The Ring

Spooky is as spooky does. Or so says Forrest Gump. Ok that's a lie. Yet the concept is still the same. Spooky movies are only spooky if they do spooky. A movie could brand itself a horror film and not be scary at all. Isn't this in some way a misplacing of trust? Of all the genres, horror and action are perhaps the two most tied to their titles. If you go to see a horror film you expect horror. If you don't get it, the film is a failure.
The Ring is a 2002 American re-make of a Japanese horror film. The story focuses on a journalist named Rachel (Naomi Watts) who investigates a mysterious videotape that kills it's viewers within seven days of watching it. The plot is steady and effective. It's refreshing (or not, considering the film is almost a decade old) to watch a horror film that actually has well-defined story and characters. Under the direction of Gore Verbinksi (The Weather Man), the film picks and prods at the mystery until the picks and prods cause a tear. I was not at all scared by the conventional means of the term but I was uncomfortable. The film succeeds because it focuses on atmosphere and imagery rather than shocks. The colour scheme, although sometimes annoying, work to create the feel of a gloomy time and place. The videotape itself is full of creepy images that work to build the overall suspense.
Scary movies need to be scary. It's quite simple. If they aren't, they fail. The Ring succeeds at being scary without necessarily making you jump out of your seat. It's like a cold - you feel the scratch on day one and gradually you're consumed by it. That's how scary is.