Spencer-Staggs

Now, imagine yourself going on a camping trip with all of your friends. You're all planning on staying in a cabin for a week. While there, you come across an untitled videotape in the lounge. What harm could it hold? What danger does this present? None . . . Right? It's just for laughs, right? Your friends take it and play it in the cabin. What you all witness is terrifying beyond all imagination. Once it ends the screen turns to static and the phone rings. One of your friends pick it up, in their ear comes a whisper. "Seven days," it says. Your friend, horrified, puts the phone back down on the receiver. You all have seven days to live, and why? . . . You watched the tape.

"The Ring" is merciless, or should I say -- Samara is merciless. But, then again, who's considered the villain here? Is it Samara? Her parents, Richard and Anna Morgan? Or, is it the videotape itself, which Samara created before her death? These are questions circulating around the mystery of "The Ring", which is a ballad of rising horror. It's execution is excellent, feeding the audience bit-by-bit the mystery of the cursed videotape that kills people seven days after they watch it. The color palette is dark and gray, it feels like there may not ever be hope for the heroes, and while there really isn't, for they have seen the tape, there is still a mystery to unravel. The dark colors add to this hopeless atmosphere, because as Day 7 nears, the hope begins to fade away faster and faster, because death is now inevitable. There's no stopping it.

Horror films based around fictitious Urban Legends, or legends themselves seem to tend to be a lot better than the average common horror film that deals with masked murderers, demons, a little paranormal activity, and the new continuous, uninspired, cliched horror sequels that just keep churning out. This is because films like "The Ring" and "Candyman" (1992) have a lot more imagination and creative freedom to spread around their films. Of course "The Ring" is a remake itself, of the 1998 Japanese horror film "Ringu", but it is a more than worthy remake by itself. Anyhow, these films have a lot more liberty to be creative because the world has never seen these creatures or anything like them before, which is a huge positive going towards these films. In 1992 "Candyman" surprised audiences by being something new. Adding a new face to horror. In 1978 "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" did the same, and in the same year "Halloween" became a cinematic horror classic by terrifying audiences with pure evil that was embodied by Michael Myers. Then, in 2002 a new, fresh face was added to horror. One that had never been seen. It was Samara and the cursed videotape. Audiences squirmed in their seats as Samara slowly came towards the front of the screen, and then . . . Slowly, crawled out of it and into the real world. These films that surround Urban Legends have the liberty to create something so everlastingly terrifying because they are new ideas. They're something new and inventive brought into the world of horror. You watch the tape and you die in seven days.

One of the most intensely disturbing parts of "The Ring" come when the audience is first subjected to the so-called cursed videotape. Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) inserts the tape into the VCR and soon it comes to life and abstract images dance across the screen. A ladder leaning on a wall, a woman brushing her hair in a mirror, deceased horses seemingly wash up on a beach, an inferno burns a tree on a hilltop, a ring appears on a pitch black screen, and then . . . Static. The tape is over, and the entire audience has just watched it. The phone rings and on the other end comes a voice that hoarsely whispers, "Seven days." What makes the scene so unnerving is that it is presented in a POV (Point of View) form of the video itself. This means that the viewers are subjected to literally viewing this entire cursed tape with no cutaways whatsoever to anything else. There's no seeing Watts' reaction to the tape, and instead, the audience is all left to wonder what they have just watched. The scariest question of all is asking yourself the question, "Was it actually cursed? Will I die in seven days now?" It's an eerie thought, but then again the tape was extremely abstract and disturbing, so I wouldn't doubt its realism, which certainly shows that the filmmakers did a fantastic job.

The standout performances are without a doubt from Naomi Watts and David Dorfman. They are put to the test with having to present a wide variety of emotions, and Watts definitely delivers with a lot of silent acting and then downright loud acting, with having to present some extremely realistic, believable emotions. Especially the cries and pleas of help for her own son, Aidan. With that being said, Dorfman does a great job as the creepy kid, Aidan, who, like many of these horror movie kids, finds himself drawing a lot of pictures in his spare time. He scribbles with pen, marker, crayon, and pencil drawings of pictures that just appear in his head. David Dorfman was also the go-to creepy kid, as he performed as 2003's "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"'s own creepy kid, Jedidiah. Martin Henderson gives a good performance as Noah Clay, Rachel's previous lover, and Aidan's father. While Henderson doesn't give the greatest performance in the film, the most important thing about him here is that he is likable, because really, all the film needs is for the audience to be able to root for him, which the audience can because his character is likable. Scattered across the film are some pretty good performances, but none of them are as great as David Dorfman and Naomi Watts, which is fine because all the other performances are really well done.

"Don't you understand Rachel, she never sleeps"

"The Ring" is quiet, building terror. It's a ballad of rising horror, and then, by the third act the terror is let loose. It leaves the audience terrified in their seats. In the end, what's left of this sad world that "The Ring" lives in? Terror for the next poor souls I guess. It's a really powerful ending that leaves a small bit of hope. The ending leaves a small ounce of hope for our protagonists, but also rightfully so, the film leaves a bit of ambiguous terror with its ending. It's spectacular, something that leaves terror in the minds of most of its audiences.

This is a film that just comes across as a barrel of fun. This is for a number of reasons. The cast is a lot of fun, the chemistry between all is believable, the action is great, and in the end, it's a new plot that isn't done all that much, which only adds to the excitement of the film.

With all the pros do come a lot of cons, however, which is unfortunate. To begin this, Kyle Godfrey and his crew chose a horror idea that is very hard to pull off, even for big studios. This leads to a lot of moments with plot holes or plot conveniences. It's extremely hard to pull off a film where the monster/villain is something that the heroes can't look away from or else it will move. This of course leads into plenty of tough scenes to create, which Godfrey cleverly pulls off, but of course he doesn't pull them off perfectly. In one scene the main hero, James (played by Godfrey himself), is stuck in a room with two of the mannequinized and hides behind a corner. He looks at the mannequinized person and then ducks back into the corner. While Godfrey pulls this scene off fairly well, it fails in a sense because it doesn't produce the tension it wants to, and it simply doesn't make complete sense. It's scenes like this that throw in plot holes.

The main thing working for "The Mannequin Man" is that it is made for YouTube. Therefore, it presents itself humbly as just that -- made for YouTube, and it helps the film a lot. Then again, the film's savior is also its poison since the "made for YouTube" quality sticks out a lot and keeps audiences heavily reminded that they're only watching a YouTube film and nothing really out of the ordinary. It does hold the film back a bit, but for what it is, "The Mannequin Man" really is quite excellent to watch.

The cast does a fine job, and most of this is because a lot of the cast are friends in real life, so their chemistry comes across as very believable at times. Unfortunately, when watching it's obvious that the cast members are "just acting". But, I think what helps the cast a lot is that it's clear everyone pours their hearts out into these roles. A lot of these people have put their lives into acting. The best performances are definitely from Keanu Bertrand, who plays the comic relief Ethan, and does a great job at doing so, Kyle Godfrey, who plays the lead James, he is probably most believable for the most part, and Julian Dipaola, he plays Roman who's that one bully who thinks he's better than everyone. Heck! Roman's even got a full gang of cronies that throw random, but hilarious insults around at everyone.

Out of all of this though, I think what helps the film the most is that Godfrey and everyone, they put their entire heart and soul into making these films for their audiences. It's clear that creating this content for their viewers is one of their top priorities. It really shows too, because the viewers can tell that the cast loves what they're doing, and you can tell that all the cast members have true connections with each other.

The story is riveting, and it makes the film one of those where your eyes are glued to the screen the whole time. I can't really name one moment where I wasn't engrossed in Godfrey's work here, and that's because the viewer never really knows how "The Mannequin Man" will play out. It's all so spontaneous, and that's something that works so, so well for it.

With a little more work in his craft it's safe to say that Kyle Godfrey can become a great filmmaker in his own area. He just needs to work on certain areas of his technique and then he'll be able to craft amazing things. It's clear that his viewers can expect Godfrey to create great things in the future, and it seems "The Mannequin Man" is just the beginning of Godfrey's entry into greatness.