Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Jitendra Kotai It somehow could not bring the creepiness to the table. A Ghost crawling out of a TV Set is somehow a dumb idea. The execution matters. Although the special effects are fabulous. The movie overall does not give me what I was looking forward to. They could have made it much more magnificent

robfollower The second part of The Ring ( The Ring Two) is a continuation of the first film . It is based on demonic possession . And is done very well. It is the tight relationship between Mother and son that is gripping. And the length one will go to protect there love ones. It is slow moving but it builds the story line. It is a moving horror film more cerebral in context . One of the great horror films if you understand the emotional aspect that Nakata is trying to convey . Naomi Watts and David Dorfman are excellent as the battle otherworldly Samara on there own as no one accept Samara's mother Sissy Spacek understand what the possession really is and what guts it will take for Watts to rid her son of Samara's influence .Great film and underrated by small minded viewers .

WhiteManFromTown1986 The Ring 2002: Terrific and atmospheric horror flick. The Ring Two: 2005: Disjointed, badly paced, and horribly written. Prime example of why not to make a sequel. So Rachel and Aiden have moved to Astoria to start over again, great idea since I am sure Seattle would be a bit depressing. However, Samara is slowly restoring herself and hellbent on possessing Aiden. Why? To have Rachel as a mother. Why? Again, beats the hell outta me. Why would this born evil entity who showed no remorse in the first suddenly want a mommy? It defeats the entire theme of the first and is just downright silly.So that is the general plot. Nothing ever really quite gels though. There are lots of spooky water scenes, more water scenes, horrible CGI inserted psychic deer, and Elizabeth Perkins dosing herself after asking questions that went NOWHERE!!!The cinematography was bland, the direction was stilted and bland, and Naomi's performance was meh. Her character was oddly written here, not the feisty reporter we loved in the first.All of it was just wrong. No sense of dread here.What was Ehren Kruger thinking? Besides the $$$$$ signs of course lol.

stevindiesel The Ring was a novel concept, with surprisingly more depth than many horrors or thrillers, which at the time(IMHO) only sought to provide gore and scare with little thought. The Ring 2 however, as corroborated by WindDancer 1971, provides a continual energy and uneasy theme which leaves you feeling rarely "safe". (I thought the original similar to Jaws, which was edgy on/around water but gave a rest when clearly away).Not only this, but the style and back story are 100% improved (on an already good movie) to provide more depth and context.I really don't like or generally enjoy horrors/scary movies, but this was just a great movie, that happened to have these thrilling/chilling elements in its core.Strange because I've generally found IMDb scores to appreciate the more thoughtful movies, and to reflect such themes as I've seen them. I thought Cloverfield deserved a better score but this really was a surprise.