 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The Ring- 10/18/02 - PG-13 - 115m
Naomi Watts
Martin Henderson
David Dorfman
Director: Gore Verbinski
JEF
I wasn’t sure what to think about this movie. I had heard mixed
reviews, and thought it might be just another teenage slasher horror movie.
But boy was I wrong - I loved this movie.
This movie I think will become a classic horror movie. Falling in the
same category as "The Sixth Sense" and "The
Blair Witch Project". It mainly works on a psychological level
of fear. Which are the types of horror movies that I like, ones that get
inside your head, and twist things up.
I won’t go too far in describing the storyline of this movie. As
with most horror and suspense movies, the less you know the better.
Briefly: The story line revolves around a mysterious videotape.
It has a sort of urban legend attached to it, and part of the movie is
trying to determine if the urban legend is true or not. Supposedly after
viewing this video, you will have 7 days to live. After a reporter’s
niece dies of strange circumstances, the reporter, Rachel Keller (played
by Naomi Watts) is asked by her sister to look into things. Rachel then
goes about trying to uncover the truth about this videotape.
The movie is visually stunning. The use of color and images is fantastic.
One thing I’ve always liked is the ability to display the beauty
of an image that is deemed "gross", for example a quick scene
in the movie shows a close up of a bunch of squirming maggots, which is
then followed by a distance shot of thousands of people swimming or writhing
in a mud pit. Disgusting to think about but fantastic to look at.
The movie works on a lot of subconscious levels. From the very first few
frames of the movie we’re shown the title sequence from "Dreamworks"
which is a close-up of the letters, and then the boy seen fishing from
a sliver of the moon. Well, the "D" in Dreamworks, is flashed
with an image of "the ring". It only lasts a split second, but
it’s there. (This isn’t the first time Dreamworks alters this
title sequence… for example the movie Shrek, showed small horns,
or ears on the "D" and if I recall was all in green. –
But this was the first I’ve seen it done subtly like that). Throughout
the movie we’re also shown suggestions of "the ring" -
the design on Rachel’s shirt is a black circle with a fairy or angel
in it. Close ups on buttons, and manhole covers, etc… There’s
even one shot where "the ring" is flashed for a split second.
This sort of subconscious infiltration of the movie is what starts to
give you the creeps. The story is complicated, and I must admit doesn’t
always make sense. Things happen that defy logical sense. But it’s
always done in such a way that is tolerated. The whole sort of "suspension
of disbelief" kicks in, and the viewer gets taken for a ride.
Of course there are some gory scenes, but considering that the movie was
given a PG-13 rating, nothing too over-the-top. Although I’m a bit
surprised it did get the PG-13 rating.
There was one scene in particular that I thought was fantastic…
Rachel is on board a ferryboat, going to a remote island. She sees a horse
trailer and because of some of the clues she’s discovered that link
horses to the story, she walks over to see the horse. In doing so, the
horse becomes spooked and as Rachel attempts to calm the animal, it only
makes things worse. The horse escapes from the trailer and in an incredible
action sequence you really start to feel the horses fear and panic.
Another example of how good the movie is, is by listening to the reactions
of the audience. Unfortunately we had a group of noisy teenagers behind
us. A couple of squeamish teenyboppers who enjoyed acting like a couple
of 9 year olds. In spite of their inconsiderate talking, I still enjoyed
the movie. There was another more mature group of teenagers in front of
us, and the girl in front of me was caught up in the movie. She was sinking
down in her chair, clutching her boyfriend’s arm, and at times,
hiding her eyes (only partially), and talking back to the movie on occasion.
The only downside to this movie is that it felt a little too long…
It was only about 110 minutes, but it felt much longer. But don’t
let this discourage you from seeing this movie, as this was a minor point.
I’m actually considering seeing this movie for a second time. Or
in the very least will buy the DVD as soon as it comes out. I think this
will be the type of movie that does translate well to the "small
screen".
A few items of note:
This is a remake of a Japanese movie, which is based on a Japanese novel.
I’m not sure if it’s possible, but I would like to try and
get my hands on a copy of the Japanese version of this movie for comparison.
Another thing that added to the depth of this film is the addition of
Japanese art throughout the movie. There were several paintings of the
Japanese style Ink painting called "Sumi-e", and one scene where
Noah (Martin Henderson) was leafing through some medical files, and one
of the sheets of paper is all Japanese writing. The Single tree on the
hill is an image used in the movie several times, which also suggests
a Japanese tie-in to the Bonsai Trees.
The movie for the most part has fairly unknown actors and actresses. I
only really recognized two actors, Brain Cox, who played the part of Richard
Morgan and Richard Lineback who played the part of the Innkeeper. Naomi
Watts who played the part of Rachel Keller has been in other films, but
I did not recognize her.
There were also small references in the movie to other horror movies…
the most obvious was a scene where Rachel is in the shower, and we’re
shown the dirt and blood swirling down the drain – a scene right
out of Alfred Hitchcock’s "Psycho".
Jef