Rings is a desperate cash grab but it’s interesting how poorly this cash grab was handled. Why make a sequel/slight reboot nearly 15 years since The Ring Two when that film wasn’t received in the best way upon its release? Also, if you’re going to go ahead and make a third installment, why have it shifted around the release schedule so much that it’s clear to all of us that something is wrong with your film. Rings opened to $13 million over the weekend but it’s clear it will barely recoup its $25 million budget and many are speculating that its performance over the weekend effectively killed two franchises in one fell swoop (a lot of murmurs are going around that the poor showing for this film is why Paramount Pictures got cold feet and decided to drop the Friday the 13th remake).
Had Rings had an iota of originality to it, I could give it a slight recommendation. I was reminded a bit of Blair Witch from last year which also tried to revive an aged franchise. That film had its flaws and was a bit disappointing but its final 10-15 minutes showed flashes of what could’ve been and it was worthy of some praise because of that. Rings is strictly by the numbers and it feels like a poor copy of what came before it. To call it dated in its approach would be far too kind.
In the film, a young woman named Julia (Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz) becomes the latest victim of Samara’s curse, which of course threatens to take her life in seven days, after she finds out her boyfriend Holt (Alex Roe) has joined a cult that’s obsessed with researching Samara (Bonnie Morgan) and her video. This cult, led by a professor named Gabriel (Johnny Galecki), wants to find out if the afterlife is real and constantly forces new victims to watch the video, which continually resets the seven-day death count. Julia decides to sacrifice herself and save Holt, and in doing so she discovers there’s unseen footage within the movie. In order to free herself and stop the curse, Julia must unravel the mystery behind the new video and Samara’s tragic past.
This is a problem that plagued The Ring Two and now Rings. Some fans may be interested in exploring Samara’s past but it’s simply not interesting enough. This was the problem with the sequel back in 2005 which took the solid mystery of the 2002 film and tried to humanize our ghostly villain and therefore dulling her impact. The new film tries to do this even further and it isn’t worth exploring. Some villains are better left unexplored and sometimes our imaginations can do all the work for us.
Another odd thing about the film is that it tries too hard to feel modern. Back in 2002 and ever more so when the original Ringu was released in 1998, VHS tapes were a bit more relevant so popping in the doomed tape makes sense. In 2017, it might be safe to say the target audience thinks VHS tapes are relics so now the new film explores the doomed footage being spread through the digital format. While it logically makes sense, the film is very heavy headed in its approach to using it. It’s almost as if they’re trying to show us how cool they are by using this plot device because it’s so “modern.” It wants to introduce the franchise to a new generation but even with this twist on the deadly footage being seen, it still feels like it’s strangely out of touch.
Director F. Javier Gutierrez focuses so much time on pointless exposition that he forgets to make the film scary. There are various jump scares that don’t really work and I can recall only two moments that generated some impact (the opening scene and a moment that has Julia coughing up endless strands of hair, but that was given away in the trailer). The film is full of exposition-filled dialogue that acts as if the audience can’t keep up but the reality is we’re miles ahead of the characters before they even know what’s going on.
I will say that cinematographer Sharone Meir does make the film visually appealing on some level. It’s not as visually striking as its predecessors (The Ring Two, despite being lackluster, has some great visual cues) but some nice choices are made when the horror quotient begins to become duller. The new footage is particularly disturbing in moments. Maybe that would’ve made for a decent short film.
Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz, who is a relative newcomer, is no Naomi Watts but she has a likable presence. She’s mostly let down by the script, which makes her a typical puppy-eyed teenager rather than a strong female presence. Alex Roe also has similar clichéd riddled moments as Holt. He’s good enough but the script also doesn’t do him any favors. Fairing much better is Johnny Galecki as Gabriel and Vincent D’Onofrio as a blind priest named Burke. They are much better than the material deserves and they actually bring a little depth to their roles. D’Onofrio’s role is a bit more over the top but they are both top notch and makes me wonder if they thought they were acting in another movie.
Rings asks us that question of did anyone really ask for this? I never heard anyone clamoring for a third installment in this franchise so if you’re going to do one, you have to make it count. The film ends up being a rehash of what came before and the 2017 twist doesn’t offer up anything new. You’re better off rediscovering the 1998 original and the 2002 remake, which showed how good this concept can be if done right.
Reel Talk gives Rings 1 Reel
