Connect with us

Film

‘Rings’- Warning! Do Not Watch This!

There’s an innocuous force at play here, and it comes off as contradictory and misjudged when saddled with Gore Verbinski’s 2002 American remake of The Ring. Whereas the latter dwelt in despair and a constantly unsettling sense of paranoia, Rings attempts to inject some ingenuity into proceedings, but it never quite has the courage to run with it. Instead, director Javier Gutierrez’s feature devolves into an uninspired origin tale that fails to unearth any key information that the audience didn’t already know.

The humdrum plot follows our hopelessly-in-love heroine, Julia, as she attempts to locate her long-distance college boyfriend, Holt, after an implied social messenger blackout. She soon discovers a secret group at Holt’s College, led by professor Gabriel, that has carefully constructed a process to avoid the vengeful Samara’s seven-day curse by copying the footage on the haunted tape and making somebody else watch it (a process known as tailing). Unfortunately, the film takes a turn for the worst when Holt’s own tail dies, and Julia takes it upon herself (in the name of love, I suspect) to watch the footage and reap the doomed rewards, despite Professor Gabriel already mentioning how he had guaranteed a tail for Holt.

After reviewing Julia’s own tape, Professor Gabriel discovers unseen footage prompting him to send Holt and Julia away to investigate the town Julia sees in her visions. This is where Rings loses its bearings; what was an intriguing foray into the rules of the curse in the form of a secret group of tail-ers is relegated to a cast-aside subplot. Other than this vaguely intriguing side-note, Rings proves itself as another derivative, investigative horror title, that once again attempts to shed some light on a demonic entity that we all know should be left well and truly alone. Fans of the original (American) film have already seen Naomi Watts’ character be robbed of closure; the same trick is played here, but the effects are far less potent than its 2002 predecessor.

The characters don’t help proceedings either; rather than being downright awful and stupid, Julia and Holt comes across as bland and flavourless, as they seek to understand what made Samara the VHS-haunting, multi-digital spectre audiences have come to fear. RIngs expects its audience to accept that Julia is the “chosen” one to set Samara free, but the script never justifies her worthiness with any meaningful backstory or conflicted characterisation – she just “is”. This is an all-too-common omission in the modern horror toolkit, and it needs to be stamped out. Holt is the worst offender, as he fails to act as anything else other than a contrived plot device – he becomes a hapless spectator with a tendency for being useless throughout the film.

Rings attempts to recapture the slow pace and the damning atmosphere of The Ring, and while it’s an admirable attempt, the film can only pale in comparison. The tools of the horror trade are displayed competently here: the cursed footage is as disturbing as it was back in 2002, Samara’s pale, rotten skin still disgusts and captivates, and the jump-scares are certainly jump-scares. All of these elements help to ensure that the film is never boring; it just falls drastically short of the franchise’s highs. There are moments when Rings looks like it’s about to tackle horror on a larger scale, such as the opening scene on the plane, a bold and novel change of direction for the series, but any suggestion of change is squandered by the narrative’s mundane insistence on showing its audience what it thinks it must, but doesn’t really need to see.

Rings is another misfired attempt at revitalising a classic horror film. Audience’s knew all they needed to know way back in 2002, and yet Paramount have distributed a film that seeks to undermine and eclipse the vastly superior original. Just when it looks like the Rings is about to explore new territory, it cuts away to something infinitely more monotonous and by-the-numbers. Nothing is intolerable during its lean 102-minute running time, but there’s nothing particularly exciting here either to get the blood pumping. In the end, audiences are left with a story that’s about as fresh as the ghastly child crawling out of your television screen.

Written By

Films, games and music: the big three! If you like any of these, chances are we're going to get on just fine. I'm just a balding, goggle-eyed 26-year old Masters graduate from the UK, and I'm here to talk games! Let's dance.

2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Mike Worby

    February 8, 2017 at 4:08 am

    The question is: is it worse then The Ring Two?

    • Craig Sharpe

      February 8, 2017 at 5:23 pm

      Probably not quite as bad as that monstrosity, but still pretty bad.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Facebook

Trending

Falling-Down film review Falling-Down film review

Joel Schumacher’s Falling Down Poses Some Serious Questions

Film

The Big Lebowski The Big Lebowski

25 Years Later: Aggression Will Not Stand in The Big Lebowski

Film

The Academy Awards: The Best Picture Losers The Academy Awards: The Best Picture Losers

50 Best Movies That Did Not Win Best Picture at the Oscars

Film

The Academy Awards: The Best Picture Losers The Academy Awards: The Best Picture Losers

50 Best Movies to not Win Best Picture at the Oscars

Film

Blueback film review Blueback film review

Blueback Doesn’t Dive Deep Enough

Film

The Last of Us Look for the Light The Last of Us Look for the Light

The Last of Us Season One Ends the Only Way It Knows How with “Look for the Light”

TV

One for The Birds — Hitchcock’s Masterpiece at 60 One for The Birds — Hitchcock’s Masterpiece at 60

Second Wing: Another Look at Hitchcock’s The Birds

Film

Brother movie review Brother movie review

Brother is a Well-acted but Overwrought Account of 1990s Scarborough

Film

The Last of Us When We Are in Need The Last of Us When We Are in Need

Everyone’s a Monster In The Last of Us “When We Are in Need”

TV

Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves movie review Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves movie review

Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves Delightfully Returns the Fantasy Blockbuster to Form

Film

One for The Birds — Hitchcock's Masterpiece at 60 One for The Birds — Hitchcock's Masterpiece at 60

One for The Birds — Hitchcock’s Masterpiece at 60

Film

Inside Movie Review Inside Movie Review

Being Trapped Inside with Willem Dafoe’s Art Thief is (Mostly) Great

Film

The Mandalorian Season 2 Phenomenally Flaunts The Potential of Storytelling With Star Wars The Mandalorian Season 2 Phenomenally Flaunts The Potential of Storytelling With Star Wars

The Mandalorian Starts Season 3 with a Good Episode but an Okay Premiere in “The Apostate”

Culture

Roberto Benigni at the 71st Academy Awards Roberto Benigni at the 71st Academy Awards

The Most Iconic Moments at the Oscars

Culture

The Mandalorian: Grogu’s Most Adorable Moments The Mandalorian: Grogu’s Most Adorable Moments

The Mandalorian: Grogu’s Most Adorable Moments

Culture

John Wick: Chapter 4 Review John Wick: Chapter 4 Review

John Wick: Chapter 4 Is an Action Epic for the Ages

Film

Connect