Related Posts:

2 Comments


Nathan Voigt said,
March 11th, 2005 

I don’t agree too well with this review. As comparing it with The Ring is like comparing the Koram to the Bible. They’re two completely different sources. And to say that The Ring was scarier just utterly blows my mind. There was nothing creepy about a girl crawling out of a tv. It was just a special effects extravaganza. Another bloated Hollywood movie. While Shimizu tried to stay true to his own source material by using only what special effects were needed. I found this to be the scariest movie I’ve ever seen. I’ve watched every horror film ever to be made and this is the first to actually make me jump. None the less never want to see it again. Though I have bought it and subsequently watched it a couple more times. I’m still having trouble looking at glass reflections or leaving my closet door open. Sure, The Ring may have been a good movie, with a mildly interesting though haphazard plot, but it wasn’t scary. In this, Shimizu outperforms his predecessor. But, he’s famous in Japan for his scary movies, and Sam Raimi and his Ghost House production team want to remake as many of them as they can. So you never know what may come out next. Maybe you’ll actually like the next one. As far as I’m concerned, this got the rating The Ring should have gotten, and I give The Grudge a 5 out of 5.

April 30th, 2005 

I saw the orginal Japanese version of “The Grudge” before I saw the American version, and once again, the original beats the pants off the remake. If you’ve seen this one, I highly recommend that you check out “Ju-on”.

The treatment of this film left me feeling a bit confused… I knew going in that the director of the original also directed this one, so why was the first so much more effective than the second?

Because the director set out specifically to “Americanize” this version. He figured that American audiences wouldn’t understand or like some of the things from the original. I have to respectfully disagree. The first film was far more effective despite the fact that I had to watch it and read subtitles.

It seems to me that his concept of making it more palatable to American audiences was to:

A. Make the female protagonist a hero. (Predictable)

B. Introduce a nice boyfriend who would be killed. (Gotta have that for the girls in the audience?)

C. Remove a lot of subtlety from the film. (Because, well, you know… Americans aren’t very bright.)

There were entire scenes left out, some of which were the most effective in the original film. I wondered how they would handle Gellar’s role in the film since her character wasn’t around very much in the first one. They handled it by turning her into the heroine of the film. No such creature in the first one.

I watched the special features on the DVD and what I found funny is that everyone involved really wanted to keep it as close to the original as possible, but make it accessible to American audiences by putting American actors in it. They even left Japan as the location and the house looked pretty close to the original as well.

If everyone was so enamoured of the original, why not just do a shot for shot remake, but in English? If they could do it for Psycho they could do it here, and it would have been to better effect.

Sure, this had a few scares in it, but it didn’t have me on the edge of my seat like the original, feeling creeped out during 95% of the movie.

Just do yourself a favor and rent the Japanese version.

Vic

What's your opinion? Leave a comment!

 Name (*required)

 Email Address (*private)

 Website (optional)

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.