
Writer: David Loucka
Jacob Aaron Estes
Akiva Goldsman
Starring: Matilda Lutz
Alex Roe
Johnny Galecki
Vincent D'Onofrio
Aimee Teegarden
Bonnie Morgan
Rating: **
Release Date: Out Now
1998, Japanese cinemas are terrified by the movie Ring. 2002 comes around and the beginning of Hollywood remaking Japanese horrors begins, starting with The Ring, starring Naomi Watts. It is a hit, and audiences worldwide are scared, also introducing the masses to the far superior Japanese horror films. In 2005, Hollywood releases The Ring Two, and it is an underwhelming film that fails to match the original success. Now, twelve years later and Rings has been released. The third in this apparent trilogy, and the only way to describe it is unnecessary cinema.
![]() |
Matilda Lutz, Johnny Galecki & Alex Roe |
This sequel is also missing all of the original films characters, which causes Rings to feel more like a remake than a sequel. The new characters are one dimensional and obvious in their
![]() |
Aimee Teegarden |
Director, F. Javier Gutierrez, has directed a horror movie. Does it have scary moments, yes a few; does tension build, on the odd occasion; has he made a film that will stand proudly next to horror films from the past, no. The problem for me is that Rings does nothing new. I have seen The Ring and The Ring Two, and in this third film I learnt nothing new, felt no difference, and honestly didn't understand why it was made. Studios try different things to make their money, but this is a studio trying the same thing to make money.
After watching the trailers, I was genuinely excited to see Rings, and hopeful that it would scare me silly. Consequently, the film was uninteresting and lacking in true terror. When a good horror film is made, the world talks about it, the audiences pile in, and movie makers know that history is being made. Rings has been released to little fanfare, and sadly little success.
Comments
Post a Comment