, and The Shining (all far better films). Typical, that is, until the end, which basically invalidates everything we've just seen. On top of that, the film has several 'false endings'. I can't remember how many times in the last 20 minutes the screen faded to black, only to fade up again to torture us some more.
At no time did I feel the slightest bit of tension or concern for these character's well-being. At least we had the satisfaction of solving a crime with the characters, until the filmmakers decided to negate all of the research and investigating with that awful ending.
As bad as the film was, I appreciate the opportunity Harry and Moriarty gave us to see it, and hopefully this review (as well as the other negative reviews I've already seen) will save a few people their precious time and money.
The Flouncing Nard
Here's one from somebody who seems to be gearing up for next month's RULES OF ATTRACTION screening at the Egyptian. Should be a blast...
Hello, I sent one of the earlier "Battle Royal" reviews from the Egyptian a couple of years ago and thought I'd send in a a better review of "The Ring" for you since, it seems, all I've been reading are reviews from people who really weren't paying attention to the film.
First I'd like to thank Dreamworks and Moriarity for putting together a smooth, complimentary screening for the film. Everyone got in and there was no problems. I hope to attend Moriarity's next screening which is of "Rules of Attraction," which if he was correct when he told me after the screening, should be in September.
Everyone who's reading already knows what the movie is about so I'll spare you the plot summary. Let me begin by saying that I have seen the original and all its glory, so naturally the American version has to be a 60 million dollar peice of wash out right?...........right? Well not exactly. All the scares in the original are present in this version, and even though some plot details have been changed for the Dreamworks release, they don't make the film any worse. The film is eerie, but lacks the really creepy atmospheric feeling of the Japanese film (which like any other great horror picture can be credited to its low budget.) Anyone going into this film without knowing it's a remake of a film that has had more hype than "Blade 2" before even being viewed, should have an excellent time.
The look of the film is clean, and reminded me a lot of "What Lies Beneath." And did I mention that the dead victims looked GREAT! But apparently the "in" thing to do is bash the film because some people have plot hole problems. The movie was not hard to follow, so when I read about people questioning certain things I get a little frustrated because I realize why exactly American remakes have to be dumbed down...
SLIGHT spoilers:
.....why did the mother commit suicide after having to kill her daughter? How was the father involved? Why do the horses go crazy? How does Samara put her thoughts on video? Why does Naomi Watts have a distorted face (before she makes a video copy)? All of these questions are answered if you just pay attention.
The only thing I question is what Naomi Watts's son said after he wakes up towards the end of the film. How what he speaks about will change anything that is already going on is beyond me, but that is minor.
END spoilers.
The point of this email was to defend a film that I feel can strongly stand on its own without being compared to an original version that 97% of its future viewers will never see. Moriarity mentioned that Dreamworks felt they had a winner and I strongly agree. All I've been reading is "plot hole this" and "plot hole that." Well, now you know the movie actually convincingly explains what is going on and delivers quite a few scares without resorting to the usual "hand on someones shoulder" jump. It's a great remake and improves on a lot of what the original film lacked. The film will obviously be miles above flicks like "Feardotcom" and "Ghost Ship." The key here is that it wasn't too gory, which says alot about the acting, writing, and directing, because the film presented PLENTY of frights and chills. Much like the original, it doesn't feel like a horror movie, something about it is, just, different. The situations, the pacing. The mood of the original is not lost. Highly recommended. See you at "Rules of Attraction!".
JiveGuy
I'm getting a few that are almost too brief, like this one:
I saw The Ring thanks to you good folks at the site, and all I can say is it beats the pance of the Korean version. Thanks a bunch. Let me know when you screen more flicks. Have a good one.
Take that, you crazy Koreans and your "pance"!!
Here's another one, and I'm pleased to see people trying to set this into context based on what else scares them. It helps when you're trying to gauge how you might feel about the movie...
Moriarity,...
I was at the AICN private screening for the Ring, thanks it was great.
Before the movie you asked the audience to e-mail you and let you know what we thought about the film, I figured I owed you that much. Now going in to see this I didn't know what we were seeing, when I found out it was the The Ring I was excited ,I mean I read all the hype surrounding this film, It is a remake of a foreign film that was supposed to be scary as hell and all things point to the ring being a great. Now when I think of "Horror" films I think of The Exorcist, The Thing, Halloween, The Entity, The Shining, Alien, great horror films, These movies were amazing and really scared the fucking shit out of me at one point or another, I'm not a big fan of the Scream type horror film, The first Scream was o.k. because it was the first movie of that kind , but now we get the Urban Legends, or the I Know Who the Killer Is Because This Movie Sucks This Summer type horror films, 13Ghosts sucked balls, The House On Haunted Hill Wasn't, or the Haunted , remember that piece of shit with Liam Neeson and Catherine "Zeta" Jones, yeah real fucking scary, now Rosemary's Baby is scary. Now having said all that, I'll say this, I really enjoyed the Ring and it could belong on that list of all-time great horror films. Now you did say before the show that the film was an early cut and Dreamworks is re-shooting a scene, basically that there could be changes to the film by its release date. The film had legitimate scary scenes, I give Dreamworks credit for trying to make a great Horror film, this film is definitely worth seeing, more so then most of the hyped up stuff we've been given this summer. The video tape in the movie is creepy as hell, the whole tone of the movie and the way it is shot is effective and scary. This movie could have easily taken a Event Horizon turn for the worse but it didn't!
I'm sure the film can only be better by its release date, with some fine tuning it could be a classic. Keep the contests/screenings coming.
Frankie Flannery
Here's the last one for now, but we'll keep putting them up as they come in, so check back later for more...
I just got back from the "private screening" of The Ring, and after a few hours of discussing the movie and allowing it to digest, I think I can finally type a review. As someone who has seen the original, and would even go so far as to say that Ring is my favorite horror film ever made, right ahead of The Exorcist and Silence of the Lambs for me, this version not only compares favorably, but actually manages to improve upon the Japanese original, but more on that later. First, let me say that neither myself nor the friend I brought with me would classify Ring as being "scary."
No, as we searched for words, the most agreed upon description was "nightmarishly disturbing," much like the videotape itself. In fact, many of the visuals that elicit such a description come from the tape, the "nail through the finger" and corpses of the victims being the two that especially left us shaken, long after the film actually ended. Ring, you see, is a movie that stays with you. You don't forget it, and you find yourself discussing it for quite a while after it is done. The original movie gave me a nightmare, but this version will give me several.
The cast was exceptional, very impressive, and if the music was temporary and several of the f/x incomplete, I never noticed once, because of how intense and gripping the story was. The biggest difference to the original is that this film dwells more upon the supernatural, and has far more jolting, jarring, and horrific moments, which works well in the long haul, but detracts a bit from the ending, which, in the original, is a huge payoff, but here is not much of a step further than what we've already seen. I heard they were thinking of cutting a scene from the movie, my advice is, whatever the scene, do not cut it. Do not change a thing. This film is perfect as it is, and one of the all-time best horror films ever made. Don't change it, release the film as it is. It is 100% perfection.
Not many remakes are superior to the original, especially when the original is held in such high regard, but this is one of the few films to do it. This film is sure to make a lot of money at the box office, and it deserves to. The buzz is going to be enormous, and Naomi Watts is sure to be a major star after this movie. I plan on seeing it again when it is released nationally, and I plan on bringing a few people with me, and telling the rest the same thing: They have to see this movie.
Larry
Wow!! Larry's in love!!
