Rings

'RINGS': Three Stars (Out of Five)

The third installment in the American supernatural horror franchise, following 2002's 'THE RING' and 2005's 'THE RING TWO'; the series is based on the 1998 Japanese horror movie 'RINGU'. This sequel has a college student, and his girlfriend, trying to survive the curse of Samara Morgan; which haunts you for a week, before death, after watching a mysterious video tape. The film was directed by F. Javier Gutierrez, and it was written by David Loucka, Jacob Aaron Estes and Akiva Goldsman. It stars Matilda Lutz, Alex Roe, Johnny Galecki and Vincent D'Onofrio. The movie has been a hit at the Box Office, so far, but (of course) it's received mostly negative reviews from critics, and fans alike. I found it to be pretty disappointing.

A college professor, named Gabriel (Galecki), discovers the curse of Samara Morgan; after buying an old VCR at a garage sale, with a mysterious tape in it. He creates a college experiment out of the curse; where he assigns students to watch the tape, and then he finds them someone else to show it to (which saves their lives). Holt (Roe) is one new student that's unlucky enough to get the assignment. When Holt's girlfriend, Julia (Lutz), doesn't hear from him, she comes looking for him.

The film starts out pretty promising, and it's creepy enough (like the others), but it loses it's way pretty quickly. There's definitely some cool, and somewhat frightening, scenes in it; but they're mostly all in the first half of the movie. This sequel is definitely not as original, or as memorable, as it's predecessors; but it's worst crime is that it's just boring. The first half is mildly amusing, but the second half is definitely a bore!

Not much to say, after watching the "Rings". If you have seen the first two movies, then you should just skip this one. It's a disgrace for the series. Repiod.

Awful story, terrible acting, not even a single scary scene. Even when Samara appears, you are not scared, but sad... Not because of her story, but because of the series falloff...

Personally, I loved the first movie and enjoyed the second, even though I found it mediocre. This one, however, is one of the least interesting movies I have seen in my whole life.

Shame, shame, shame...

"Rings" is a horror movie in which we watch a young woman trying to reach her boyfriend who is missing in his try of exploring a dark urban legend (a mysterious video said to kill the watcher seven days after viewing). In the meantime and as she is trying to save her boyfriend she discovers something about this movie that none has ever found. Something that maybe can change everything.

I have to admit that I expected more from this movie and of course I was disappointed from it. It's the third movie of this series and I believe is the worst. The plot is at a very basic level which makes the movie boring and without any suspense, something that it's mandatory when we talk for a horror movie. In addition to this the direction which was made by F. Javier Gutiérrez is not so good due to the lack of experience or imagination of him or even because of low budget that this movie has. The interpretations of Johnny Galecki who plays as Gabriel and Vincent D'Onofrio who plays as Burke, they can be seen as "supporting players" in this film and nothing more.

Finally I believe that "Rings" is a simple - medium movie with low budget, poor cast and direction which used a name in order to make money and of course it failed. In comparison with the previous two movies I have to say that it's the worst and I don't recommend it to anyone, you are going to lose your time watching it.

Twelve years have passed since we last caught a glimpse of the waterlogged Samara clambering out of the well; twelve years. I want you to remember that because evidently the makers of Rings, the newest installment in the series forgot. They forgot that the origin of their vengeful specter has already been told and the supposed rules of Samara's curse need maybe a refresher at most. Yet given the fact this film simultaneously ups stakes and downplays expectations I have to ask, what are we supposed to be looking at: a reboot? A sequel? A spin off? I can't honestly tell you what we're supposed to be watching, but what it looks like is a really s***ty horror movie – one that plum forgot to bring the scary. Jump scares abound in this movie and if that's all it takes to jolt you out of your seat then watch out for the loud claps of car doors closing and umbrellas bursting open. Otherwise the second scariest thing about this movie is it makes an entire rural Georgia town look like the McPoyles from It's Always Sunny (2005-Present).

After an absurd opening hook provided by the single worst in-flight movie ever, the film begins with a young teenage couple inexplicably agog about the legend of Orpheus. Male Meatbag #1 (Roe) is headed off to college leaving Female Meatbag #1 (Ingrid Lutz) to wait for the inevitable turkey drop back in their hometown. The film insinuates she's taking care of a sick family member but we never see them and the plot thread drops as soon as Male Meatbag #1 stops answering his phone. Female Meatbag #1 becomes upset and makes her way to the guy's college where we meet (or rather re-meet) Male Meatbag #2 (Galecki). #2 is a biology professor who in addition to barely teaching classes also somehow managed to start an experimental death cult to protect himself from the cursed tape he recently found. Male Meatbag #1 is involved; Female Meatbag #1 sees the video, Female Meatbag #2 (Teegarden) dies and we all go on a glorious adventure to stop our flat screens from attacking.

The main problem that every film in the Ring Series (2002-Present) has to try to overcome is finding a second act that matters. The concept all but requires the main source of fright and threat to bookend a narrative dead zone whereby victims anxiously await their fates. The Ring (2002) accomplished this with an engaging mystery. The characters were given a clear time clock, elevated stakes and clues within the cursed video to give the audience something to play with.

Rings attempts the same thing, but since the audience should have some context (again it's been twelve years), we're all just twiddling our thumbs waiting for the characters to catch up. The mystery is a slightly different take on the curse (it's also a slightly different video), but it hardly justifies this airless, soulless cash grab. Especially since the Gothic atmosphere of the first is completely absent and all we're left with to mull on is a late appearance by Vincent D'Onofrio.

For what it's worth, supporting players Vincent D'Onofrio and Johnny Galecki outshine the leads in this insipid film like rusted tin cans in a rubbish tip. They're not by any means good, but they wisely play to their strengths unlike Ingrid Lutz who looks like she's about to burst a blood vessel trying to fake an American accent. Of course in comparison to Roe, she actually looks like she's trying to sell her role. Roe ambles onto the screen like a last place relay racer who suddenly decided "I just don't give a f*** anymore." This film is a redundant farce lacking any of the inspiration that made the first American remake not just good but a J-horror trendsetter. The chills and thrills are non-existent and story can't help but flounder in a sea of inattention and indecision. What is Rings supposed to be? I honestly think it might just be a bad joke twelve years in the making.

Seven days! A simple phrase that struck terror in our hearts oh so many years ago. Certainly, you know I'm talking of The Ring, the horror movie about a death delivering video tape certain to scare you to death. Samara's tale has fallen on to the backburner for some time, but like the cursed video, the series has resurfaced to the modern world to once more have you cowering at your screens. Will Rings live up to the potential? Robbie K here, once more sharing his opinions on yet another film. Let's get started.

LIKES: • Decent acting • Nice blend into the modern era • Strong story for a horror

Summary: Okay, this movie is certainly not going to win awards for best performance, but Rings' cast has some skill in their performances of college kids plagued by an evil spirit. Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz and Alex Roe are the leads of this tale, doing a great job of balancing romance and detective work, finally a power couple who wasn't annoying. And Johnny Galecki trades one nerd role for another, though this time his scientific qualities had a little darker twist to the mix. Overall, the cast gets a pat on the back for establishing some good characters to hook on to. Yet the major things this reviewer liked involved the story components of the movie. Rings has jumped into the modern area, dropping the outdated VHS tapes for modern day MP4 files. It will help bridge the generation gaps, and add a new element that the other installments were missing. And the story was much stronger than I anticipated. Rings has more mystery to it, trying to find the answers to the elusive mystery of Samara's origins. Where it fits in the grand scheme of things is a little up in the air, but at least there is some character development and drama to spice things up. And as for the ending, it too is a little ambiguous, providing some delightfully dark closure, but still leaving it open for future installments. Not the strongest finish, but also not bad.

DISLIKES: • Scare Factor at A Low • Some plot elements lackluster • Not the same Ring

Summary: Rings story may be on target, but the scare factor still didn't reach the same levels that the first movie was able to achieve. This installment resorted to jump out scare moments, mainly trying to make you jump with sudden loud noises and hallucinations appearing from out of nowhere. Many of these moments weren't well timed, and to be honest many of the objects just weren't scary. Think of the first film and how creepy everything was, the unknown always teasing you until something sprung out of nowhere. All that was very diluted in this installment. Even though they finally show you how she kills her victims, the team didn't quite make it as horrifying as I thought it would be (think ghost rider's soul stare without the flashy fire). Rings was lacking this element, and had more of a mystery theme to it than an actual horror. In addition, there were also some plot elements that didn't shine as much as they wanted. For this reviewer, there is still some questions they still haven't fully answered that you have to draw yourself. The bottom line of the dislikes is that Rings didn't quite hit the same level the first movie had all those years ago.

The VERDICT:

In conclusion, Ring is not so much a horror movie in this round, but a mystery film about uncovering the origins of Samara. While the cast is decent, the story is mostly thought out, and we have some answer, it still didn't feel like the Ring series we've come to know. If you are looking for a movie to scare the pants off of you, sorry this isn't the film to do it. And you can probably guess, but yours truly doesn't recommend this one for the theater and implores you to wait until it hits home rental stands. Only people who might enjoy this one in theater are those who care about the story element of the movie, but I still think you can wait for home (I mean we have been waiting twelve years for this one right?).

My scores are:

Drama/Horror: 6.5 Movie Overall: 5.0