Arguably one of the biggest franchises in modern horror cinema, The Ring series of films (adapted for American audiences from the original Japanese film, Ringu) has a dedicated and loyal audience. The hype around any Ring-related release is usually off the charts.
That’s why it’s so painful to report that the latest sequel in the franchise, Rings, fails to match its predecessors in any category, and that includes scares, acting, effects and story. Some recent horror movies have used cheesy dialogue and a romantic subplot as satire; others have made it tongue-in-cheek, meant to derive laughs from the audience. In Ring‘s case, unfortunately, the slow-moving side-story is simultaneously groan-worthingly genuine and the movie’s anchor, plunging it into the depths, never to resurface.
How is the main story?
As above, it is slow. There are so many lulls in the action (and in horror there shouldn’t be too many), they eventually clump together to make the movie one big slog. Another problem is that a lot of it doesn’t make much sense. The main story, which revolves around Samara Morgan (the creepy dead girl who crawls out of your TV set) and her history, is the kind of tale that, when you actually dig beneath the surface, reveals little logic and a whole bunch of contrivance. Yes, it’s a horror movie, and to be fair, many horror stories aren’t exactly sensible. But Rings has plot holes aplenty, and they’re glaring.
Rings starts out on a plane, and since I’m loath to spoil the one great scene of the movie, I won’t go any further. But the opening has so much adrenaline and suspense, it’s a shame it couldn’t carry on through the rest of the film.
WATCH BELOW: Rings movie prank terrifies TV-store customers
What about the cast?
With TV stars like Johnny Galecki (Big Bang Theory), Aimee Teegarden (Friday Night Lights) and Vincent D’Onofrio (Law & Order: Criminal Intent) in the main cast, you’d think wow, this must be good! Strangely, each of these actors fails to bring any big bang (ha!) to the proceedings. They disappear into the script, and their characters do very little outside of their paint-by-numbers personalities: Galecki is an unshaven college professor, Teegarden a student or Galecki’s girlfriend (it’s never made clear) and D’Onofrio a blind man living in an old church.
The main couple of the film, Julia (Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz) and Holt (Alex Roe), are straight out of a soap opera, complete with very limited acting range and flat delivery of what are meant to be emotionally charged lines. They do try their best, but if you have the same expression on your face when you’re terrified for your life and when you’re sitting in a car, then something’s not right.
But surely Rings has to be scary on some level, right?
As mentioned earlier, the opening scene is an adrenaline rush, and by far the best scene of the movie. Sure, Samara’s jerky movements provide a few jumps, but there are no long scares. At a certain point in the middle of the film, you think it’s going to pick up as the plot twists around, but the scariness doesn’t materialize. It’s almost as if Samara has gone from an analog to a 4K spirit — rendered into such detail, even the creepy little girl is far less creepy this time around.
READ MORE: Girl from The Ring throws first pitch to ghosts from The Grudge at Japanese baseball game
So what’s the bottom line?
For die-hard The Ring fans, this could disappoint you. But if you’re a purist and need to see how the story progresses, you just might enjoy yourself. Remember that this is not a scary movie, but more of a mystery, so if you go in with that mindset, you may spare yourself heartache.
WATCH: Johnny Galecki on how his horror sequel Rings has been updated for the modern age.
Comments