That old, familiar “ring”

The Ring Two (2005)
DreamWorks SKG presents a Hideo Nakata film, starring Naomi Watts and David Dorfman. Written by Ehren Kruger. Based on a novel by Koji Suzuki and a film by Hiroshi Takahashi. 111m. Rated PG-13 for violence/terror, disturbing images, thematic elements and some language.

2 stars

I once heard that any film that clears $100 million in profits automatically gets its sequel greenlighted. Although I believe that axiom to be untrue, I’m certain studios would foist a “Titanic 2” on theatergoers if they could just convince us the ship didn’t really sink.

Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) thought her troubles were over when she moved from Seattle to Astoria, a change of scenery precipitated by her run-in with a videotape that supposedly kills people. Although audiences were certain that Keller had dispatched the evil Samara (Kelly Stables) and destroyed the last remaining copy of the tape...well, this is a sequel after all.

Rachel enlists at the Daily Astorian, whose hum-drum reporting is upended when there’s a homicide locally involving two teenagers. Soon Rachel is piecing together clues that lead to one conclusion: Samara has come back and is targeting Rachel and her son, Aidan (David Dorfman).

When Aidan exhibits symptoms of hypothermia, his mother races to find a psychiatric patient (Sissy Spacek) who may be able to uncover the mystery behind Samara’s supernatural powers.

While the first film sent chills coursing across the epidermis of even the most cynical critics, this film rings much more hollow. The premise of the original film was decidedly creepy. What was the genesis for an omniscient force that could foreshadow your date of death with a eerie croak?

In “The Ring Two,” there are no such threats. I would have loved to see this movie become Keller’s singular race to destroy copies of the underground film while college kids shared it over peer-to-peer networks. It could be “Outbreak”-meets-“The Blair Witch Project,” an admittedly silly affair. But it would have entertained more thoroughly than this film, which I can only deduce was made to ensure Dreamworks’ continued profitability.

Instead of being terrorized, audience members were laughing during one of the film’s intended tense interludes. The first film had the advantage of the unknown, scaring its audiences about what “it” could be. Now that we’ve been clued in that the evil force is a little girl - and she’s been defeated before - the filmmakers are forced to manufacture the tension, instead of just riding off of it.

This problem isn’t relegated singularly to “The Ring,” however. I’m certain that sequels of “The Sixth Sense” and “The Grudge,” two horror films that banked on a similar fear of the unknown, would befall similar fates. But that’s hardly consolation to fans of the original, who expected the same fright-night at the theaters. Instead, they’re handed lukewarm conflict spiced with sudden musical stingers and asked to be scared.

I’ve often said horror films give up the goods too easily. Although it has its own deficiencies, Jacques Tourneur’s “Cat People” (1942) excelled at scaring audiences by creating a creature who was largely unseen. It’s a pattern not often followed these days; a little more mystery in 2003’s “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” would have certainly helped matters, for example.

Mostly I’m encouraged by a strong performance by Dorfman, a 12-year-old who is doing for horror what his pre-teen counterpart, Dakota Fanning, is doing for drama. He’s remarkably adept at portraying true terror; his extended role in this film keeps the conflict, no matter how small, viable. Now that we’ve been subjected to a warmed-over sequel and Dreamworks has purloined our pay opening weekend, we can put “The Ring” series behind us like the DVD has eclipsed the videotape. That is, of course, unless Samara is able to find ways to digitally reproduce herself. Oh, the terror.