--- title: "The Ring: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/the-ring/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/the-ring" critics_score: 60 critics_reviews: 18 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # The Ring (2002): what the critics said Critics' score 60 from 18 reviews: 11 positive, 2 mixed, 5 negative. ## The AV Club — Keith Phipps Rating B+. 25 October 2002. 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 review](https://www.avclub.com/the-ring-1798197983) ## Empire — Mark Dinning Rating 4/5. 21 February 2003. 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 review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/ring-3-review/) ## Total Film Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 21 February 2003. 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 review](https://www.gamesradar.com/the-ring-review/) ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 18 October 2002. 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 review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-oct-18-et-ring18-story.html) ## The New York Times — Beatrice Loayza Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 18 October 2022. 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 review](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/18/movies/the-ring-gore-verbinski.html) ## Time Out — TJ Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 10 September 2012. 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 review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/the-ring) ## Screen Daily Fi1m's normalised score 60/100 (inferred from the text). 14 October 2002. 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 review](https://www.screendaily.com/the-ring/4010821.article) ## The Times — JC Rating 3/5. 22 February 2003. 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 review](https://www.thetimes.com/article/new-film-releases-dlkzqflwxqp) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 18 October 2002. 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 review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-ring-2002) ## Slant Magazine — Ed Gonzalez Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 10 October 2002. 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 review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/the-ring/) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 21 February 2003. 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 review](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2003/feb/21/artsfeatures5) ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 4 October 2002. 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 review](https://variety.com/2002/film/reviews/the-ring-4-1200545674/) ## Evening Standard — Alexander Walker Fi1m's normalised score 10/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 2012. 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 review](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/a-horror-dud-7428791.html) ## Collider — Lloyd Farley Rating A-. 18 October 2022. 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 review](https://collider.com/the-ring-review-naomi-watts/) ## /Film — Lex Briscuso Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 18 October 2022. 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 review](https://www.slashfilm.com/1059385/the-ring-at-20-gore-verbinskis-horror-hit-has-evolved-into-a-masterpiece) ## Consequence Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 18 October 2022. 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 review](https://consequence.net/2022/10/the-ring-why-its-good-gore-verbinski/) ## Paste — Kenneth Lowe Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 18 October 2022. 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 review](https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/horror-movies/the-ring-gore-verbinski-j-horror-killed-vhs) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 20 February 2003. 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 review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/the-ring-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/the-ring.md