Simon Baker

This is apparently a remake of the 1976 movie of the same name (with Stacy Keach), so we might indeed wonder what Michael Winterbottom thought he was doing. At one point the main character remarks that conflicting forces are pulling him apart, so that one day he's jest going to split in two - and perhaps the movie itself is pulling in too many directions at once: (1) Sexploitation. Sadomasochism as titillating entertainment. Lots of women enjoy a good whuppin'? - bad call! (2) Serial killer profiling (John Douglas of the FBI) - violence escalates from "harmless" psychological sources, connected of course with sex. (3) A stock-in-trade thriller. Is this indeed the perfect crime? Will he get away with it? (4) Ambiguity and audience manipulation - are we supposed to sympathise with this thoroughly unlikeable character, when (inevitably) things start to go wrong (a twenty dollar bill turns up, etc). (5) Ironic social comment. Be polite, gentlemanly. Always call people sir and ma'am, except of course when you're bashing them to death. Yup, it's more cheap shots at the sanctimonious South, folks, Texas in this instance. (6) Never mind the plot, feel the authenticity. Period streets and storefronts, good. 1950s cars, great. Even a DC3 aircraft. But the plot does creak badly in places. If your plan includes killing someone, make sure they're dead. It's a great pity that no-one could come up with a satisfying ending - instead we get the same formula pyro-melodramatics that hundreds of movies and TV dramas have resorted to. Casey Affleck and the pathology he portrays have to carry too much of the film, but both are very convincing. There's a ghastly certainty that "there, but for the grace of my (sort of) normal genes, go I." If you like this movie, you'll probably like it a lot.

A standout Casey Affleck plays a deputy sheriff who turns out to be a psycho killer. Atmospheric, but the only really interesting character is Affleck's.

the ring 2 was a little different from the first one. it still creepy and eerie but seems to lose some of its effect with the long drawn out story. still good but can be boring at times.

Let me start this by saying, that I'm a huge fan of George Romero's zombie movies. In their day, they were clever morality plays about the current human condition. But, somewhere along the way, Romero decided to infuse more gore, violence, and action into his version of the undead (presumably to keep in touch with today's audiences?) and also succumbed to the same self-plagiarizing that plagued George Lucas throughout during the three Star Wars prequels. This movie isn't awful, but it isn?t nearly as good as it could have been. The acting and characters are fitting for a zombie film and the premise is exceptional, but the social commentary (the hallmark of these films) is just too heavy-handed (rich people die at the hands of working-class zombies) and clumsy. We get it! Greed is not good. Enough already! What played as biting social commentary in the 1980s now seems like a desperate grasp at former glory.

I read the book and saw the move, both great. The movie differs from the book (I actually suggest seeing the movie first!). I really enjoyed it:) Lots of paws for this one. Woof!