Rings

The movie was better than it had any right to be, but it didn't try to do anything new. I actually enjoyed the mystery aspect of the film, but it kind of failed as a scary movie, as it wasn't scary at all and was filled with cheap fake jump scares. The acting from the two main people isn't bad, but you can tell they got the parts just because they were pretty. This movie seems much more of a sequel to the original movie The Ring, forgetting most of the nonsense from The Ring 2. Rings also seems to take more inspiration from the original Japanese films, where a lot more is learned about Samara's birth parents.

From the trailers, I thought that this movie might have a lot more stuff with social media, but other than a few things, this movie could have taken place a decade ago. The only thing to show that the film's in the present is that they copy & paste video files, and they use smart phones as flashlights. Overall, the film isn't horrible, but it also isn't very good, I definitely wouldn't recommend it.

If you want to see my full review in video form you can check it out here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JstAEbfzXwI

People are making this film out to be a lot worse than it was. I agree with people that it would have been much better received had it been released years earlier, because a considerable amount of time has passed between The Ring 2 and Rings, but that shouldn't impact on people's ratings on the film itself. I also agree that Rings did not have the same strengths as The Ring and The Ring 2, but it still wasn't deserving of ratings as below 5, like many people are giving it. As a horror/thriller, it still had the classic jump scares and suspense, making it a successful horror flick. I gave it 7/10 because I think that that's a fair rating once I've considered the down sides and the positives. I recommend you watch it so you can at least finish the story of Samara's hauntings.

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

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.

...to not waste yours.

Remember the writers strike of 1988?

How bad a good pie recipe is without a cook? How poorly your car runs with no gasoline? How your puppy seems lacklustre and not at all playful since he died?

There was more suspense on Teletubbies when I didn't see the green one for a few seconds. Remember Duckman? I did, after I struggled thru 46 minutes of this I borrowed my parents VCR and watched it instead.