I remember years ago that when I first heard the term ‘sequel-itis’, I took it as a good thing. I mean, I love the Friday the 13th movies, the Evil Dead movies, where would Star Wars be without Empire, The Godfather without Godfather 2 and imagine a world without Dawn of the Dead. It’s very scary.
While watching The Ring 2 however, I realized something. Sequel-itis is a bad thing. It is a disease, a scourge, and this film suffers from it, badly. Sometimes it is better to leave a good story alone, and only make a sequel if you have another story to tell.
The Ring 2 picks up six months after The Ring‘s discovery of a mysterious videotape about a girl named Samara who brings unexplained deaths to the Seattle area. Naomi Watts reprises her role as Rachel Keller, the newspaper reporter who investigated the story and was subsequently tormented by it, who has moved with her son Aidan to the quiet ocean-side town of Astoria, Oregon. Rachel takes a job with the small, local newspaper and feels the change will help them move on with their lives. At first, everything feels right; Rachel’s new job is going well and Aidan has taken an interest in photography.
But the peace and tranquility is broken when Rachel uncovers an unusual teen homicide that has all of the familiar markings of the deadly videotape. Aidan begins having horrific nightmares and soon he becomes gravely ill. Suddenly, no matter where Rachel and Aidan go, Samara follows to wreak havoc. She appears on walls, in mirrors, and on Aidan’s film. She even manifests herself as a deer in one of the film’s most surreal moments. Looking for answers about Samara’s return and Aidan’s illness, Rachel embarks on another expedition (just as she did in the first film) for the clues that will unravel the final pieces of the mystery.
The movie, after the beginning, ditches the tape, but the hint-filled images pop up in the same order. In fact, most of the movie follows the pattern of the first one. It’s the same song, only some of the words have changed. This really saps a lot of the suspense from the film. This movie feels like one you’ve already seen before.
Another problem is the change in Samara from wrathful spirit to the standard “ghost with cryptic a desire/plan” that appears in most ghost stories. She works much better as a merciless, creepy, driven (and soggy) wraith with a videotape hook. She’s gone from a unique, cool villain to being yet another spook.
Visually, The Ring 2 is very cool. It has some great moody scenes, some cool effects and some interesting takes on bits from the first film. This is not without its faults, though. Another problem is that a lot of those moody shots go on, and on, and on. Some judicious editorial work would have improved the film greatly.
One hesitates to use the word disappointing to describe the sequel to a horror film. After seeing even a scant minute of Jaws: The Revenge and hearing Mario Van Peebles’s hilarious accent, any moviegoer should have guarded expectations for the continuation of entertaining horror stories. But The Ring 2 seemed like a different animal. Returning its two lead actors and the director of The Ring’s much ballyhooed Japanese predecessor, Ringu, a good portion of the population was convinced the newer Ring could overcome its horror-sequel nature. And so, to the tune of 35.1 million wasted dollars, The Ring 2 educates on why for every Dawn of the Dead there are a dozen films like Exorcist II: The Heretic.
You know how a lot of car commercials advertise their vehicle can go from zero to x in y amount of seconds? The Ring 2 manages to go from ‘Sweet’ (the previous movie) to ‘Blech’ (The Ring 2) faster than your head can spin. This, is yet another example of how not to do a horror movie.