Rings

Rings

(The Ring 3)
(2016)

First you watch. Then you die.

The third entry into the American videotape horror franchise turns back the clock to tell the tale of how the cursed tape came to be – and when Samara’s terror began. Co-stars Big Bang Theory’s Johnny Galecki.... More

Julia (Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz) becomes worried about her boyfriend, Holt (Alex Roe) when he explores the dark urban legend of a mysterious videotape said to kill the watcher seven days after viewing. She sacrifices herself to save her boyfriend and in doing so makes a horrifying discovery: there is a "movie within the movie" that no one has ever seen before.Hide

Flicks Review

Gore Verbinski's 2002 remake of the J-horror hit The Ring is one of the best American horror films ever made. Hideo Nakata, who directed the Japanese original, helmed the 2005 follow-up The Ring Two, which was so bad it killed the English-language version of the franchise then and there.... More

This late-arriving sequel/reboot is a lot more enjoyable than the 2005 sequel, but never comes close to scaling the heights of Verbinski's film. Rings had its release date repeatedly delayed, and the film reeks of mid and post-production tinkering, backing very slowly into its main plot. It begins with an almost entirely unrelated and clearly tacked-on pre-title sequence upon a jetliner, then introduces Johnny Galecki's seemingly central professor character, before eventually settling on its protagonists almost half-way through the film.

For all the narrative clumsiness, the film maintains attention and serves up a couple of reasonably effective horror set-pieces. Plus, Vincent D'Onofrio (The Magnificent Seven) hams it up in the way only he can, which is always fun. So while there's some entertainment value here, Rings is a let down more for the potential it fails to embody.

There's a very interesting idea presented here, that of a cult-ish group of people who deliberately watch the cursed videotape with the idea that the curse can then be passed by making a copy for another willing viewer - "a tail" - so as to alleviate their fate. That the film fails to explore this potentially potent thread is its most disappointing aspect.  

You could do a lot worse when it comes to mainstream horror films, but Rings dooms itself by being more interested in re-starting a franchise than telling a compelling - let alone scary - story.Hide


The Peoples' Reviews

Average ratings from 5 ratings, 1 reviews
Reviewed & Rated by
Your rating & review
Rate / Review this movie

BY MaryWT wannabe

Bad - really bad. I was not expecting much - but what i got was just a warmed over rehash of the original japanese films... again.. I guess it was got what i deserved for spending the cash and being sucked in. should have read the reviews!!!!

AVOID!!


Showing 1 of 1 reviews. See all reviews

The Press Reviews

  • Unlikely to fire up the faithful and almost sure not to attract new fans to this J-horror-derived property. Full Review

  • It's now the file-share that kills. I don't know why that's less threatening, but it is, kind of like seeing your favourite album cover reduced to a digital postage stamp. Full Review

  • Imagine eating wallpaper paste, listening to Coldplay and watching the entire 'Da Vinci Code' trilogy back to back. Still less boring than 'Rings'. Full Review

  • Essentially a well-produced, easily accessed B-movie. Still, it wouldn't kill you to watch it, and it does more than expected to reinvent its particular wheel. Full Review

  • At no point does the movie manage even a single sequence of sustained tension, or a frisson of genuine terror. Full Review

  • Fans of the franchise will probably be pleased ... Too many horror sequels are content merely to recycle what worked the first time. Full Review

The Talk
78 %

Want to see it

What say you?