While the Ring franchise has survived in Japan with Sadako 3D (2012), Sadako 3D 2 (2013) and Sadako vs. Kayako (2016), the rest of the world hasn’t seen the black haired little girl that kills you since the American remake sequel The Ring 2 in 2005. I never thought that I’d be seeing a Hollywood version of the killer again, especially twelve years later! For that reason, I thought Rings (aka The Ring 3) would have personal nostalgia for me since The Ring came out when I was in eighth grade and its sequel came out when I was a sophomore in high school. Now I’m just a 28-year-old guy writing for Horror Society, but I still wanted to see what Rings had to offer me so many years later. Here’s my review having watched it last night.
Rings comes to horror fans from director F. Javier Gutiérrez, who also produced Demonic and is executively producing the Crow remake. This time, Samara’s influence is known on a broader scale and a network exists to educate, examine and stop her influence and murderous streak. Unfortunately, college kids are still infatuated with the legendary VHS tape – which also exists as an email-able video file now – and a young couple set out discover more about Samara’s origins and finally put her to rest. It’s a race against time when they realize the curse is growing stronger and they may not have a full seven days before the ghostly girl in white comes for their souls. Based on the screenplay by Akiva Goldsman, Jacob Estes and David Loucka as well as the novel by Kôji Suzuki, Rings sees the return of producers Neal Edelstein, Roy Lee, Mike Macari, Laurie MacDonald, Walter F. Parkes and J.C. Spink.
Rings boasts a lead and supporting cast comprised of Matilda Anna Ingrid, Alex Roe (“The Cut,” The 5th Wave), Johnny Galecki (I Know What You Did Last Summer, “The Big Bang Theory”), Vincent D’Onofrio (“Law & Order,” Men In Black), Aimee Teegarden (Scream 4, “Friday Night Lights”), Jill Jane Clements (“Outcast”), Chuck David Willis (“Ex-Best”), Patrick R. Walker (“Scream: The TV Series”) and Bonnie Morgan as Samara. It was a cool mix of talent made up of genre veterans, television stars and major up-and-comers. But, I would have done some major switching around in terms of role and duration of appearance; as well as I would’ve Chris Greene’s scene in the movie! With no offense meant on my part, Rings was created for and aimed at a teen audience and the two central characters interact with other supporting characters who are far outside of that demographic, which made for a somewhat slower movie than teens are used to. For instance, I found an early scene between Matilda Ingrid and Aimee Teegarden to be the best in the feature, while most other scenes were lacking the same chemistry and PG-13 horror element.
Rings returned much in the same way that Jason X did after a few years out of the limelight, with a hokey futuristic sequence of Samara taking out a whole plane full of people mid-flight. It was certainly an interesting way to start off the movie, and though it was attention grabbing, I think the more subdued device of young viewers watching and being murdered at home would have been more effective. Kicking things off with an air plane death made way for Final Destination feelings which was the easiest way to take any real scare factor out of Rings. On the other side of the coin, the franchise has always been more of a science fiction murder mystery to me more than an upfront horror flick. I think only three people die in this movie, there’s a couple of jump scares, and a couple of strange moments, but Rings just doesn’t come across as a horror flick. It never has. Slightly creepy? Yes. A horror flick? Not entirely.
It is, however, directly in line with the previous two movies and feels like a familiar continuation. This can be contributed to the amount of returning producers and the expert cinematography from Sharone Meir. If you enjoyed the look and feel of the first two films, you’re going to dig this one as well. It’s funny to me, though, that people haven’t learned to just run away from Samara yet. On two occasions characters stand there as she approaches and never fight back. If someone is slowly approaching you and needs time to crawl out of a well and a television, trust me – you have enough time to run away. This has always been a common place tactic in all Ring movies to build suspense in these moments, but I’ve always found them lacking realism. Still, Rings saw the lure of Samara adapting and changing over time, which is probably while this sequel was greenlit in the first place. There’s something different about Julia (Matilda). She receives visions directly from Samara and the ghost girl even goes as far as to add addition scenes to the haunted VHS tape/movie file. I was fine with a more modern approach because it showed that this story could change with the times.
To be honest, we live in a world where people like to be mean and bitchy for the sake of being mean and bitchy. As I stated above, the Ring movies have never been about in your face horror as much as they’ve been about a creepy, supernatural mystery. I think the general audience and critics in general were harsh on Rings for the sake of being witty and harsh. I mean, what cinematic themes and life changing depictions did you expect to see in a movie about a little girl stuck in a well? Rings is well acted, well produced and stands up to the nostalgia of the previous two entries in the franchise. Although, I will say it is a little better than Rings 2. If you’re a fan of the first two movies or if you’re looking for a subdued story with a lot of tension, twists and creepiness, then this might be the movie for you. It’s certainly worth at least the price of a stream. Final Score: 6.5 out of 10.
