Now Reading
RINGS: A Poorly Wrought Attempt At Nostalgia

RINGS: A Poorly Wrought Attempt At Nostalgia

RINGS: A Poorly Wrought Attempt At Nostalgia

Anyone who grew up in the early 2000s will likely remember their first time watching Gore Verbinski‘s The Ring. With an eerie unsettling atmosphere and disturbing imagery, the film was a resounding success, though also one that unfortunately led to a series of far less enthusiastic Japanese horror (J-horror) remakes (The GrudgeDark Water, and Pulse being a few examples). Still, who can forget that first terrifying glimpse of the hazy ethereal black-haired Samara crawling out of the TV?

What to expect from a sequel, then, premiering a full 12 years after the over-the-top disaster that was The Ring Two (which was somehow directed by Hideo Nakata, the director of the original Japanese Ringu)? Would it take the slow-burning, subdued approach of Verbinski‘s film, or up the ante like its sequel?

Unfortunately, the aptly titled Rings does neither. It’s a whirlwind of unsynchronized approaches and scare tactics, none of which land, and with a story that is relentlessly dull to watch unfold. It took over a decade to get this long-awaited sequel – but, like The Ring Two, you might prefer to believe it doesn’t exist. 

Yet Another Character Backstory

Rings focuses on a girl named Julia (Matilda Lutz) and her boyfriend Holt (Alex Roe), both of whom get involved in the Samara legend after they watch the cursed video, originally shown to Holt by his teacher Gabriel (The Big Bang Theory‘s Johnny Galecki). Gabriel, being a philosophy teacher, is at first seemingly curious about what the video represents, showing it to people at will (there’s even a possibility that he is morbidly interested in what the video seems to say about an afterlife, an idea which is touched upon but never fully explored). Yet, eventually realizing its danger, the three decide to venture out in order to dig deeper at the legend behind the tape.

RINGS: A Poorly Wrought Attempt At Nostalgia
source: Paramount Pictures

In a strange yet not unthinkable move, Rings completely ignores the backstory of the Samara legend that was uncovered by Naomi Watts‘ character in The Ring Two. Instead, the story focuses on a supposed video-within-the-video, which has mysterious imagery within it that brings them to the town where the young girl was buried. The hope in coming here is that they can “set her free” and stop the never-ending cycle of watching the video, then creating a copy, and then showing it to someone else; since this is the only way that you can avoid a horrific death a week after seeing the tape. (If you’re shaking your head already, just wait).

Mystery Thriller (But Not Really)

In the original The Ring, as we slowly unravel the backstory behind the images on the tape, the film becomes more akin to a mystery thriller, albeit with a tinge of the paranormal. There are rarely any cheap jump-scares or excess gore to be had, and even if presented with nightmarish images, it is usually later explained away as a dream. The film is a nuanced and balanced buildup, with a final earned reveal that truly delivers.

In Rings, the film loses all traces of nuance even with its opening scene, which takes place on a plane exactly seven days after one of the passengers had watched the Ring tape; predictably, chaos ensues. Later, the first glimpse of Samara’s infamous coming-out-of-the-TV scene is almost an exact recreation of the similar scene from the first film. Even later still, as we attempt to unravel Samara’s backstory, there are multiple red herrings, unnecessary jump-scares, and attempts at visceral imagery that just don’t quite work.

RINGS: A Poorly Wrought Attempt At Nostalgia
source: Paramount Pictures

Surprisingly, though, if I were to explain the principle flaw of Rings as a whole, it wouldn’t necessarily be its excessiveness. It has plenty of overused tropes, to be sure, but what is really missing here is the lack of an engaging story, or really, any story at all. Say what you will about the nonsensical ghost legend in the first two films – at least they had something to latch onto.

Here, the story involves a cemetery, an old church with a secret basement, and a blind man who knows more than he’s initially letting on (he’s also played by Vincent D’Onofrio, who should really have a long conversation with his agent). I could have pieced together the entirety of the film’s events from just knowing these three details alone. And that spells out serious structural and pacing issues from director F. Javier Gutiérrez and screenwriters David LouckaJacob Aaron Estes, and Akiva Goldsman.

In addition, breaking from the paranormal basis towards the end of the second act, the film starts to more-than-slightly resemble a famous trapped-house thriller from last year. I won’t say exactly which film due to spoilers, but suffice it to say that it seems too blatant to simply be a coincidence.

Failed Attempt at Modernization

Much like last year’s Blair Witch, in that Rings is also a sequel to an early 21st century film, there was a necessity to modernize the original story behind it. In The Ring, the focus was on a cursed VHS tape, which was becoming outdated technology even at the time of its release. Clearly, there had to be some way to bring the story into the modern digital era.

Gabriel, who first finds the tape, transfers it to a digital file. In order for one to survive as in the original story, they need only right click and copy the original file, and subsequently show this copy to somebody else. (Apparently, Samara is up-to-date on modern computers).

Yet, the film does little to expand this idea further. There was ripe potential to satirize the potential damages that result from our dependence on computers and technology as a form of entertainment, in a similar way as the original film with television. Further, the dangers of social media, which are all too widespread with the phenomenon of cyber-bullying, is merely glanced upon in the course of the film, not nearly enough to be effective. To be fair, the addition of mobile technology is alluded to at one point in the film, but seeing Samara emerge from a cellphone is not nearly as scary as it sounds.

Nostalgia Gone Wrong

Disregarding its wasted potential, meandering story, or hammy acting (Matilda Lutz and Alex Roe really could have used better guidance with their delivery), Rings attempts to cash in on that one quality that is responsible for a plethora of lazy remakes and sequels: nostalgia. Understandably, there are scenes that are taken from Gore Verbinski‘s original; for example, replaying segments of the original tape, showing the interview with Samara that was displayed in the first film, specific imagery, and more.

RINGS: A Poorly Wrought Attempt At Nostalgia
source: Paramount Pictures

Yet, additional scenes also play out almost shot-for-shot. An example is the aforementioned first time we see Samara emerge from a television, which is altered only by the TV screen being larger than it was back in 2002. Further examples include the same gagging long strand of hair coming out of someone’s throat scene, which is almost identical to Naomi Watts’ moment in the first movie.

The issue is not necessarily that these scenes exist; it’s that the film takes these moments and then does nothing different or interesting with them – the ending of Rings, for example, is so similar to both the endings of The Ring and The Ring Two that I’d be hard-pressed if there was even a single person that didn’t see it coming a mile away.

Conclusion

Rings is a perplexing mess of a film. With a convoluted basis and disengaging story-line, it fails to instill the same slow-burning, primal scares that made the first film such a memorable success. As a result, the attempts at cashing in on nostalgia are all but wasted by the film’s conclusion.

There is a minutes-long sequence towards the end of Rings that hints at something bigger. It presents an idea with such horrific capacity that, rather than driving the film’s purpose home, instead undermines it in its entirety. It’s a final look at what could have been; like Rings itself, though, it’s too little, too late.

What did you think of Rings? What is your favorite J-horror remake?

Rings opened worldwide on February 3, 2017. For all international release dates, see here.


Does content like this matter to you?


Become a Member and support film journalism. Unlock access to all of Film Inquiry`s great articles. Join a community of like-minded readers who are passionate about cinema - get access to our private members Network, give back to independent filmmakers, and more.

Join now!

Scroll To Top