Critics’ reviews

The Ring (2002)

18 reviews from 18 publications. Critics’ score 60: 11 positive, 2 mixed, 5 negative.

Back to our review of The Ring

60
Positive
11
Mixed
2
Negative
5
The AV Club
25 October 2002 · B+ · Keith Phipps
83

The critic praises the film as a suspenseful classic ghost story that effectively builds dread through sleight of hand and lingering shots. It ranks alongside The Others for its marriage of big-budget filmmaking with old-fashioned scares, highlighted by Naomi Watts’ strong performance.

Read the full review →
Empire
21 February 2003 · ★★★★ · Mark Dinning
80

The Hollywood remake is a solid if flawed effort that falls short of the Japanese original, particularly in its CG effects and added exposition, but delivers strong suspense and a terrific performance from Naomi Watts.

Read the full review →
Total Film
21 February 2003
80*

Verbinski successfully captures the psychological chills and smart scares of the Japanese original in this rare successful remake, with strong visuals, committed performances especially from Watts, and an unsettling atmosphere that lingers.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
18 October 2002 · Kenneth Turan
70*

The film makes the most of its creepy premise but stops just short of full horror impact. Turan singles out Naomi Watts' strong performance for lending credibility to the strange scenario.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
18 October 2022 · Beatrice Loayza
70*

The 2002 film remains a restrained, atmospheric chiller that taps into ambient anxiety through its cursed videotape concept and eerie imagery. Loayza praises its moody restraint and cultural resonance as a millennial horror touchstone.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · TJ
70*

The critic notes that while Verbinski's remake respects the original Japanese film, it over-elaborates the story and loses some creepiness compared to the mysterious original, but is still decent enough to recommend seeking out the source material.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
14 October 2002
60*

The review praises the slick, dread-laden horror and high concept but criticizes the lack of clarity in the story and insufficient "it" factor to make it a must-see classic.

Read the full review →
The Times
22 February 2003 · ★★★ · JC
60

This American remake of the cult Japanese horror is satisfyingly chilly as a reporter investigates deaths linked to a cursed videotape and must solve clues to save herself amid unnerving landscapes.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
18 October 2002 · Roger Ebert
30*

The film is a serious but ultimately absurd and tedious effort that over-explains its premise in lengthy flashbacks. Ebert criticizes the contrived story and lack of genuine engagement despite strong craft and visuals.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
10 October 2002 · Ed Gonzalez
30*

The critic views Gore Verbinski’s remake as a preposterous, attention-deficit anti-art film that prioritizes a journalist’s investigation and family Freudian baggage over genuine terror. It employs cheap scare tactics and flashy gimmicks instead of the original’s subtler approach.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
21 February 2003 · Peter Bradshaw
30*

The remake of the Japanese horror is disappointing and loses most of the original's flavour while amplifying its muddled elements. The premise is strong but the narrative around the cursed videotape is rickety and nonsensical despite effective shocks.

Read the full review →
Variety
4 October 2002 · Todd McCarthy
30*

The stylish Hollywood remake lacks personality of its own and delivers muted creepiness with uninvolving characters. McCarthy notes the absence of genuine excitement or fright, resulting in a second-rate feel.

Read the full review →
Evening Standard
10 April 2012 · Alexander Walker
10*

The American remake is an incomprehensible mess lacking narrative sense or coherence, relying on mystification and cheap jump scares rather than genuine terror, making it a contemptible catchpenny.

Read the full review →
Collider
18 October 2022 · A- · Lloyd Farley
90

The critic views the film as a haunting psychological nightmare and horror classic despite not finding it scary, praising its race-against-time premise, media metaphors, character growth, Verbinski's masterful direction including memorable scenes, and the shocking twist ending.

Read the full review →
/Film
18 October 2022 · Lex Briscuso
90*

The critic argues the film has evolved into a multifaceted masterpiece, functioning as gripping drama nearly as well as unflinching horror. Time and perspective reveal its full power and emotional depth.

Read the full review →
Consequence
18 October 2022
85*

The critic hails the film as the superlative and best American remake of its era, a cultural sensation with complex acting, powerful drama, emotional heft, and lasting scares that outshines its many inferior imitators in the J-horror remake trend.

Read the full review →
Paste
18 October 2022 · Kenneth Lowe
80*

The critic praises the film's lurid and intense approach to the cursed tape premise, its tactile analog-era details, strong performances, and effective VFX, noting how it launched a wave of Asian horror remakes while highlighting its arresting imagery and purposeful ambiguities.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
20 February 2003 · Angus Wolfe Murray
70*

The critic finds this a successful Hollywood remake thanks to its intelligent adaptation and strong performances from Naomi Watts and Martin Henderson. However, it explains the mystery too much, diluting the fear present in the Japanese original.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate