87. Ring; movie review
RING
Cert 15
91 mins
BBFC advice: Contains strong supernatural threat
On one hand, I have huge admiration for Hideo Hakata's super creepy thriller Ring. On the other, I wish it had never been made.
This is really how horror should be made. No blood, gore or false shocks. Instead, it concentrates on what the mind doesn't see or anticipates is going to happen.
I was on edge throughout its devilishly clever 91 minutes even though I have seen it at least twice previously.
What a shame then that those who have sought to follow its lead have not understood its guiding principles.
Ring hit the screens 20 years ago at the same time as another groundbreaker, The Blair Witch Project which has suffered from similarly poor copycats.
We should remember this was a time when audiences had been swamped with the slasher franchises such as Nightmare On Elm Street and Halloween.
Ring offered them something so different that Hollywood was desperate to get its paws on it, releasing its own version a couple of years later.
Of course, despite the much higher budget, it wasn't nearly as sinister.
The Japanese have a wonderful ability to know when less is more and never has that been more obvious than during Ring.
It stars Nanako Matsushima as a newspaper reporter who is investigating the mysterious link of deaths of four young people to a video.
Thus, she makes the mistake of tracking down the tape and seeing it for herself.
The consequence is that she receives a phone call to tell her that she will die within a week.
In a panic, she enlists the help of her psychic ex-husband (Hiroyuki Sanada) and they try to discover the origins of the tape.
Oh, and did I mention her eerie son (Rikiya Ôtaka) (doesn't every good horror have a strange child?).
Hakata does a great job of building up tension, using dark and fear-inducing locations and his cast are more than adept at reflecting the horror of their situation and the desperation of a race against the clock to stay alive.
It is very much worth re-visiting.
Reasons to watch: Classic thriller which spawned many much weaker imitations
Reasons to avoid: It will make you jump
Laughs: None
Jumps: Four
Vomit: None
Nudity: None
Overall rating: 9/10
Did you know? Ring was based on a moderately successful novel by written by Kōji Suzuki which had been published in 1991.
The final word: Hideo Nakata: "During the release of Ring I went to five or six theatres and saw kids calling each other on their cell phones right after the screening, telling them “boy this is really scary you should go watch it.” I was really pleased to see all this self-marketing going on between the kids!" Off Screen
Cert 15
91 mins
BBFC advice: Contains strong supernatural threat
On one hand, I have huge admiration for Hideo Hakata's super creepy thriller Ring. On the other, I wish it had never been made.
This is really how horror should be made. No blood, gore or false shocks. Instead, it concentrates on what the mind doesn't see or anticipates is going to happen.
I was on edge throughout its devilishly clever 91 minutes even though I have seen it at least twice previously.
What a shame then that those who have sought to follow its lead have not understood its guiding principles.
Ring hit the screens 20 years ago at the same time as another groundbreaker, The Blair Witch Project which has suffered from similarly poor copycats.
We should remember this was a time when audiences had been swamped with the slasher franchises such as Nightmare On Elm Street and Halloween.
Ring offered them something so different that Hollywood was desperate to get its paws on it, releasing its own version a couple of years later.
Of course, despite the much higher budget, it wasn't nearly as sinister.
The Japanese have a wonderful ability to know when less is more and never has that been more obvious than during Ring.
It stars Nanako Matsushima as a newspaper reporter who is investigating the mysterious link of deaths of four young people to a video.
Thus, she makes the mistake of tracking down the tape and seeing it for herself.
The consequence is that she receives a phone call to tell her that she will die within a week.
In a panic, she enlists the help of her psychic ex-husband (Hiroyuki Sanada) and they try to discover the origins of the tape.
Oh, and did I mention her eerie son (Rikiya Ôtaka) (doesn't every good horror have a strange child?).
Hakata does a great job of building up tension, using dark and fear-inducing locations and his cast are more than adept at reflecting the horror of their situation and the desperation of a race against the clock to stay alive.
It is very much worth re-visiting.
Reasons to watch: Classic thriller which spawned many much weaker imitations
Reasons to avoid: It will make you jump
Laughs: None
Jumps: Four
Vomit: None
Nudity: None
Overall rating: 9/10
Did you know? Ring was based on a moderately successful novel by written by Kōji Suzuki which had been published in 1991.
The final word: Hideo Nakata: "During the release of Ring I went to five or six theatres and saw kids calling each other on their cell phones right after the screening, telling them “boy this is really scary you should go watch it.” I was really pleased to see all this self-marketing going on between the kids!" Off Screen
0 Response to "87. Ring; movie review"
Posting Komentar