 |
|
Photo courtesy of DreamWorks
|
Are we scared yet? Amber Tamblyn, left, and Rachael Bella star in "The Ring," which opens Friday.
|
|
By Lindsay Utz & Mark Betancourt
Arizona Daily Wildcat
Thursday October 17, 2002
Betancourt: You die when you see the ring!
Utz: Or, you can close your eyes, ignore the ring and pretend you didn't just pay eight dollars to see this movie.
Betancourt: Seriously. What a piece of crap.
Utz: Alright, alright. It really wasn't that bad. There are a lot of wonderful things about this movie. So the question is, should we tell people the good news or the bad news first?
Betancourt: Well, there's an awful lot of bad news. We'd better get started on that now. "The Ring" is little more than a jumble of scary images tied together by pictures of people being scared by them. The hot young blonde looks up from whatever she's doing, freezes, her eyes widen and we wait with bated breath to see what she sees. Yawn.
Utz: Yes, and when the blonde chick screams, for some reason everyone in the theater, including you and me, laughs. There is something wrong with that. Was this movie trying to be scary or funny? I felt a little disappointed with this film because the trailer looked so damned good. I've been waiting weeks to see it. And then I go, with an extra pair of pants in case I wet myself, and all I do is laugh.
 |
|
|
Betancourt: While I just sat shaking my head, mouthing "Why?" or "What the hell was that?" at you in the flickering half-light. A lot about this movie doesn't make sense. It opens with these two school girls (still wearing their uniforms, even though they're at home and it's night, making us think it's going to be one of those naughty-girls-get-hacked-to-pieces-by-psychos-as-punishment-for-sexual-activity kinda movies, but of course it's not), and they're talking about this scary tape that makes you die when you watch it, and so of course it all starts happening right then, which is stupid. Like the writers couldn't take five minutes to think about a more interesting way to start the movie. "Stop Katie, you're just trying to scare me!"
Utz: That's a valid complaint. But it's not my complaint. I actually liked how the story starts immediately. From the beginning to the end, it is constantly moving, constantly progressing, which is great. However, what it progresses toward is predictable. When that happens, we begin to associate it with "just another scary movie," when really it has the potential to be so much more.
Betancourt: Definitely.
Utz: And what is even worse is that it leaves us with so many unanswered questions. Don't get me wrong, I am not one of those finicky people who needs every small loose end to be tied up neatly. In fact, I accept a lot of unbelievable movie moments. Yet this movie seems to really be asking us to accept it. And when a movie asks us to accept it, they better give us a reason to.
Betancourt: Which "The Ring" does not do. At the end, you have no idea, none, what really happened. Some kind of evil is doing some bad stuff, which is scary. The idea is interesting, but the movie does such a terrible job of explaining it that it hardly matters by the end. Watching the tape kills you, OK, but the tape has very little to do with what we can piece together about where it came from. Also, the tape's not that scary. It has some decent creepy images in it, yeah. But I don't think anyone appreciates how truly, sickeningly horrifying images can be. This is just some unusual stuff thrown together in a non-happy way.
Utz: I think the best part about this movie is the tape itself, even if it does kill you. At least the videotape was beautiful and strange and experimental, which the movie didn't have the guts to be.
Betancourt: Exactly. If the movie hadn't been full of lines like "What the hell are you talking about?" and "I believe you" and "Nooooooo!" it would have been so much better. As always, the film handles some potentially heavy depths with blinders on, like kids playing with mercury. There's some truly scary stuff in here. It's just wasted on the desolate lameness of a Hollywood startle-fest.
Utz: I really don't want to discourage people from seeing this film. We tend to be tough on films, whereas many people aren't. And if you're not very critical of films and go just for entertainment or escapist reasons, then by all means, go see this movie. There are some really unique scenes and startling images. I wish I could mention a few that come to mind, but I don't want to give anything away. Photographically, this film is really strong. If images alone affect you in some way, you'll appreciate this movie. The images evoked more of an emotional reaction for me than the story did.
Betancourt: Could've been scarier.
Utz: Much.
