Ring 2.

Review #2310: Ring 2.

Cast: 

Miki Nakatani (Mai Takano), Rikiya Otaka (Yoichi Asakawa), Nanako Matsushima (Reiko Asakawa), Yoichi Numata (Takashi Yamamura), Rie Inō (Sadako Yamamura; Mebuki Tsuchida as young Sadako Yamamura), Kyoko Fukada (Kanae Sawaguchi), Yūrei Yanagi (Okazaki), Hitomi Satō (Masami Kurahashi), Hiroyuki Sanada (Ryuji Takayama), Fumiyo Kohinata (Ishi Kawajiri), and Kenjirō Ishimaru (Detective Keiji Omuta) Directed by Hideo Nakata (#1747 - Ring and #1755 - The Ring Two)

Review:

Yes, it seemed ideal to cover Hideo Nakata's first sequel to a film with Ring in the title. You might remember that Ring, as adapted from Koji Suzuki's 1991 novel of the same name, was released on the same day as Spiral on January 31, 1998. Wracked with the choice between film adaptations of the first book and the second book, people apparently were really big on picking the first one and ignoring the second one straight up. Nakata was once quoted saying that one of the changes for adaptation was to not involve the use of a "psych-meter" that was key in the horror-mystery plot. At any rate, here one is with the same director and writer (Hiroshi Takahashi) and a handful of cast members from before came out Ring 2; unlike the last two films, this one was not an adaptation of the novels (at the time of its release, Birthday, a short story collection novel and the fourth of the series, was not out). One year later in 2000, Takahashi returned to write Ring 0: Birthday, a prequel to the series. Nakata declined an offer to direct that film, although as you probably already know, he wound up being the director for the the 2005 sequel to the American remake.

It's very amusing that there basically are three Ring sequels in Japan and America that saw Nakata direct two of them, and it is the one that features psychic energy being channeled into a body of water that is somehow the best among the group. That is not particularly a compliment, because there just isn't enough tension here to make one believe that it really matters to justify itself beyond just feeling like an epilogue to the original. Some have apparently thought of the film as apparently taking some inspiration from Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977), which probably has something to do with the attempts at branching out beyond spooky tapes with, well, psychic energy and the apparent abilities of one certain person. The acting is passable but never particularly comes off as compelling with the various people that come and go (such as quiet kids, and a little bit of "oh hey, it's the person from the first film"); Nakatani has some of the curious energy required in inquisition, up to a point. The unravelling of what one gets to know about Sadako (such as a facial reconstruction) is interesting...some of the time. It basically is a procedural (with its own ideas of infecting one in more ways than one) that tries to coast on ideas that surely work better for those into "thoughtography" that isn't particularly scary. Some might call it the kind of movie that fits right in for those looking to absorb atmosphere and subtle nature, but it just seems hollow here, managing instead to feel like a collision of conversations that can only go so far before you wonder if you are going around in circles. The movie can't quite stick its trip down the well when it comes to finding a way to make sense of its actual landing (why is only this person who was saved, well, who really knows?), particularly in its actual final scene, which seems even more open to "throwing your hands up" than definitive, and I should mention that, well, the first film just happened to stick the landing closer in unsettling nature in ways the second never really gets to. As a whole, it has a few ideas perhaps worth looking into for 95 minutes that you either will go right in for as a proper way to follow Ring or you will just leave off mildly disappointed.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Rob Zombie's The Lords of Salem

Ring (1998).

Review #1747: Ring (1998). 

Cast: 

Nanako Matsushima (Reiko Asakawa), Hiroyuki Sanada (Ryūji Takayama), Rikiya Ōtaka (Yōichi Asakawa), Miki Nakatani (Mai Takano), Yuko Takeuchi (Tomoko Ōishi), Hitomi Sato (Masami Kurahashi), Daisuke Ban (Dr. Heihachiro Ikuma), Rie Inō (Sadako Yamamura), Masako (Shizuko Yamamura), Yōichi Numata (Takashi Yamamura), Yutaka Matsushige (Yoshino), and Katsumi Muramatsu (Kōichi Asakawa) Directed by Hideo Nakata.

Review: 

There are a variety of ways one can approach Japanese horror (also referred to as J-horror), but the most important thing is to try and remember the distinctions that come from looking at horror from a different country, particularly when a handful of these films have ended up being remade for Western audiences. Oh sure, there are movies like House (1977) that have endured without other cloying hands, but one focus lingers through a variety of these films in their focus on the supernatural along with Japanese folklore (whether involving ghosts or spirits), and films like Onibaba (1964) and Kwaidan (1965) are some of the numerous examples of the genre at its most ambitious. Of course, we are here to talk about Ring, so let us get on with it, particularly since it would be one of numerous films to find itself turned into an Western product like its counterparts in Dark Water (2002), Ju-On: The Grudge (2002) and others. The film arose from a novel of the same name, written in 1991 by Koji Suzuki. That book was successful enough to be followed by two further novels to form an initial trilogy with Spiral (1995) and Loop (1998), while Birthday (1999) was a short story collection; S (2012) and Tide (2013) was written by Suzuki as a new series of Ring novels. The first adaptation of the book was actually in 1995 with a television production that premiered on Fuji TV. The screenwriter for this film is Hiroshi Takahashi. Now, here's some fun confusion: the film would be followed by a plethora of sequels...including one that was released at the same time at this film. Yes, Spiral (1998) was released at the same time as this film as part of the strategy of Toho (distributor) in the hopes of increased revenues, which shared the same producers along with four castmates (Ban, Sanada, Matsushige, Nakatani) but with different directors/writer (unrelated to this, there was another production made in South Korea with The Ring Virus in 1999). Unlike Ring, Spiral was a failure, but a sequel would be constructed with Ring 2 (1999), which brought Nakata and Takahashi back that ignored Spiral while featuring several of the cast from Ring. Ring 0: Birthday (2000) was a prequel that had the same writer from the first two Rings based on the aforementioned 1999 book. Sadako 3D (2012) was a sequel...to Spiral, and it was followed by Sadako 3D 2 (2013); Sadako (2019) is based on the last novel of the series. Oh, and there were a bunch of other media such as manga and television...and an American remake (but you already knew that). 

Nakata did not initially spring to becoming a horror director, although he watched films like The Exorcist or the Amityville Horror series during his days in high school; he watched even more films in university, quoted by him as roughly 300 films a year during his studies, and he went to work for Nikkatsu studios after he had done his exam-work, where he worked a number of years as an assistant director. It was his work on Don't Look Up [Joyurei] (1996) that attracted interest from producers, and it was Koji Suzuki himself that asked him to direct Ring (who saw the way he worked on the other film). Ring was made for roughly $1.5 million dollars while having a production time of roughly five weeks (there was a pre-production period of three/four months); he noted one key difference in that the novel was a horror-mystery novel with a key device being a psych-meter being used to try and solve the mystery (along with changing the gender of the main character) to go with no shots of anyone actually dying (i.e. no details of the process like in the book). So, one is instead making a movie benefitting from urban legends...which sounds like something seen in Candyman (1992); this is merely an observation about perspectives in filmmaking, since Nakata studied various methods of story-telling that ranged from Kabuki theatre to The Ghost of Yotsuya (1959) to ancient histories and traditions in Japan, such as Onryō ("vengeful spirit") or the exploits of alleged clairvoyant Chizuko Mifune. So, yes, a movie about folks who hear about a tape that supposedly curses you to death in a week if you see it (in a certain resort in Izu) could have seemed quite silly if in lesser hands, particularly since this is a film that doesn't try to go with gore. Of course, it is the benefit that the film doesn't go with cheap tricks that makes Hideo Nakata's Ring work effectively as it does, as it manages to be quite eerie and riveting in its composition that leaves a good deal of things to the imagination of the viewer for effect that will likely work well for horror folks regardless if they see the film before or after the American version, which share distinct similarities and differences (namely in their methods of revealing certain details). Matsushima and Sanada (likely familiar for his action roles) make for a fair duo together when it comes to balancing curiosity and lingering fear that keep the film on its toes for 96 minutes when it comes to reasoned drama with each other (at least when one isn't thinking about who has mystical powers anyway such as the quiet Otaka), no matter which one you end up liking more. Of course one would remember the performance of Rie Inō when it comes to those brief moments involving Sadako, complete with an unnerving sequence in the end that doesn't even require much more than simple movement. The cursed tape has an interesting effect with being shot on 35mm that had some stuff added to look grainy, which works out pretty well in shuffling one's nerves and curiosity. It also  extends to the slow build in narrative threading (some concrete, some not) that plays on one's expectations and pre-conceptions with a sense of spirituality that made it a refreshing standout in its era, particularly with its final shot and lines that seals things quite carefully. If one is looking for a calmly paced horror film that grabs curiosity with a few resourceful techniques and solid tension, one could be right at home with a film like this.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Mummy (1999).