Ringu Reviews

• The surprisingly unique Japanese film that inspired The Ring

  
  By A3KF4IP2MUS8QQ on 2003-08-03
  I loved The Ring, and I had been looking forward to seeing the original Japanese adaptation of the film, based on the novel by Koji Suzuki, for some time. I was especially pleased to see the Japanese film released with English subtitles rather than voice dubbing, since this helps preserve the original atmosphere of the film. Both Ringu and The Ring are superb, dark, creepy films, very similar yet very different from one another. Inevitably, whichever film you watch first will probably be your favorite of the two. Ringu starts out very much like its American counterpart, with two young girls alone in a house discussing the rumors going around about a video that somehow kills you seven days after you watch it. The aunt of the first victim is a reporter who begins to investigate the story of the tape, soliciting the help of her somewhat inscrutable ex-husband, and soon finding herself in an incredible fight to save the lives of herself, her ex, and her creepy little boy. At this point, Ringu begins to distinguish itself from The Ring, although both follow the same general plot through to the end.
  
  Perhaps the biggest difference between Ringu and The Ring is the contents of the mysterious videotape. In Ringu, the cursed tape is much shorter and far less symbolic, although its grainy appearance and comparative simplicity add a greater dash of realism to it. The tape presented in The Ring is much more frightening and visceral; subtlety rules the day in the Japanese film. Another significant difference concerns the character of the reporter's ex-husband; in Ringu, he (as well as his son, to some degree) possesses a gift that distinguishes him from his American counterpart. This aids the plot along, but it deprives the viewer of some of the mystery and insight gained from watching the mystery unfold in The Ring. Ringu's storyline is much more compact and straightforward, providing us with much less insight into the forces at play in explaining the existence of the cursed video. There is one jolting plot twist in the later stages of The Ring that is not found in Ringu, and I think this takes a little something away from the concluding drama, but Ringu definitely delivers a much more frightening, completely unforgettable climax. The big scene with the little girl climbing out of the well is pretty darned creepy in The Ring, but Ringu's presentation of this seminal event is many times more impressive and frightening; I only wish I could have seen the scene from Ringu before I saw The Ring. It is spooky enough as it is, but I can only dream about the impact the scene might have on those with no previous knowledge of what is about to happen. What The Ring accomplishes pretty impressively with a type of trick photography is expressed naturally in Ringu, making it much more eerie and unsettling.
  
  If you did see and enjoy The Ring, I would definitely recommend getting a copy of Ringu. The knowledge you already have will diminish the impact Ringu has on you, but there are enough differences between the two films to guarantee you a thoroughly enjoyable return trip into this most special world of fear. If you are debating which version to see first, I would recommend starting out with Ringu, if for no other reason than for the power of the much creepier ending. I prefer The Ring's more elaborate and symbolic presentation, more in-depth background into the story of the tape, and added plot twists to the less elaborate presentation of Ringu, but the fact that the American film adds new elements to the plot makes The Ring more engaging for those having already seen Ringu than Ringu is for those having already seen The Ring.
  
  

• "Will scare the living hell out of you!"- Ringu cover

  
  By AO0RSTQJCFV65 on 2003-01-22
  Premise(As displayed on Ringu Box":

  "Within a week of watching a mysterious videotape, a group of teenagers are dead. The bodies are found gruesomely contorted, their eyes frozen as if they had seen something more terrifying than any physical threat. The video becomes an urban myth. Insidiously, an unseen force is pointing its deadly finger at those poor souls unable to resist their curiosity. One of those people is the cynical journalist, Reiko, who soon finds herself unwillingly drawn into a spiralling nightmare from an unseen, omnipresent threat. The most unsettling film since the Exorcist, with an unnatural presence that touches every nerve in your body, Ringu is a beast of an entirely different order. Critically acclaimed as one of the most frightening horror films in years, Ringu delivers a tense spine-chilling atmosphere, filled with an overwhelming sense of dread and a potent presence of unworldly evil. Dark, sinister and genuinely horrifying, this is a film you will never forget."- Ringu cover

  My Review:

  For those who have seen the ring, and really liked it, this movie is a real treat! While The Ring was a more "Real" movie(meaning that it is almost a possibilty of something that is not too far off from real life) Ringu is very "Unreal"(It goes very ESP style pshycic) it is overall scarier than the ring however not as enjoyable once you have already seen it. This movie is based on the book: Ringu by Koji Suzuki.

  Both movies however are good, and entertaing, and both have the same moral to the story:

  Curiosity killed the Cat.
  
  

• The Greater Half of the 'Ring-u'

  
  By AGKOHQI1OP8V3 on 2003-03-11
  'Ringu' tells the tale of a video tape that, for reasons unknown, that kills you seven days after you watch it.

  Reiko, a journalist, is greeted by a death in the family one day. Her teenage niece died mysteriously one day, leaving no trace as to why. She soon discovers that three other of her niece's close friends died on the same day as her. Upon further investigation, she finds that the four teenagers had something in common: they had all seen a cryptic video tape. The trail leads her to the tape itself and, out of curiosity, watches it. The urban legend is proven to be a lot more real than she ever expected and soon, Reiko is on a race against time to decipher the mysteries of the tape.

  'Ringu' (viewed at home) achieves a sense of fear throughout the movie in the way it 'connects' with the viewer. How obvious can it get? Though not a tape, you're watching the DVD on a TV. This paranoia adds to the scares constantly.
  With sparse use of any real 'special effects,' the film is able to ground its otherworldly story to reality, something few modern horror films are able to do.
  The acting is great and the dialogue, or at least the translated script for the subtitles, never got repetitive. The actress for Reiko does a good job as the tense heroine, while the male lead actor (sorry, his name escapes me) contrasts very well with her as her often cool and relaxed ex-husband.
  The music chills to the bone, particularly the main theme (plays on the DVD main menu), which is just a creepy concoction of strummed guitar strings. I sat there, letting the whole menu run its course as the ambience it gave off made my blood run ice cold. 'Ringu's great utilization of sound astounded me as well, using bursts of utter cacophony to add new layers of fright to already surprsingly horrifying scenes.
  Quite simply, this movie impressed me in every way possible.

  Now, on to 'Ringu'/'The Ring' comparisons...

  'Ringu' operates on a single word: subtlety.
  It delivers the scares without convoluting the process. Fear without frills, as I say. They scare you moreso on a mental level, forever burning in (some cases only) a dread of TV's.
  Take, for example, the tape itself. In 'Ringu,' it really is just a bunch of forboding images, adding only clues to plot. Short and sweet.

  In comparison, 'The Ring' goes for the throat. It does try to scare you at a mental level as well, but it is somewhat bogged down by its own attempt of quick shocks.
  The tape, in this version, is much longer and thought it is adapted for plot purposes, certain parts were unnecessary and served only to provide more reasons fo disturbing imagery later on.

  Most importantly, one character in particular was altered in a way I didn't like, but which take is better really just depends on personal taste.
  That would be the journalist's son. In 'Ringu,' he had this creepy robotic feel, speaking only when needed and showing a frightening air of maturity.
  However, in 'The Ring,' though well-acted, he is portrayed as the 'cliche' horror film child. He spouts out insightful but scary things that he should know nothing about at his age (ie the little boy in 'Signs'). This take removes the vulnerablity his counterpart had in 'Ringu,' causing you to care less whether or not he dies.

  Ending my comparison, I believe 'Ringu' is the superior film, though both in and of themselves are great.

  Now to end with the DVD package:
  The main menu keeps in line with the film's simple way of fright, using the main theme as its backgroud music. The scene division is well-done. The 5.1 remaster of the film looks great as well. My only complaint is the disappointing lack of the 'Ringu' trailers.

  I say 'Ringu' is a sure buy and I guarantee (to most people) that you will not be disappointed. Just don't come crying to me when you develop an unhealthy fear of televisions!
  
  

• the scariest movie

  
  By AFB7C2OIFHYZS on 2003-01-29
  More elements in the american version? They just copied it.
  And for your information, the have 3 Ringus, the prequel, Ring 0, Ringu, and Ring 2. Ring 0 is the life of Sadako, Ring 2 is when recording the tape becomes useless. There's your element.
  
  Too LOW budget? It fascinates me how they managed to make a horror film without much special effects. that's how you separate the good film makers from the bad. I watched this movie in a theatre, after I watched the remake. That was the time I realized that the remake was [poor] and was nothing like original. The soundtrack was awesome too.

  I recommend you guys to watch all three of them.
  
  

• PLEASE STOP COMPARING TO "THE RING"!

  
  By ATKYFGTF6BLOL on 2003-02-24
  Before I begin, I just want to say, I have also reviewed the American remake and also rated it 5 stars. I feel that I can do this simply because, after I had watched it and its predecessor, I felt like I had watched two films with only their most basic premise in common; therefore, comparing the two, I feel, is completely unfair. Both movies were fabulous in their own respects.
  In The Ring, I thought that the minute-and-a-half embellishment of the first scene was a great touch (with the water pooling under the door, etc.) and I also enjoyed the almost-purposefully campy acting of the two actresses involved as it seemed, to me, to make fun of other American teen horror flicks. As for the rest of the movie, poorly scripted dialogue and mediocre acting was the major downfall (how this could happen when Ringu's dialogue was so excellent I will never understand) - In Ringu, however, the acting seemed much more realistic, even in the first scene, and the resultant setup was also very effective.
  Second, the video in the remake is almost TEN TIMES more unsettling to watch than the one in Ringu- it reminded me of a demented student art film... the video in Ringu is about a fourth as long and, while its mere ambiguity is creepy, I was rather unimpressed with it.
  Third- the subsequent storylines are wildly different except for their culminations and each is likeable in its own respects- I like Ringu's storyline, once again, for its creepy ambiguity, but I think that The Ring gains a point here plotwise because I LOVED the idea that the main characters would seek the origin of the tape and find out more about Samara's (Sadako's) life. It was fascinating and SUPERBLY creepy, and I liked all of the embellishments in that area.
  Finally, and as much as I hate to say it, I enjoyed the special effects of the remake (expecially in the last scene). Did it seem to anyone else that, in Ringu, Sadako looked rather... clean? Just my opinion.
  Point is- both had good, creepy atmosphere, and good storylines. Scenes from the remake are, in my opinion, done better. Acting in the remake suffers, and this takes MUCH away from the overall movie. Acting in the original is superb- top-notch; therefore, the rest of the movie is very enjoyable, and make up for the places where special effects, etc. were used in the remake and subsequently seem to lack when watching the original.
  My advice: see both, and don't make up your mind about one until you HAVE seen both. You will not be bored: they are hardly similar. I really think that how you will view these movies depend on what you appreciate in cinema- I appreciate art and cinematography, which was embellished in the remake, but I also appreciate subtlety and ambiguity, which is rampant in the original (not to say that both don't contain some of the other...). Both approaches to the story are very intriguing. I really enjoyed both movies, and see no need to compare them with each other.
  
  
• Better than the American version.
  By A1A5633MK8F1VN on 2003-03-06
  I saw The Ring the other night and gave it a 2 star rating as one of the most over-hyped movies in a long time. I'm glad i saw it, though, and enjoyed the creepy mood and atmosphere of it, but i didn't think it was the scariest movie of all time like so many of the five star reviews were saying. I had a big problem with how the movie was hard to figure out in parts and there were many unanswered questions that left me with an unsatisfied feeling. Plus, i didn't buy the explaination for how the images got on the tape at all. Thankfully, i was able to see Ringu, which had the effect of fixing the focus on a blurry picture and making everything crystal clear. Not only was Ringu a better story and went in a different and more enjoyable direction than the story The Ring was trying to tell, but it all made 100% sense by the end of the movie and cleared up all the unanswered questions i'd had about The Ring. The explaination in Ringu for the reason behind the images appearing on the tape was believable. Also, Ringu didn't drag the way The Ring did. Technically, The Ring looked better, but that was only because of the millions of dollars difference in the budget. Considering Ringu was made on a shoestring budget, i'd say they did a great job of it. The scene where the girl comes through the tv made sense in Ringu due to the different approach to the story and the explaination of things, whereas in The Ring it just looked like a Hollywood afterthought that was tagged on for shock purposes. The way it was done in Ringu was also ten times scarier than in The Ring, and the music during that part was scarier too. Ringu also helped explain the epilogue in The Ring that had made no sense to me at all. I really didn't like the way the story was handled and altered in The Ring. They added parts to it that just ended up confusing me. My advice would be to skip The Ring totally and watch Ringu instead. It may not be Hollywood material for all you people who depend on cgi effects and huge big budgets, but the story of Ringu is much more enjoyable to follow and made a hell of a lot more sense than The Ring.
  
  
• Excellent Utilization of the Minimalist Approach
  By A2XWU6Y8PF8L17 on 2004-06-09
  When a young girl dies mysteriously, presumably without cause, her aunt, a reporter, deems it necessary to investigate further. Reiko questions her niece's friends only to find that another student who attended the same school, and a couple of their friends, died on the same day, also without known cause. The link between these mysterious deaths appears to be a videotape that all watched together while spending the night away from home. Is this merely an urban legend, or is there actually some substance to the claims of these young students? Reiko ventures out to where the group stayed that fateful night when they watched this purportedly cursed video tape and finds exactly what she's looking for. A creepy, grainy videotape with bizarre images. Shortly after viewing the tape, she receives a phone call letting her know that death awaits her in exactly a week's time.

  Reiko enlists the aid of her ex-husband and psychic Ryuji to help her unravel this mystery. Together they analyze the video in hopes of discerning its maker and lifting the curse. Their task becomes more imperative when their son, Yoichi, comes across the video and watches it himself. Will Reiko and Ryuji be able to find a way to lift the curse in time to save themselves and their son?

  After having watched "The Ring" and been thoroughly scared by that movie, I simply had to watch the movie that "started it all," so to speak ("The Ring" and its upcoming sequel and prequel). Several people had told me that they felt this film was scarier than its American counter-part, while others felt the opposite. I don't exactly feel as though one is scarier than another. Rather, they are merely different kinds of "scary." This version is far subtler in its scare-tactics than is the American version. Rather than use extreme make-up and visual effects, this version takes advantage of a creepy score, good acting, and a great plot to make its audience squirm.

  At first, the Americanized version of the film appears to be almost a shot-for-shot remake of this film. However, as the movie progresses it becomes clear that there are several note-worthy differences between the two.

  Aside from the make-up and effects, one difference between the two was that "Ringu" was far less detailed than was "The Ring." In "The Ring," much of the plot gets spoon-fed to the viewers, while "Ringu" allows for one's own "filling in of the gaps." Some people may appreciate this more than others. I feel that this tactic allowed for more use of one's imagination, which can be far scarier than the alternative at times. Part of this difference in detail involves the videotape itself. In "Ringu," the tape is much shorter and seems to give less insight to the viewer. Both versions of the creepy video are equally unsettling, merely in different ways. Both create an incredible sense of elusive foreboding. Yet another difference is the role the young boy plays in both films. In "Ringu," he is merely a minor actor, while in "The Ring" the reporter's son plays a much more potent and crucial role. Either way, however, this doesn't really detract from the main plot of the film.

  Both of these films are wonderfully scary and shockingly disturbing in their own way. Neither version should be over-looked by any fan of the horror/thriller genre(s). If you haven't watched either of these films yet, then I would recommend this one first, as it's subtleties might not be as easily appreciated after having been treated to the pricey, hollywood-ified effects and make-up prevalent in the American counter-part.
  
  

• This will mess you up
  By A245AH82PDRBV2 on 2002-12-20
  Originally released in Japan in 1998, Ringu (remade by Hollywood as The Ring, and released recently in Manila as Ring: Circle of Evil), is definitely one of the scariest and creepiest films I have ever seen. You now know the plot: people watch this strange videotape, then after seven days, they mysteriously die. What's so good about this movie is that it doesn't scare you with bombastic music and special effects the way Hollywood movies do, it just creeps you out. And then, just when you thought the movie is over, it unleashes an ending that makes it the scariest film since The Exorcist (you will never look at your TV set the same way again), catapulting Sadako (watch the movie to know more about her) to cult iconhood.
  
  
• Ringu vs. The Ring
  By A3BEXH7DFBVRP3 on 2003-06-03
  Ringu is a very well made movie with an original idea. It is based on Koji Suzuki's novel (although it's plot deviates quite a bit). This, the original Japanese version, works on a completely different level than the US remake, The Ring. Ringu is more of a suspense film that succeeds in being sinister and very creepy. The Ring succeeds in being a well made Horror/mystery BUT it is important to remember that it is based on all three of the Japanese movies (Ring 0, Ring, and Ring 2) as well as the earlier Korean remake, not just on the original Ring (aka Ringu). Thus, it is not logical to compare 'The Ring' to 'Ringu', when it comes to deciding which one is better. While it is true that The Ring does consistently explain itself it must be said that for an American audience, this is often necessary because most of us are not accustomed to open-ended plot lines. In fact, many people had to see it a second time to fully understand it, including myself, despite complaints of "spoon-feeding" from some. In contrast to 'The Ring', Ringu is able to ground this fantastical story into a realistic setting. The Ring however is much more implausible, though that hardly detracts from the horror. If you are looking for an entertaining Horror/mystery that is visually stunning, not just in it's special effects, but also in it's cinematography, I recommend you watch 'The Ring' first. If you are looking for a dark, moody suspense film, and don't mind/enjoy cultural differences or reading subtitles, I recommend you watch 'Ringu' first. However it is important to remember that the movie you see first will detract from the effect of the movie you view second. Both are highly recommended. My personal preference, however, being more of a horror fan, is 'The Ring'.
  
  
• A different & welcome flavor of horror...
  By A3P7VD56KS7FX4 on 2003-11-02
  I'll admit it, I saw this movie before watching the American version, BUT I did see them within the same weekend, so I have a fairly decent conception of both. It helps that my friends and I spent hours discussing the two movies after watching The Ring.

  Ringu and The Ring are scary for entirely different reasons. To someone like me, who rarely enjoys horror/suspense flicks, I found myself enjoying both, though I did prefer Ringu's subtle, yet terrifying, building tension to the Hollywood frights of The Ring.

  As has been stated in previous reviews, Ringu relies on the fear of the unknown. What aren't they telling us? What horrible truth is lurking just out of sight, around the corner, or just seven days from now? The entire movie is a quiet, creeping kind of horror. It's lack of bright colors and soundtrack of mood music allow the viewer to focus of the events and drag the viewer deep into the story as we try to unravel the mystery on our own, along with the characters.

  Be warned, there ARE some cultural perculiarities that, if one has little to no knowledge of Japanese culture, may be confusing (such as the figure in the video with the white cloth over their head). However, these are few in number and in no way detract from the story in any way. On the contrary, considering the subtle, questing air of the entire film, the unfamiliar elements only add to unsettling experiance.

  If you're a diehard fan of Hollywood horrow flicks with their FX and straight-forward storylines, this may not be the movie for you, though you should find The Ring a thoroughly enjoyable movie. However, if you want to try a different perspective on the horror genre, or are already a fan of Japanese film, this is definately a must see.

  A story of a terrible legacy that will haunt you for days, or, if you're like me, months...

  As a side note, if you enjoy either movie, but find yourself with too many unanswered questions, buy the book the inspired them all: "Ring" by Koji Suzuki.
  
  

• Best Horror Ever
  By AH19TVHXLFZHI on 2003-02-25
  Why they kept the "u" in the title I do not know, it isn't even pronounced since the movie was titled using the English language in Japanese script, it doesn't make sense, but an easy mistake.

  This movie is the original, it tells the tale of a curse laid down by the tormented soul of Sadako, a girl who was fathered by something that may not have been human, had stranbge powers and eventually cast down a well and left to die. Her curse reaches out through a video tape that causes those who watch it to die exactly 7 days to the very second after having viewed it. This movie tells of Reiko, a journalist who's niece has just died a terrifying death, she begins to investigate the giurl;s death and stumbles onto a oath that could end her life throug hactions of her own. She watches the video tape that killed her niece and gets a strange call, she has 7 days to live.

  The movie is told more through character development, drama and suspence, I found it more believable than the remake (The Ring), those that do not link with this version so well need t odo a little research on Japanese mythology and their traditional forms of monsters and how they were said to co-exist with humans.

  With the other 2 movies, it becomes more apparent that Sadako is a tragic figure rather a ruthless one as Samara is in The Ring.

  Truly the best horror ever, sadly ruined by the remake (the the latter is als ogood, it pales next to this). This is one movie that had me unplugging my tv and VCR so I could sleep at night ;)
  
  

• Fans of atmospheric horror, take note!
  By A2EDZH51XHFA9B on 2002-12-26
  Ringu (Hideo Nakata, 1998)

  Welcome to the world of Japanese New Horror (JNH), a concerted attempt by a number of Japanese filmmakers to get away from the excesses of Hideshi Hino and his Guinea Pig films on one side and the emotional manipulation that passes for drama on the other. JNH filmmakers want to do nothing but tell good, solid, scary stories. As a result of stripping away the other layers, such things as emotional manipulation are cast to the wind, leaving spare frameworks within which the directors can weave what artistry they have. Because there have now been remakes from two countries (Korea and the United States), Ringu towers over other JNH films in terms of worldwide popularity. And while it may best serve as a gateway into the neophyte who wants to discover the world of JNH, it serves that purpose well.

  The basic story is simple: an urban legend exists that there is a videotape which will kill you seven days after you see it. A reporter whose cousin died under very mysterious circumstances discovers that the urban legend is real, and the tape seems to have killed her cousin; she then sees it herself, and comes to the conclusion that deciphering the dadaesque series of images on the tape will keep her alive past the seven-day deadline.

  Nakata does his job exceptionally well. The casting is perfect, and the characters are astoundingly believable, given that the premise itself has enough holes in it to rival a five-pound block of swiss cheese. This isn�t about realism, though, as much as it is about artistry; the realism herein is injected solely by the characters, and they do a pretty fine job of it.

  Nakata breaks the JNH mold slightly by beginning the film with something of a teaser, but then slips right back into lockstep with his fellow directors by laying off the horror angle and concentrating on the story of the reporter and her quest to solve the mystery. The story has enough of its own dramatic tension, and so (like many other brilliant films miscategorized as horror) Ringu ends up coming off as more of a straight mystery than it does a horror film for the first hour and a quarter of its existence. Again, as with every JNH film I�ve seen, however, once the horror starts, it�s Katy-bar-the-door. The last few scenes of Ringu are not necessarily as explicit as the storied excesses of Hino�s movies, but they�re more graphic than most things you�re going to see in modern gore films (and because the horrific aspects have less to do with fountains of blood and weaponry and more with subtle touches of makeup, the nastiness in Ringu is definitely of the creep-out factor type, rather than the �oh, boy, here�s a guy in a mask chopping up teens again�).

  Special mention must be made of the subject of the film itself, the videotape known in film circles as �the curse film.� It is a nightmarish, dada masterpiece, a series of short gut-punches that are about the closest thing film has to an actual successor to Bunuel and Dali�s Un Chien Andalou, but an Andlusian dog worked on as well by Guillaume Apollinaire and Rene Char. Ringu is worth tracking down and seeing just to catch the repeated viewings of the curse film.

  Ringu is a wonderfully crafted little gem, and certainly deserving of its worldwide success. (Not to say that many other JNH films aren�t; hopefully, they�ll make it across the pond in the same way Ringu and Audition have.) Well worth the extra time it will require to track down for fans of atmospheric horror tales, but be warned: there are more than a few shocks awaiting you once the film builds to its climax. **** ½
  
  

• The Ring is better for English speakers
  By A39MYC3H9M28AB on 2003-03-12
  I watched The Ring with two of my friends. By the end of the first scene, my friends (college guys) were holding each other. And I was genuinely creeped out, which was a first for me. In fact, I went home that night and spent the hours until sunrise researching Ringu. Every review I read said it was scarier than The Ring. Now, considering that I was reading this at 4 AM because The Ring convinced me that closing my eyes meant certain death, scarier than that seemed pretty durn scary. So we watched Ringu. I fell asleep halfway through.

  Here's the problem: Ringu might be great for a Japanese audience that's never seen it before, but for an English speaker that's already seen The Ring, Ringu couldn't compare.

  * The Ring captured all the creepiness of Ringu but with some great effects to drive it home. I mean, the *title menu* on The Ring DVD freaked me out. And the hidden feature is probably the best use of DVD technology to date

  * Setting the mood for a scary movie is hard enough when the audience and the creators speak the same language.Adding the extra layer of translation and the fact that your eyes are always constanly glued to the subtitles at the bottom of the screen really kept me out of the movie. For that matter, the American cursed video was much weirder than Japanese one. Maybe Japanese people are scared by guys with towels over their heads, but I don't think the average American is.

  * The story is more involving in The Ring - you have to earn clues along with the characters. None of this "This guy is a psychic, just follow him."

  So in conclusion, anyone who tells you Ringu is better is leaning toward being an arthouse snob, the type that thinks that because a movie is made in a different country it is automatically better. Don't believe the hype. Ringu may have been the scariest movie ever made in Japan, but The Ring is the scariest movie ever made.
  
  

• A pure horror
  By AB5ZWJYO8HJ47 on 2003-04-06
  When this movie shown in Hong Kong, it broke the record for horror film. It caused so much rumors and news that it was truly a must for every movie (horror) fans. First, it didn't use sound effect and too much special effect for creating the creeping atmosphere. It used purely the edit and storyline to absorb you. Second, the movie did not show a SINGLE DROP OF BLOOD, but it can have the same horrible effect to leave you unsleep for nights. (I was truly scared when my phone rang at midnight during those months!!) It teaches Hollywood how to make a good horror movie without using banging soundtrack and bloodshed. Finally, please grab a copy of the original novel to read.

  The whole saga of RING has four parts - RING, RAISEN and LOOP (reprise the theme of 'circular' like RING) and BIRTHDAY. For the movie - we have RINGU, RAISEN, RINGU 2, RINGU 0. The author Suzuki-san mentioned in the introduction of RAISEN that it was very difficult for him to write a sequel to RINGU, since the first one has already got a very complicate plot. But he sure can create a true mesmerizing sequel.

  In summary, RAISEN is about the rebirth of Sadako. RINGU 2 (movie only) is a somewhat parallel sequel to RINGU, with a different splitting storyline after the movie of RINGU. RINGU 0 is the prequel to RINGU and is about the life of Sadako as a child, which based on the book BIRTHDAY. And for LOOP, it is a collection of short stories which talks about the widespread of RING virus, and probable termination of mankind. Yes, in RING, you may believe that the deaths are caused by CURSE in the video tape. But in RAISEN, the author cleverly developed the plot that RING is actually a virus triggered by the curse!! The widespread of the curse via video tape is like the outbreak of any virus plague. Interesting? Yes, very much.
  
  

• Better than the American version
  By A3GPFHWJ1SSIHE on 2003-04-18
  Unfortunately, I saw the American version first. Ringu relies far less on special effects than The Ring. The Ring overpowers you with special effects, especially in the scenes where, uh, bad things start happening. The effects are so jarring they tend to throw you out of the movie. Also, there is far more backstory in The Ring, and I think some of this is a bit overpowering also. It gets in the way of the plot. Ringu is more subtle, it relies more on the viewer's imagination. There is at least one plot element that makes more sense in Ringu than the Ring, but I can't tell you what it is without giving away the plot. Well, it has something to do with location. Well, that's about all I can say about that. If you like horror movies, then see Ringu before seeing The Ring. There are no extras on the DVD of Ringu. However, I think the Dolby 5.1 soundtrack on Ringu is extremely well done. It is restrained--the back channels are not used that much, but when they are used they are used extremely effectively. I found the effect almost dizzying in one scene. The video transfer looks very good. One final note--there are scenes in The Ring that involve horses, and bad things happen to them. If you dislike animal violence you will definitely like Ringu better than The Ring as these scenes do not exist in Ringu. Ringu is not on the plane of Alien or Silence of the Lambs as a great horror movie, but it is original and fun and very well done.
  
  
• Reflections In A Well
  By A1M4NJYP0WNL8Q on 2005-08-19
  The core difference between Koji Suzuki's book and this film is the decision to use a woman lead - Nanako Matsushima as Reiko Asakawa, a newspaper woman. Screenplay writer Hiroshi Takahashi then introduces her ex-husband, Koichi (Katsimi Muramatsu) as the other lead. The film gains considerable intensity as a result of the relationship between the two in their efforts to save themselves and their young son Yoichi (Takashi Yamamura).
  
  The primary plot device, a video tape which contains a series of mystical sequences and clues. Watching it brings on a mysterious curse that kills in exactly seven days. Reiko and Koichi must peel back layer after layer of mystery in an effort to discover why a resort hotel always seems to have a copy of this tape on hand. And why a volcanic eruption 40 years before has triggered a string of horrible deaths.
  
  While the film differs in many places from the book it has an immediacy and vividness that the book, with its procedural narration, seemed to lack. This happens slowly, and the initial scenes of the film after the opening death of the first high school student drag a bit. Director Hideo Nakata uses a light touch, depending on expressions and lighting to create horror rather than violence and gore. There are still plenty of jarring moments, though.
  
  The book, however, does better with the motivations behind the tape, which the film leaves somewhat vague. Of course, the story depends on the somewhat arbitrary nature of the evil behind the tape for its uneasiness. The acting, by the way, completely overcomes the dubbing. You often will know what is going on without any reference to the text.
  
  This is as close to an artistic Japanese horror film as I've seen. The cinematography is subtle in effect, but with powerful use of shadow in a variety of settings. Quite by accident, I'm following this story from book to Japanese film (and next the US film), and the way Hideo Nakata chose to capture the book is quite eye opening. Definitely a must see.
  
  
• Ring ring ring...
  By A2B8GXSCB1R05T on 2004-10-04
  The title of the film, "Ringu" refers not to anything circular but to the ringing of the telephone that follows each viewing of the cursed video tape. The telephone, with its harsh, sudden blare, has always been a vehicle of horror and suspense, from Agnes Morehead's classic and chilling "Sorry, Wrong Number" to its role in "Scream." The television has also been a portal for the unreal, in films such as "Videodrome" and "Poltergeist." There is something about the flickering screen, the way a TV sucks in your attention and the possibility that something is watching from the other side of the screen that makes it as natural an element in a horror story as a grave or a well.
  
  "Ringu" uses these elements, combining a feeling both modern and ancient, to tell a most excellent ghost story. Ghost stories work best when they are subtle, creepy and manifest a feeling that something invisible is watching you just outside your field of vision, although possible in the same room as you. This film has exactly that atmosphere, with patient Japanese storytelling drawing out the suspense to an unbeatable climax.
  
  The actors all do an excellent job, avoiding the Japanese penchant for over-the-top melodrama and delivering performances as subtle as the story. Kabuki-trained Rie Inou makes the most of her onscreen time as Sadako. Nanako Matsushima is lovely and determined as the desperate reporter, hunting for the key that will save her's and her child's lives. Hiroyuki Sanada is a cool character as Nanako's psychically sensitive husband. Rikiya Otaka shows once again that few things are genuinely creepier than a little kid.
  
  Without revealing any of the story, I will say that some background knowledge of Japanese supernatural traditions would probably clear up some of the confusing points of the film. Certain things are left unexplained, any more than an American film would explain why a vampire feared a wooden stake. It is just assumed that everyone watching the movie will already know this.
  
  The "Ringu" DVD itself is disappointing, offering no features whatsoever and one would think that such an infamous film would get a better presentation. Also, the subtitles are not very well done, and often do a lackluster job of transferring the meaning of the Japanese dialog. One gets the sense that this was rushed out, trying to capture some of the enthusiasm for the Hollywood remake.
  
  
• Nightmares, anyone?
  By A1YP6L7ZFKE8ZK on 2003-02-17
  I've long been a fan of Asian cinema, and I'd heard about RINGU for a few years but hadn't seen it until recently. In fact, I deliberately avoided the US remake until I'd seen the original. Anyway, I ordered the original trilogy (RING, RING 2 and RING 0) and watched them all over the course of a few nights.

  While not exactly living up to the breathless hype that I've found all over the internet, RINGU nonetheless succeeds greatly in its ability to draw you in and keep you feeling awfully uncomfortable as you wait for unpleasant things to befall the cast. The antagonist (protagonist?) Sadako is one of the most memorable and terrifying characters that I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot. I've always been a fan of the "ambiguous" storyline, and the fact that there's a lot to RINGU that isn't easily explained was very refreshing. Too many Hollywood movies hold your hand and explain every little thing, which only insults my intelligence. I'm glad that there's a sense of mystery mixed in with the dread, which RINGU delivers in spades. Highly recommended.

  The first sequel, RING 2, picks up where the first one left off. We see some familiar characters, and there's an emphasis on the scientific study and explanation of Sadako's supernatural power. Not quite as creepy as the first film, but it does have its unsettling moments; one in particular that involves the appearance of Sadako's mother Shizuko. A fine continuation of the story, but not exactly essential.

  Which brings us to RING 0, which is actually a prequel to the first film. It has a slightly different style to it (different director) and the focus is on character development and interaction. It's more or less Sadako's story (complete with one of the most gut wrenching tragic endings I've ever seen) and it sheds light on who (and what) she was while painting her in a very sympathetic light. The actress who plays Sadako was riveting and draws you into her world from the moment you see her. It's a very emotional film, and by the time the end credits came up I felt like someone had punched me in the stomach. No overt gore, no sex, no nudity, just an attention to subtleties that works magnificently. The first time we see the Sadako that we know from the first film was one of the creepiest sequences I've ever sat through. I literally had chills. Essential viewing.

  Therefore, my recommendation is to watch RINGU, then RING 0, and then RING 2. At least that's how I'd have done it had I known better. In that order, the narrative is better and the viewer's relationship with the characters (especially Sadako) is much more enhanced. Unforgettable characters, highly imaginative story, expertly crafted filmmaking. Wish there were more like these.
  
  

• Scared the Bejeezus Out of Me!
  By A2QMTU5RNMTJH8 on 2003-02-17
  After weeks of watching bad films (Pitch Black and Jeepers Creepers), last night I put my foot down and told my BF and his friend we were going to watch a GOOD scary film for a change. I chose Ringu. First, the cover scared me. A closup of Sadako's eye, with the hair around it, is NOT something you want lying around the table. Then we watched the movie.

  Now, slasher movies usually scare me to pieces. Scream, Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th... all scared me so much I cried. I'm usually not afraid of supernatural thrillers. I liked The Others, but I wasn't scared. The Exorcist didn't even put a dent in me. However, Ringu scared me so much, I was too scared to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night! I stayed awake, waiting for the TV to come on by itself, before I couldn't take it anymore and asked my BF to go with me. I admit I'm usually a big chicken, when it comes to scary movies, but this one takes the cake! The acting was great. They didn't need to have any blood-curdling screams or over-drama to show fear. The lack of special effects was even better. I'm tired of ... scary movies of today, that rely on nothing BUT special effects and sound to scare you. Movies like The Others and especially RINGU are a rare breed of great scary movies.

  I don't know whether to call them horror or thrillers, but either way, I'm still not sure whether I'm supposed to pass the RING on or not! If you have to choose between the American and the Japanese version, this American says go with the Japanese. There's more suspense in that single film, than almost all of today's American thrillers put together. I would recommend highly, unless you're a big thriller wimp like me. Then I'd say avoid it at all costs, unless you have someone to go to the bathroom with you at night! You don't need special effects or big budgets from other thrillers to get this scared. All you need is Ringu.
  
  

• Watch it, and die
  By A1D2C0WDCSHUWZ on 2005-11-07
  Everyone has heard of "The Ring," a terrifying horror movie starring Naomi Watts. But before there was that film, there was "Ringu," a hair-raising ghost story where something as insignificant as a videotape can kill.
  
  Four teenagers have died mysteriously, and another has gone mad. After finding that her niece was literally scared to death, Reiko Asakawa (Nanako Matsushima) begins investigating the cabin where the four kids stayed. There she finds a strange videotape full of bizarre images. Then the phone rings. It fits the profile of the "cursed video" that has been circulating, which will kill the watcher after seven days.
  
  Reiko is understandably terrified -- especially when her young son also watches it. She calls in her ex-husband Ryuji (Hiroyuki Sanada), who initially discounts her fears. But soon he begins to believe as well, and assists Reiko in investigating the origins of the tape, and the strange images on it. They find that the source of it is a young girl with monstrous psychic powers, who was murdered thirty years ago...
  
  "Ringu" has become one of those rare films that are frequently ripped off (especially in Asian cinema), referenced, and remade (especially in Hollywood). Crawling ghosts with long drippy hair, slow-acting curses and all that.
  
  But as we all know, the first is usually the best. There aren't any masked slashers or bloody bodies in this. Instead, there is an everyday item that happens to be cursed, and a jerky-limbed girl who can kill with a thought -- and even death can't stop her. (Interestingly, Sadako and her mother were based on real people)
  
  Hideo Nakata did a magnificent job with a film that could have been incredibly tedious; much of "Ringu" is detective work, with the ghoulish Sadako only entering the picture at the end. Instead, it has suspense. Colours are muted, and the plot grows more taut and claustrophobic as the characters try to beat the clock. And the end is a terrifying twist that can't be seen in advance -- but which leaves us wondering what we would do in that situation.
  
  Matsushima and Sanada are excellent leads for this movie; not only do they have excellent chemistry, but they seem like a plausible pair of exes. Reiko is played as a strong, smart woman who desperately wants to save her son, while Ryuji is insensitive and rather brusque, but cares as much for Reiko as he seems capable of.
  
  With a quietly taut storyline and a terrifying demon-spawn villain, "Ringu" strips horror down to its bare bones, and lets the ordinary scare us silly. Outstanding.
  
  
• a masterpiece of psychological horror...
  By A1UZQ8IVS5HLQS on 2003-01-25
  To put it into words that everyone can understand, this is the only movie I have ever watched that caused a grown man to whimper like a young child with fear. I will admit it is not a movie for your average, low attention span, American audience. It takes someone of stronger mind with a deeper awareness to what is and is not done well to appreciate a movie of this caliber. There are two main reasons. For one, it is a foreign film, not viewable to most. Reading and watching are too complicated to perform at the same time. The lack of flamboyant Hollywood effects and expensive camera tricks, which have become a mainstay of the putrid [stuff] we are force-fed on a regular basis, is the second. Not saying I do not like new and inventive techniques and visuals, but money does not make a movie. This movie was made on a meager budget, to put it nicely. From the opening credits, it drips with atmosphere, surrounding you in an epiphany of fear. Truthfully, it is the first movie I have seen since "Candyman", which I watched at the age of thirteen, that has caused me such a feeling of unease. To wrap this up, anyone who wants to honestly enjoy a movie made to unsettle and possibly even disturb, yet at the same time keep a story, please do yourself the justice of watching this movie. To anyone who fits in the above categories, watch the plotless, and shameful, American remake.
  
  
• My hamble opinion
  By on 2003-04-05
  First of all, I am a Japanese who moved to the United States a few years ago, so my opinion is subjective and might not be helpful to Americans. Second, I have seen this original version in Japan several years ago before the American version, so my opinion might not be helpful to those who saw the American one first.

  Anyway, here is my opinion.

  When I first saw this movie, I thought it was brilliant and very scary. This movie is so Japanese in the sense that "urban legends" of this type (repeating, never-ending stories) play much more important roles in the Japanese society than American society. I remember growing up talking or listening to lots of scary stories with friends on the way back home from school almost everyday. The story is simple, but to me, simpleness generates stronger emotion to the climax, while the American one seemed to have too many graphic effects, which disturbed me. To me, this is a perfect example of bad Hollywood -- or American's judgement --- to pursue profits. If my memory is correct, U.S. is the only country that tried to create their own version, while other countries pretty much just released the original Japanese one. Good that they know what is good, but too bad that they destroyed it.

  Another thing that I want to point out is that what is scary (or funny) is very different from one culture to another. What Americans think is scary doesn't necessarily means scary to Japanese people, and vice versa. Lots of Japanese people I know, as well as I myself, think that the name "Sadako" itself already sounds very scary (and also the fact she has very long hair.) I can't explain to you, but "Sadako" is sort of an old-fashion name, which creates some imagination in our minds even before the story develops --- and even after you finish watching the movie. For example, I have three female Japanese friends who haven't seen "RINGU," because they are scared of it. Even though they haven't seen, when I just say "Sadako," they get scared and tell me to stop saying it, because again this name matches the context of the movie so well that they now automatically link "Sadako" and all the scary things. I forgot what name they used in "The Ring," but whatever the name was, it didn't mean anything to me. It might sound a very minor point to you, but these little things are contributing to a BIG difference between "RINGU" and "The Ring."
  
  As I said at the beginning, my comment probably doesn't help you, because it is impossible to know all the backgrounds of specific countries before trying to watch some foreign movies.

  Last of all, if there is someone kind, please recommend me some great American movies that are scary. I have seen several so-called horror movies made in Hollywood, but so far, I haven't found anything scary. I wonder this is also due to cultural difference or not.

  Thank you for reading.
  
  

• Better than the Remake
  By A2EREALWDQ92WI on 2003-04-20
  I saw the American remake of "The Ring" this past summer and had high expectations. It takes a lot of convincing for me to be scared by a horror film and the only recent movie that has sufficiently made me cringe in my seat was "The Sixth Sense." Needless to say, the American remake of "The Ring" disappointed me. It got off to a good start, the "curse film" was artistic, unsettling, and creepy, but I felt the remake's plotline became less and less frightening from that point on. I understood the plot, but had questions as to why certain things were included in the movie. I felt as though elements had been introduced in the storyline that were never answered. In a way, I felt cheated. They tried to tell too much story in too little time and got bogged down in the details.

  Since watching that film, I'd heard many accounts that said "Ringu" was much better, much scarier than the American remake. I was thrilled to find that "Ringu" had been released in conjunction with the remake. Needless to say, "Ringu" scared me--a lot. Though the story and effects of the original film are much simpler than that of the remake, I think it is better so. So much more is left to the power of one's imagination rather than the power of special effects. The plotline--even though questions remain in the mind of the viewer following the film's end--is satisfying and complete. In the american remake, I grew tired of the protagonist having to whisper clues to us as if we the audience wouldn't pick up on them without her help. In "Ringu", we aren't spoonfed in such a way. It's definitely a more rewarding film experience.
  
  

• must see!!!
  By A3AEVITBFBW5RL on 2003-01-29
  I had first seen the original Japenese version of the ring two years ago and was actualy afraid to walk around my house in the dark. The last time that happened was when I saw the Blob at five years old. This movie is just plain creepy and the suspense is almost too much to bear towards the end of the movie. The atmosphere of the landscapes in every scene in the movie has an eerie feel about. For instance when the main character drops off her son at his grandfathers house, you may think that this is a happy and safe place, but I just had that feeling that something scary was going to jump out from around the corner at any moment. I felt uneasy with every beautiful backdrop. I am not here to bicker about whether or not this version is better than the American remake because I think that the each hold an interesting perspective and are pretty effective at scaring the audience. I do however, think that everybody that saw the American remake should see this version because this is an effectively creepy movie without the big budget (unlike the blair witch that was just dumb)and it is interesting to do a sort of cross cultural analysis. There are some interesting cultural biases presented in each. I don't know if this American version is going to have English dubbing, but you should see it in it's native tongue since it just adds to the mystique of that cursed videotape.
  
  
• Well-crafted horror
  By A3TVS7UW8A2NXV on 2003-03-06
  Ringu is basically deserving of its reputation as a near-masterpiece of quiet, subtle horror. If you like unconventional, ambiguous creep-outs like Picnic at Hanging Rock or the first half of Lost Highway (which, come to think of it, also involves some very unsettling videotapes) you'll probably appreciate this film. I'd recommend this over the American remake, although I don't agree with those that find Gore Verbinski's version vastly inferior. In fact, it's surprisingly well done, my only real complaint being the predictable tendency to tone down the ambiguity. For instance, the death-dealing video in the Japanese version consists of a series of bizarre images that are never explained. In the American version (The Ring), the images, although just as bizarre, are all eventually neatly tied up with the narrative, each one being assigned an explicit meaning. It was a bad move that aptly illustrates the general lack of faith that Hollywood has in the intelligence/imagination of American moviegoers. Also, although fairly well done in The Ring, the climactic scare scene just isn't as hair-raising as it is in Ringu. Anyway, if you're interested in seeing both versions, I'd recommend starting with the slower, subtler original.
  
  
• Why all the bad reviews?
  By A339FFCC9RNYLR on 2003-03-30
  I have read a lot of reviews for this movie, and I find that half the people that took the time to write these have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to film, and when it comes to horror.

  The american version of this, "The Ring", is based very strongly on this movie. Many of the parts are very, very much alike. But what a lot of people hated were the sub titles. I personally would rather have subtitles then bad voice overs where the actors mouths arent even moving with the words. Another thing is people say that it is boring. Well, if you think that this is boring, then you should think that "The Ring" is boring too, because it is like I said, pretty much the exact same story.

  "Ringu" is a little more creepy in my eyes. The music, which there isnt much of, is more on the lines of Kubricks "The Shining". Also, as I said before, the story is a little different. I actually liked the story a little better than that of the American version. Although, the only reason they are different i think, is because of the different cultures and areas that we live in. The story behind "Ringu" is definetly a little spookier.

  Dont expect to be really freaked out by this movie, or the American version either. But be prepaired to have chills. I would have to say that this is a good edition to your DVD collection along with "The Ring". Plus, this version does end a little better. It brings more closure and you understand the movie a bit better after that.

  Dont miss this great original.
  
  

• One of the most unsettling finales ever
  By A16A2URPIZ7EEZ on 2003-07-27
  I'm glad to see that some of the reviews posted here point out that both "Ringu" and "The Ring" are very successful, and that to compare them is to be ignore the merits of both pictures.

  Since more readers will have seen the remake, I do want to encourage viewers who haven't caught "Ringu" to do so for three major reasons: first, the spirit's motivations and roots are clearer while still maintaining the story's eerie ambiguity. It moves beyond the "Just because she's evil" realm. Second, the last choice made by the main character (dropped in the remake, my guess because it was thought too disturbing for an American audience) is brilliantly horrifying, and brings to life human frailty and the lengths desperation will take us. And finally, because the finale, in which spirit and human meet face to face, is one of the most unsettling things I've ever seen in a film ... and I love being unsettled, so I've seen a lot of unsettling scenes. The remake's version is also plenty effective, but the way the scene is filmed here - with something to suggest stop motion - will stay with me forever ... as will those fingernails.

  A great film, not to be missed by genre fans.
  
  

• A Japanese Horror Classic
  By A36L47A45ZF3WP on 2004-11-14
  I think it's difficult to write a review for this movie without comparing and contrasting it with the US remake, but I will do my best. In my opinion, neither film is perfect. Some things worked better in Ringu, and some things worked better in The Ring. But what I loved about both films is the way that both stories are different from each other, so that you can watch both and get something out of each one.
  
  The new trend of remaking Asian horror films seems to come from this movie. I can't understand why people get so upset about it, though. For one thing, before the remake, it was impossible to get the original in America. If you think this is such a great movie, why wouldn't you want more people to see it? Also, with all the films Hideo Nakata has made, this is by no means his best work. Most people I hear complaining about the American remake have never even seen anything else he's ever done. Most importantly, with this film in particular, a remake is a very fitting choice, because it actually fits into the context of the story. I can't elaborate on that, but when you see it, you'll understand what I mean.
  
  The story centers around Asakawa, her son Yoichi, and her ex-husband Ryuji. Asakawa is a reporter investigating rumors surrounding a mysterious video tape that local youths have been saying will kill the viewer one week after watcing it. The inquiries take on a more personal meaning for her when her niece turns up dead under unexplained circumstances. After a bit of poking around, Asakawa finds herself in the presence of the killer videotape. So what does she do? Of course she watches it! Now that may not sound like the smart thing to do in a situation like this. At least the other unsuspecting victims watched it by mistake. But you know how those snoopy reporters are. If you found a copy of a videotape that killed people, wouldn't you at least want to know what was on it?
  
  Unfortnunately, the payoff isn't that great. The videotape is a mishmash of weird yet boring images, and if I had turned in something like that for my experimental film project in "Film Analysis: Formalist and Feminist" class, I would not have passed. Once Asakawa has gotten over her initial curiosity, she freaks out and calls Ryuji to help her find out what she can do to break that curse.
  
  The main problem I have with this film is the character of Ryuji. He is fascinating, and the actor playing him is very talented. However, his character has had such a great arc from the novel, to the film, to the remake, that it seems that the screenwriter didn't know what to do with him. In the novel, Asakawa is a man, and Ryuji is his detestable friend. He despises humankind, and entertains Asakawa with stories about breaking into women's houses and raping them. I think making Asakawa a female, and Ryuji her ex was a brilliant move. They've got seven days to find the origin of the video tape, which is not nearly long enough to reconcile their personal differences. However, his character had to undergo a great transformation between the novel and the film. If they had him be as reprehensible as he was in the book, a strong female like Asakawa never would have had anything to do with him. However, they had to keep some of his jerkiness in tact, because they were filming the sequel at the same time, and his evil nature played a part in it. (This is "Rasen," not "Ring 2." "Rasen" is based on the second novel, but the movie turned out so crappy that Nakata had to make his own alternate sequel, "Ring 2," which was a completely new idea.)
  
  So Ryuji appears here as somewhat of a contradiction between two selves. And for some reason, they chose to give him psychic powers. His psychic abilities were not in the novel, and I don't think they added anything to the story. His powers allow the villian, a young woman named Sadako, to appear right in front of him when he's sitting on a park bench. He remains calm, and actually speaks to her. Then later, when they want to make him be scared, he is so scared that he can't move. The character is interesting, but disjointed. In the remake, the writer seemed to consider all of this, and made Noah, the ex, a complete flake, and somewhat of a coward. His contribution was his expertise in video equipment, not a staggering intellect.
  
  It is difficult to say too much more about this film, as there is so much more to learn that I don't want to give away too soon. But what works here is that the story makes use of modern technology intertwined with a traditional ghost story. Televisions, VCR's, telephones, these are all modern inventions not usually associated with ghosts. We don't typically put ghosts and technology together because they are otherworldly in death, and it is assumed that they came from a more primitive time in life, before these things were invented. That's why a techno update of the ghost story works, because it scares us with things we never thought of as scary before.
  
  If you are a fan of the recent wave of Japanese horror, or the American version of The Ring, you owe it to yourself to see this film. It should be noted that the famous scene near the end that everyone remembers from The Ring was not in the novel, but was an invention of Hideo Nakata.
  
  
• I almost wet my pants
  By on 2003-03-13
  Ok, just to give a little background. I love horror, I indulge in horror, I read horror, watch horror films, etc etc. I don't get scared in movies...ever. I watched a cheap copy of this movie that I friend gave me a year or so ago. Within minutes, I had the lights on, my hands over my eyes and the volume muted. The atmosphere created in this film had me almost blubbering. I'm not exagerating. I know some people will be like "whatever", but if you have an attention span longer than that of your usual mindless MTV addict, then maybe you can feel the tingling thrill of terror creeping up and down your spine. The opening scene alone set the mood for the entire film. And simple sounds and visuals can jolt you into panic. See the film, show your friends.
  
  
• Sadako Is Much Scarier Than Samara!
  By A1PJS10X4W1KDT on 2004-07-17
  Ok I saw the American version first, and when I first saw it I didn't really like it, mostly because I wasn't really sure WHY I should be scared. After watching it a couple times again I was truly chilled by it, gaining a better understanding of the story and I heard that the Japanese version was better so I invested in the entire set, Ring, Ring 2 and Ring 0...

  I have to say after seeing the Ring (I've heard you should buy this version, the version I bought was a poor transfer, a little too dark at times...) amd Ringu that Ringu is the superior film. It just is. The Ring is good and chilling but the story of Ringu is far better.

  For example the story of Sadako's mother makes MORE sense as to why she is the way she is than does the story of Samara. Sadako inherited powers from her mother, where as Samara was just bothered by her mother's horses. Samara's paternity is never addressed where as in Ringu Sadako's is hinted at and the idea is terrifying.

  There were few special effects in this movie and I guess if you can't get scared unless everything is super fancy then this is not the movie for you. I however thought the lack of special effects made the movie seem more real and made it scarier to me. The Ring was all grey looking so it seemed to be going on in a way where it couldn't happen to you, because our world doesn't look like that. However it's the opposite in Ringu where everything is very natural and normal looking.

  I also think the famous out the tv scene was ruined in the American version because of all the stupid pointless special effects in that. The Japanese scene is far more chilling, and the reporter's son is more interesting and engaging than the Sixth Sense boy in the Ring.

  I also preferred the couple. Reiko and Ryuji were more convincing together than the American couple. They had better chemistry and Ryuji was more involved right away from the start and a lot less of a doubting Thomas.

  Basically, the Japanese movie seems more original and terrifying in my opinion, where as the American version tries too hard with it's CGI and falls desperately short. With Ringu less is DEFINITELY more.
  
  

• Ju-on (The Grudge)
• Ringu 2
• Audition (Uncut Special Edition)
• Dark Water
• The Ring (Widescreen Edition)