Ring

Contrairement au remake américain The Ring, qui est plus simple tant du point de vue des acteurs que de la technique, reposant exclusivement sur un scénario mystérieux, pas entièrement clair. Le remake américain est plus intense, avec un style visuel plus marqué, une meilleure musique et un casting plus intéressant. C'est pourquoi je le considère à égalité, voire à l'avantage d'Hollywood avec un score de 1:0. Un des rares cas où je préfère le remake à l'original. (05/04/2003)

Watching Gore Verbinski's American remake of Ring before the original film presented me with an unexpected problem. All of Hideo Nakata's plot trump cards were instantly gone. Comparing the two films is as easy as it is problematic. Limited financial (and thus digital) resources condemned Nakata to rely on classic horror storytelling techniques. It literally attacks the viewer with sharp sounds, nervous music, and rapid editing. Unlike Verbinski, who answers all questions with the zeal of a bulldog, Nakata relies more on the strange mystery that little Sadako represents for him. But as a storyteller, he is not as good as his American counterpart, who alternated ultra-dark suspense with moments of sheer terror. Nakata works only with occasional jump scares (I applaud him for the cut when the closet is opened) and otherwise gets lost in boredom. It is not just because I knew the story, but Nakata simply fails to hit the nerves right. And I'm not saying (or writing) this just for the sake of it, because I know how his "American mission" with The Ring Two turned out. If I had to choose, I would definitely go for the American version, which is more complex, more exciting, and better. It is true that it is made as a product for a wider audience, but still. (04/07/2005)

The American remake (which like most I saw before) is more complete and varied in story, more visually stylish and more original in filmmaking. While Verbinski's film had me on the toilet three times and I turned off my phone when it was over, the Japanese version, despite my best efforts, gave me only a slight shudder, caused largely by the fact that I watched the film on 20 September (those who have watched it will understand). But leaving aside the more famous remake, I'm left with one of the most original and still thrilling horror films ever made, which relies solely on a great story and doesn't need blood and violence or a bunch of digital effects to get a strong audience response. Proper Japanese filmmaking that, as the birth of a great phenomenon, will be watchable in ten, twenty and maybe even fifty years. 75% (21/09/2013)

It has on its side an original idea born from Suzuki's novel inspired by Poltergeist, a groundbreaking television "outcome" in the realm of cinematic fright, a slightly cynical ending with the grandfather sent on a VHS kamikaze mission, and a significant position as a "trigger" for American remakes of Japanese horror films. However, it will always be countered by the fact that Verbinski offered a more complex scare, which most viewers saw first. It's just a rhetorical question, but can't those black-haired girls from J-horrors put their hair in a ponytail, or at least use a hairpin? (13/02/2024)

Well it seems I have very different taste than most of the reviewers. Atmosphere? Not much of one. Scary? Oh come on, I was a lot more scared with the American version (yup, that's right). The main character was sometimes a little too hysterical for my taste. Sadly, I didn't like the movie very much. I've read the book, and the sequel, so there was no moment of surprise. I'm disappointed because I really wanted to be scared and it did nothing. I've seen better Japanese horror movies in terms of atmosphere. For me, the film was just bland and flavorless. The only big plus for me was the OST. Without it, I think it would have just ended up in the rubbish heap of history. Plus [BEGIN SPOILER] the ending may be the same as in the book, but here I just had to laugh – come on, let's go kill grandpa... (04/12/2011)