Reviews

I'm a big zombie movie fan, not obsessive, but enjoy a well thought out and acted story.

The acting in this film immediately raised my doubts followed by extremely poor plot pieces, characters and general incoherent goings on. I couldn't sit through the terrible acting, unnecessary scenes and unbelievable happenings.

Was this really directed by THE George A Romero? Land of the Dead was a little disappointing and I guess this was one last idea to make a zombie movie with 'of the dead' at the end.

Very disappointed and switched off after 20 minutes, unbearable for today's standards.

Going on the build up this film had the potential plot and story to make quite a good horror. The stories you'd hear as a kid about haunted places and you'd wanna go check out. With the disturbing "based on true events" motive and eerie past you could think, hey this could be good.

Then the direction, camera-work, sound, acting and a storyline that had no idea where to go is completely outrageous and ruins this film completely

I'm sure a lot of this movie was shot on a blue screen in order to create a dull dark background most of the time while the actors were clear to see and if that's true... blegh! And what about shooting on film, yeah it costs money but it gives results!!

I have to disagree with some comments that I have read about this movie. Personally, I thought it started quite poor in that it would be another cheesy, cheap, suburban style movie. However, the route that it followed was surprising and interesting.

Basically, from my own personal thoughts, this movie brought into reality, the fears that I've experienced as a kid. Whenever you think there's something in your room, the safest place is always under the covers and if you peak out there's going to be a scary face staring at you. Or if part of your body is not covered by the duvet it'll get grabbed by a hand...

This film takes all these fears and myths into consideration and tries to tie them all in. No it's not necessarily scary in this sense, but I believe it tries more to 'relate' rather than scare, and perhaps 'spook' you rather than terrify.

Without spoiling it for people who have not seen it, the film takes an interesting route as mentioned before, making these fears more than the kid's imagination, and that was a surprise.

Some good camera work has been implemented but the film is still very basic. I would say it's an enjoyable film for those who are a little precautious of dark corners.

First off, this movie has received a lot of negative feedback. People were hoping for something better than the first and it did not deliver that. Then again, how many sequels do? Ground-breaking movies like Battle Royale will forever be remembered in those who have watched it as one of the best movies ever. So unique, so emotional, action-packed and brilliantly shot.

Battle Royale II tries to continue on from after Shuya Nanahara survived from the first. Yes, I agree with others that the role and plot surrounding him are pretty crap and contradict a lot. After he survives Battle Royale he becomes a terrorist with some other kids, fighting against adults. Ok, it's understandable that he is angry with adults because of the Chinese government putting him through that experience. But he merely becomes another petty terrorist killing innocent people in a lost cause. What does he want to do, rid the world of adults? Create a world peace? Just like every other terrorist he takes to hiding and launching attacks on the world. There are a lot of ideas and plot ideas in this movie that had me thinking `what the hell?' but I still enjoyed it.

I enjoyed it for what it was, Battle Royale. It was the sequel to the original so it was welcomed with a reputation. However, no it wasn't like the first at all. Kids did not have to kill each other, and there was no `immoral game' feeling to it. It was simply a class of students forced to infiltrate an island and kill Nanahara. Like a lot of people out there, I could see places that would have made this film a lot better. One feature was the new system to the necklaces, where if your partner is killed, you automatically die. I think if they had put more emphasis on teamwork and trying to survive with your partner it would have made it a bit better. All that new system did was introduce another way of killing them.

The best thing about this movie was the action and fantastic camerawork. I sense homage paid to the movie `Saving Private Ryan' from the beach scene. It was very well done, and very similar to that of `Saving Private Ryan'. Of course that wasn't the only good piece of camerawork. Throughout the whole movie, the camera movement and position was fantastic and the way it was shot was beautifully realistic, very, very nice to watch.

As mentioned before, the plot was pants. But it did try to pull on the heart strings of the audience by showing morals of the world we live in. Trying to make us think about the world we live in. There was truth in that, and personally, these scenes surprised me as I did not expect anything like that from the movie I was watching.

Yes, I was disappointed by the movie, but at the same time I ENJOYED it and that's what counts. I find this movie so hard to review and comment on, because it messed up in so many ways yet it ALSO delivered in the same areas it failed. It tried to say something, it did a crap job at it but it still said it. It was very surprising for `BR' to take the path it did with terrorism and world peace but they tried. I think personally the story of `BR' didn't quite have enough to lead onto this path which is why it made a poor job of it.

*Grumble. I am very confused. I enjoyed the film because it was `Battle Royale'. Yes, it was nothing like the first, and yes its plot was upside and inside out but on the whole, a good movie, sorry but I think it was.

This movie has had a lot of good praise but is equalled with negative feedback too. I don't see why people have quarrels with the film. I couldn't believe what I was watching when I saw it for the first time and I was sitting drooling for more and more each time someone was killed. I've noticed a lot of people have categorised this movie as ‘comedy'. I disagree, how can you class a violent, gory, brutal film as comical? It was funny yes, but funny in the sense that leaves you thinking `what the hell just happened?' and `ok that's not right.' The deaths and murders are fantastic and really opened my mind to what the cinema actually allows these days. I would love to have seen this in the cinema in England, it would have been banned instantly, and people would have probably puked their brains out.

The film does tend to make you think that the character Kakihara is `Ichi the Killer' but in fact Ichi turns out to be some twisted little creep who takes revenge on `bullies' in society by killing them in the most horrific way. Kakihara is a gang member and is on the trail to find his missing boss by any means necessary. Insane torture scenes and self-mutilation are just a few of the graphical feasts surrounding Kakihara.

After reading the back of the DVD case I noticed the words `futuristic comedy'. Am I the only one who didn't find it funny? Granted it has some comical parts, but I would say it was more irony than comedy. The poor crazed woman `Aurore Interligator' repeatedly trying to commit suicide but somehow always being foiled in the silliest of ways is more of a tedious act rather than comedy.

The movie is about a post-apocalyptic town with no food and desperate times have lead to desperate measures being taken. The local butcher recruits ‘new' people to the town as helpers and then murders them to sell their flesh to the townspeople.

The film is fantastically grim and depressing and if one was to live there you would surely be driven quite mad! It is of course `one of those quirky, weird' films where nothing is quite right in the world. Films like that always seem to freak me out when you see how people have lead their lives and what their principals are, and compared to the lives we lead are just absurd.

To round off, this film is an excellent piece of work. It's in French with English subtitles but many of the truly great films are from another country, with another perspective. It stays well away from gory killings and just leaves the mind to wonder what has gone on and the overall atmosphere generated from the movie is eerie to say the least.

A brilliant movie.

I haven't read other people's comments yet which will leave this opinion unbiased.

I believe RING 0 was a phenomenal film and a brilliant prequel to the first two films RINGU and RINGU 2. I noticed a different director made it and the actress who played Sadako was not in it apparently so I thought it was a director cashing in on the popularity of the first two films. How brilliantly I was proven wrong?

RING 0 seemed no different in terms of direction and the time period. It was as though all 3 films were made at the same time, I love it when there isn't a horridly noticeable gap between productions, which ruins the feeling you get from the original.

At first, RING 0 seemed to throw me off and again; I was worried that it would not be the same style as the previous two movies. However, RING 0 was directed and produced in what looks to be the perfect way for a late prequel. It gave us pretty much all the info we were left wanting from the two movies.

So apart from filling in the storyline and time gap for a prequel, how did the movie rate in terms of horror? Well horrific is one word to describe it. I'm very hard to scare but all three of the RING movies have managed to give me intense nightmares and fears of a little girl with black hair and RING 0 pretty much smashed my nerves completely with it's use of Sadako. Throughout the film they seem to make Sadako stand out in the movie like she will have in the minds of many fans and that did it for me. After the first two movies I would sometimes think I saw the shape of Sadako reflected in my TV, or in a corner. RING 0 puts those images on screen, right in front of you which shatters whatever you have left of confidence.

I genuinely found myself cowering in a sense as to what would be around the corner, what would the character see when he/she turned around. It brings the semi-realistic fears I had from RING and RING 2 to life in this movie and just makes it worse for me. Scenes where you would just see Sadako's feet walking by the camera across the screen and a character not daring to look up.

I should leave it there, to say the least this film was just as intense, perhaps surprisingly more so with the use of images of Sadako here and there such as the forest scene at the end of the movie which was just plain unnerving that she was there wherever you looked. Not attacking you, not dead, just standing there, idle… Spooked me out big time.

Ringu 2 for me has to be one of the best sequels made. It has all the feel of Ring and also refers to back to the original movie. The scene at the hospital with the kid from the original who is too frightened to see a TV was a brilliant piece of look back setting.

It is definately a movie that makes one think that Ringu & Ringu 2 were one whole movie split into two separate ones. There is no indication of a budget increase, or special effects to impress existing fans, and definately holds the Ringu style strong.

With clever use of the original cast and elimination of them when needed and the introduction of newer characters makes this film seem as though you have already seen it but are reminded, that you have not.

Yes it is scary, yes it delves more into the mind of Sadako and Yoichi in brilliant technique and yes it will continue your nightmares. I think that something very clever has gone on with the directors in how they want to leave the audience thinking. The original movie left the audience thinking about something coming out of their TV. Then, in the second, tries to create a fear of TV all together and combined with what we see in the original and now in the sequel, does a bloody good job.

I am personally fearful of an "off" TV in a dark room alone. I know nothing is gonna happen, or that Sadako is not real. However, because of the shear impact that this movie has had on me my imagination can create a fear so bad that I must sleep with the TV on.

I first saw RING at the cinema during an all night Horror fest. With an audience of about 250+ people. The whole movie is believably freaky and disturbing. You can very much follow this even though it is in Japanese and you can imagine it actually happening.

The part where Sadako (the ghost) crawls out the TV is the scariest thing I have ever witnessed. The whole audience jumped back in their seats, literally crawled back away from it. I myself did that swearing while trying to catch my breath. All around me I could hear pants of "F**k, S**t, Jesus & Oh My God"

If that whole terrifying moment wasn't bad enough, the one thing that sticks in my mind is towards the end when the dead husband appears with the cloth over his head pointing towards the video. That image is actually hard to talk about without me frightening myself.

It's not cowardly or lame to be afraid of this film. This film is something very believable. I recently bought the DVD which, in the extra features section had "THE TAPE" that was featured in the film. Me and a friend watched it and immediately after made a copy and next day sent it on. We didn't get a call but neither did the husband did he...? Or the son? So I'm not taking any chances.

I will never watch this film alone, especially not at night. I have also bought Ring 2 on DVD, it is still in its wrapping as I will not watch it alone and haven't had time to get people over.

RING is not jumpy or scary. It is disturbing, believable, un-nerving and all-round horrifying.

I caught the film on TV by accident and couldn't pull myself away. I ended up watching it to the end which finished around 3am. I was suprized by the amount of gritty violence and language it included but at the same time became engrossed in 3 young boy's lives.

I thought the film was made perfectly to reflect on the life of school children who are bullied and ignored by the rest of the world. Kids go home crying and parents never have a 'real' idea of what happened. A punch, kick or even something like name-calling is what they will presume but "Sticks & Stones" shows it all. The violence, embarrassment, fear and the friendship of what happens in children's lives.

It was both a feel good and think about film. At times I found myself wanting to hold a gun to Hayes' head but later on wanted to comfort him.

An excellent film without a doubt, one that makes you think about life...