The Ring Two


The Ring Two

Critics Consensus

Ring Two serves up horror cliches, and not even Hideo Nakata, the director of the movies from which this one is based, can save the movie from a dull screenplay full of absurdities.



Total Count: 188


Audience Score

User Ratings: 400,166
User image

The Ring Two Photos

Movie Info

A terrifying legacy haunts a single mother in this sequel to the frightening box-office hit The Ring. Hoping to leave their terrifying experiences in Seattle behind them, Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) and her son, Aidan (David Dorfman), move to the small town of Astoria, OR, where Rachel takes a job writing for the local newspaper. When Rachel learns of an unexplained murder, which occurred after a teenager watched a strange videotape with his girlfriend, she suspects her past is following her and she begins looking into the case. Rachel believes that the otherworldly Samara has come back; however, as she tries to convince others of the young girl's powers, her own son falls ill and is hospitalized, and Rachel's stories fail to convince either Dr. Emma Temple (Elizabeth Perkins), who suspects Rachel is guilty of child abuse, or David Rourke (Simon Baker), one of Rachel's colleagues who fears for Aidan's safety. Also starring Sissy Spacek, The Ring 2 was directed by Hideo Nakata; it was the first English-language project for the Japanese filmmaker, who previously made Ringu, the picture that was the basis for The Ring.

Watch it now


Naomi Watts
as Rachel Keller
Simon Baker
as Max Rourke
David Dorfman
as Aidan Keller
Elizabeth Perkins
as Dr. Emma Temple
Gary Cole
as Martin Savide
Kelly Stables
as Evil Samara
Cooper Thornton
as Father of Emily
Marilyn McIntyre
as Mother of Emily
Jesse Burch
as Male Reporter
Michael Chieffo
as Printing Staff
Steven Petrarca
as Young Detective
Michael Dempsey
as Desk Sergeant
Jeffrey Hutchinson
as Coroner Attendant
Chane't Johnson
as Adoption Counselor
Mary Joy
as Sister Elizabeth
Teri Bibb
as Head Nurse
Jill Farley
as Second Nurse
Aleksa Palladino
as Young Nurse
Victor McCay
as Desk Man
Brendan Quinlan
as Rental Car Owner
Brendan Tomlinson
as Father of Jake
Phyllis Lyons
as Mother of Jake
Amy Haffner
as Young Sister Elizabeth
Ted Detwiler
as Cop No. 1
Stephen Holland
as Cop No. 2
Omer Stephens III
as Game Attendant
Jonathan Coburn
as Marble Man
Caitlin Mavromates
as Baby Samara
View All

News & Interviews for The Ring Two

Critic Reviews for The Ring Two

All Critics (188) | Top Critics (40)

Audience Reviews for The Ring Two

  • Feb 05, 2017
    Despite Naomi Watts and Hideo Nakata giving it their all, The Ring Two is a dull, confusing, and scareless affair that pales in comparison to not only the original film, but rest of the franchise as a whole.
    Matthew M Super Reviewer
  • Oct 23, 2014
    Taking the conventional route of a horror sequel, The Ring Two is predictable and formulaic. Samara is back, but this time she's looking to possess Rachel's son; meanwhile Rachel investigates Samara's origins, trying to discover a way to stop her. Naomi Watts returns and is joined by Simon Baker, Sissy Spacek, and Emily VanCamp. But once again the weak link is the child actor playing Watt's son, only the problem is worsened by the increased focus on his character. And the writing is especially poor, playing on a lot of stereotypes and cliches, and not really explaining why things happen. However, the director does a good job at creating haunting imagery and at drawing out suspense. Unfortunately, The Ring Two is a rote and uninspired film that fails to recapture the terror of the original.
    Dann M Super Reviewer
  • Oct 30, 2012
    "The Ring Two Towers"-I mean, "The Ring 2: The Ringvenge"-I mean, "The Ring [u]Two[/u]", not "2", "Two". Outside of the fact that they don't want people to get this confused with the real "Ring 2" from 1999, I don't really know why exactly they spelled the "Two" out in the title, unless of course they were trying to trick people into mistakening this for "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers", in which case, they probably would have had better luck if they released this back in 2002, when the predecessor and "Two Towers" came out, because I think part of the reason why Gore Verbinski's "The Ring" was such a success is because dumb people mistook it for "The Lord of the Rings". Granted this film was a financial success, yet it was still not its predecessor, whether it be because this film didn't do as good of a job at tricking "Lord of the Rings" fans or because once the "Lord of the Rings" fans got into "The Ring", while they still weren't getting "The Lord of the Rings", they were still watching an actually enjoyable film. Granted, I don't think that this film isn't all that bad, yet it's still no Gore Verbinski's "The Ring", which really wasn't all that good either. I can think of plenty of people who would say that the original Japanese "Ringu" blows them all out of the water, and to those people, I say, hush, you obnoxious foreign film lover, I bet it's not all that good, though I might just be thinking that because this "Ring" installment is directed by Hideo Nakata, the dude who actually did the first two original "Ringu" films, and as sure as sunshine, this film really isn't all that. I don't know, maybe Nakata doesn't really have his heart in this film as much as he did in the others, because this film doesn't really follow the subject matter that he's used to. Apparently even this film realizes that VHS is out of style, because they've gone back to that good old fashion, traditional, cliched ghost story format, yet not at the expense of a few flaws that you may remember from the predecessor, for although this film is a decent one, it definately has more than just "two" problems. Make no mistake, this is a lesser sequel, and yet, it's actually not as slow as the often effectively atmospheric, yet perhaps just as often either over-atmospheric or just plain dull predecessor, which isn't to say that this film is ceaselessly fast pace, for although this film doesn't limp along as much as its predecessor, when things slow down, they nearly come to a crawl. The moments in which atmosphere gets blandly overbearing are few and far between, yet moments in which exposition and dialogue go backed by dull quietness are abundant, and consistently enough for the film to limp along quite blandly, if not all-out dully, and it doesn't help that there's really not too much thrilling about the overall script to begin with. Ehren Kruger returns as wirter, but this time, without Scott Frank and Kôji Suzuki, the original writer of the "Ring" novel and co-writer of Hideo Nakata's original adaptation, thus making it a little more clear who exactly was behind most of the predecessor's moments of bland structuring, for although Kruger's story structure isn't a total bore, it is bland, as there is only so much going on, and it's made all the worse by repetition over both the occasions in which something does, in fact, happen and even the nothingness, thus plaguing the film with a do-little plot, and one that's not as sharp as it should be with what happenings it does have. Kruger's writing missteps don't just end with the structure of the plot, because even though the film isn't, as the Rotten Tomatoes consensus put it, "fully of absurdities", certain moments of the film, some of which are key, fall flat as a touch farfetched, or even silly, not really geling with the film's mythology all that much, and certainly not all that much with the story itself. Again, the consensus was a bit off when it said that the film is relentlessly absurd, yet it certainly hit the nail clean on the head in its proclaiming that this film, "serves up horror cliches", because although the predecessor certainly isn't among your more inventive horror films, this film goes particularly packed with conventions and tropes that have been explored time and again within horror films of this type. The amount of flaws that are added with this installment are indeed moderate, and the severity of the final product's collapse in quality beneath its predecessor is, in fact, moderate, yet make no mistake, this is a lesser follow-up to an underwhelming film, so of course this film itself collapses as, at best, also underwhelming. However, like its predecessor, this film doesn't collapse too terribly deeply into underwhelmingness, for although this film leaves even more room for improvement than "The Ring", I'd be lying if I said that I didn't enjoy the final product, and I would certainly be bulling if I said that this film didn't get to me at times. While "The Ring" got to be a bit too atmospheric for its own good, one of the key reasons why it's better than this sequel is because, more often than not, Gore Verbinski hit with the atmosphere and produced consistent intrigue, broken up by some pretty tight tension, and yet, while this film doesn't bite as much as it probably should, it gets to you at times, partially because of the set pieces, or at least some of them. A couple of set pieces don't really work too terribly well, with a few set pieces are effective going undercut by some pretty improvable digital effects (Holy cow, that deer was almost laughable), but when Ehren Kruger really gets inspired in set piece design, he delivers more often than not with some neat visuals and concepts that supplement a sense of consequence and certainly supplement the tension. What further supplements intrigue is, of course, what really brings the set pieces to life: atmosphere, because although director Hideo Nakata doesn't quite bite atmospherically as much as Gore Verbinski, even with his history with this franchise, there are still points in which Nakata puts his experience to good use and graces the film with a quiet intensity that makes the defining psychological bite of the project pretty effective at times, while finding occasions in which he graces the film with something a little bit less expected: some dramatic weight. This film makes attempts at tackling the more dramatic side of things at times, though doesn't take such a tackle too often, with a couple of what dramatic moments there are not really working quite as much as they could have and probably should have, yet when the dramatic range is both present and effective, it engages, with the particularly dramatic final act being particularly effective in its gracing this film with sober depth that may get a touch too sober at time, to the point of blanding things up a bit, but gives this film an unexpected degree of subtlety and emotion that may not have you choking up or anything, or even feeling too much better about the final product, yet defines much about the weight of this subject matter. The film's premise, while conventional, is actually pretty promising, and I wish I could say that writer Ehren Kruger and director Hideo Nakata deliver as much as they should, yet as things stand, Kruger and Nakata deliver just enough for you to get by, with the lead performers delivering both sharply enough to help keep you going and as sharply as they should. Young David Culkin-I mean, David Dorfman (Seriously, this kid does look like the lost Culkin brother, and may very well be, because as many Culkins as there are, one of them had to have actually gotten lost at some point; "Home Alone" really is the story of the Culkins) was decent in the predecessor, having only so much to do, yet with this film, he is given more material, and delivers more than you'd expect, portraying both the strength and vulnerability within a young boy threatened by dangerous forces with subtle emotion and a heavy presence that defines the Aidan Keller character and allows the promising young Dorfman to bond with his role, while Naomi Watts delivers about as sharply as she did in the predecessor, marrying human vulnerability with defining strength through sometimes powerful emotional range and an effective lead presence that makes the Rachel Keller character a compelling one who once again all but carries this film, only this time, with extra help from the young Mr. Dorfman. In certain areas, the film hits as hard as its predecessor, and in other areas, it may very well be even sharper, yet in too many areas, its falls flat just enough to fall beneath an already pretty improvable original, yet not to where it doesn't ultimately stand as an enjoyable film with a fair share of high points, however limited they may unfortunately be. To seal the metaphorical well that is this series, or at least until the filmmakers decide that they need more money, while this sequel isn't quite as slow as its predecessor, it still hits more than its fair share of dull spots, made all the worse by a blanding of the story structure through limited happenings and repetition, as well as through some questionable plotting and excessive conventions that help in pulling the film beneath the quality of an already underwhelming original, thus leaving the final product to stand as also underwhelming, yet still pretty decent, going supported by moments of effective tension and intrigue, brought to life by some decent set pieces and a degree of effectiveness within Hideo Nakata's atmosphere, which also delivers on some occasions of dramatic depth, supplemented by a pair of compelling lead performances by Naomi Watts and young David Dorfman, who help in making "The Ring Two" a decent watch, even with its shortcomings. 2.5/5 - Fair
    Cameron J Super Reviewer
  • Jul 23, 2012
    Another situation where I feel compelled to see a sequel without seeing an original, I therefore have no basis for comparison with Ring One. Nonetheless, this film is bareable. The plot flows predictably. The actors are predictably scared.
    John B Super Reviewer

The Ring Two Quotes

News & Features