By Corey Vikser
Executive Online Editor
The only notable aspect of “Rings,” the long awaited reboot of a 2002 classic, is its ability to disappoint both fans of the original and newcomers.
“Rings” is a waste of moviegoers’ time, as poor screenwriting, lifeless performances and a mind-numbing pace ruin any potential enjoyability. Despite a thrilling ending and impressive visual design, the film’s negative qualities are so damning that they ruin the filmgoing experience.
The plot is centered around Holt (Alex Roe), a college student participating in a secret experiment involving a cursed videotape, in aims of scientifically proving the afterlife. When his girlfriend Julia (Matilda Lutz) is exposed to the tape, the couple must travel to the curse’s roots in order to save her life.
Photos: Rings fails to fulfill the standards set by its predecessors.
One of “Rings”’ biggest failures is its inability to expand the story’s concept beyond its roots. In the age of email and Snapchat, the filmmakers could have easily found innovative ways to modernize the story, but instead chose to retell the same tired tale of a cursed VHS tape.
Link: Several theatres are still exhibiting the film, with the nearest one being in Del Amo.
“Rings”’ writing is insultingly lazy, as the screenwriters treat the audience like complete idiots. The protagonists frequently talk to the audience to explain obvious events, such as when the couple is examining an empty tomb and Julia blurts, “Someone moved her.” Seriously? Rather than competently tell a story, the screenwriters use the characters as exposition vehicles, over explaining every minor plot point to viewers.
The film’s acting is notably lackluster, as the actors’ performances seem completely disenfranchised. The cursed tape’s first victim, Skye (Aimee Teegarden), behaves more similarly to a bratty teenager than someone about to be killed by a supernatural entity. Lead actress Lutz is no better; her performance is so apathetic that it becomes easy to forget her character is actually in danger.
Link: The film’s IMDB page contains promotional materials for the film.
“Rings” barely warrants its label as a horror film, as the filmmakers largely ignore the genre’s staplepoints. Scares are entirely absent during the first two thirds of the film, with the exception of sporadic pop-outs. The pop-out “scares” are utterly ineffective, amounting to obnoxiously loud noises for the sake of reminding viewers they are watching a horror movie. Unfortunately, it is quite easy to forget, as the filmmakers rarely make efforts to engage the audience.
The strangest aspect of “Rings” is despite its awful components, there is genuinely good filmmaking within it. The visual design is nothing short of gorgeous, as VHS “glitch” effects and impressive cinematography result in a memorable aesthetic. Cinematographer Sharone Meir effectively creates atmosphere through the use of visual symbolism and green color tones as well.
The last 20 minutes are undoubtedly the film’s best aspect, as the finale is genuinely scary, suspenseful and well-directed. The quality disparity between the first two-thirds and ending is so massive that it seems like the film was produced on autopilot until the third act. Director F. Javier Gutiérrez manages to deliver an intense and thrilling conclusion, but 20 good minutes fail to compensate for the 80 painfully boring ones that preceded them.
The best way to describe “Rings” is cinematic purgatory; the film is too well made to be considered “so-bad-it’s-good,” but also too boring and lifeless to be entertaining. Prospective viewers are better off renting a copy of the 2002 original.
“Rings” is rated PG-13 and playing in theatres nationwide.
Leave a Reply