Rings

Rings
01:42:00
Rings.2017.hd.1080p
HD
Download NowWatch Now
Evil is reborn.
Rings Poster
4.7/10 by 633 users
Watch Trailer

Julia becomes worried about her boyfriend, Holt when he explores the dark urban legend of a mysterious videotape said to kill the watcher seven days after viewing. She sacrifices herself to save her boyfriend and in doing so makes a horrifying discovery: there is a "movie within the movie" that no one has ever seen before.

Title:Rings
Release Date:February 1, 2017
Runtime:
Genres:Horror
Production Co.:Vertigo Entertainment, Macari/Edelstein, Parkes+MacDonald Image Nation, Waddieish Claretrap
Production Countries:United States of America
Director:F. Javier Gutiérrez, Diane Durant, Janine Gosselin
Writers:, , ,
Casts:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Plot Keywords:hallucination, investigation, drama, sequel, suspense, curse, surprise ending, vhs, electrocution, death, maggot, nosebleed, supernatural horror, seven days, video tape, deformed face, falling down a well, crawling out of a tv set, death scene
Alternative Titles:
  • El Aro 3 - [CL]
  • The Ring Three - [US]
  • The Ring 3 - [US]
  • La llamada 3 - [AR]
  • The Ring 3D - [US]
  • Rings - [ES]
  • The Ring 3 - Rings - [CA]

Rings Reviews

  • A Joke Twelve Years in the Making
    by bkrauser-81-311064 on 6 February 2017

    77 out of 95 people found the following review useful:

    Twelve years have passed since we last caught a glimpse of the waterlogged Samara clambering out of the well; twelve years. I want you to remember that because evidently the makers of Rings, the newest installment in the series forgot. They forgot that the origin of their vengeful specter has already been told and the supposed rules of Samara's curse need maybe a refresher at most. Yet given the fact this film simultaneously ups stakes and downplays expectations I have to ask, what are we supposed to be looking at: a reboot? A sequel? A spin off? I can't honestly tell you what we're supposed to be watching, but what it looks like is a really s***ty horror movie – one that plum forgot to bring the scary. Jump scares abound in this movie and if that's all it takes to jolt you out of your seat then watch out for the loud claps of car doors closing and umbrellas bursting open. Otherwise the second scariest thing about this movie is it makes an entire rural Georgia town look like the McPoyles from It's Always Sunny (2005-Present).

    After an absurd opening hook provided by the single worst in-flight movie ever, the film begins with a young teenage couple inexplicably agog about the legend of Orpheus. Male Meatbag #1 (Roe) is headed off to college leaving Female Meatbag #1 (Ingrid Lutz) to wait for the inevitable turkey drop back in their hometown. The film insinuates she's taking care of a sick family member but we never see them and the plot thread drops as soon as Male Meatbag #1 stops answering his phone. Female Meatbag #1 becomes upset and makes her way to the guy's college where we meet (or rather re-meet) Male Meatbag #2 (Galecki). #2 is a biology professor who in addition to barely teaching classes also somehow managed to start an experimental death cult to protect himself from the cursed tape he recently found. Male Meatbag #1 is involved; Female Meatbag #1 sees the video, Female Meatbag #2 (Teegarden) dies and we all go on a glorious adventure to stop our flat screens from attacking.

    The main problem that every film in the Ring Series (2002-Present) has to try to overcome is finding a second act that matters. The concept all but requires the main source of fright and threat to bookend a narrative dead zone whereby victims anxiously await their fates. The Ring (2002) accomplished this with an engaging mystery. The characters were given a clear time clock, elevated stakes and clues within the cursed video to give the audience something to play with.

    Rings attempts the same thing, but since the audience should have some context (again it's been twelve years), we're all just twiddling our thumbs waiting for the characters to catch up. The mystery is a slightly different take on the curse (it's also a slightly different video), but it hardly justifies this airless, soulless cash grab. Especially since the Gothic atmosphere of the first is completely absent and all we're left with to mull on is a late appearance by Vincent D'Onofrio.

    For what it's worth, supporting players Vincent D'Onofrio and Johnny Galecki outshine the leads in this insipid film like rusted tin cans in a rubbish tip. They're not by any means good, but they wisely play to their strengths unlike Ingrid Lutz who looks like she's about to burst a blood vessel trying to fake an American accent. Of course in comparison to Roe, she actually looks like she's trying to sell her role. Roe ambles onto the screen like a last place relay racer who suddenly decided "I just don't give a f*** anymore." This film is a redundant farce lacking any of the inspiration that made the first American remake not just good but a J-horror trendsetter. The chills and thrills are non-existent and story can't help but flounder in a sea of inattention and indecision. What is Rings supposed to be? I honestly think it might just be a bad joke twelve years in the making.

  • They Killed The Ring Franchise With This
    by view_and_review on 19 February 2017

    49 out of 62 people found the following review useful:

    Sequels are watched based upon the strength of their predecessors. It is known that most sequels aren't as good but sometimes the first installment was so good that the sequel can never live up to it and nor does it have to to be appreciated. The Ring was the scariest movie I'd seen in 20 years. I remember being genuinely spooked when watching that movie. Part two wasn't as good but it was watchable. Rings, on the other hand, was trash.

    We all know the premise by now: watch the video, get a phone call and then you have seven days to live. We all know who Samara is and we all know what she does to her victims, so that avenue is cutoff as far as generating scares. Where do you go from there then if you want to try to cash in on the Samara craze one more time?

    In Rings a professor discovers the Samara video and watches it. He also finds out that in order to stop the impending death all he has to do is record it and have someone else watch it. He then decides to turn this into an experiment in order to answer some elusive metaphysical questions. He ensures that all of his subjects are able to shake the Samara curse by recording the video and having another person watch it. Of course this would be a never ending chain of video watching but whatever. In steps the main characters, two lovebirds that are prime scary movie age (18-25).

    The writers completely mailed this one in. There was no real thought given to how they would revive the Samara story. There was no legitimate path for the main character, Julia (Matilda Lutz), to be inserted into this movie yet the writers clumsily shoe horned her in there; which meant I had to be assaulted by her poor acting the entire movie. In fact, I'd say that was the scariest thing: her acting.

    With no fresh and innovative means to scare its audience the director relied on cheap jump scares: suddenly opening umbrella, barking dog, truck horn, breaking glass, etc. Not one of these lousy attempts at spooking the viewer even managed to register a single uptick in heart rate. This movie was lame from the word "go".

    They did attempt to legitimize the movie by casting actors such as The Big Bang Theory's Johnny Galecki and veteran actor Vincent D'Onofrio but their talents were wasted. This movie was an abysmal failure and even though Samara may not be dead and gone this franchise certainly is.

  • The Story Is A Ringer, but the scares don't really linger
    by rgkarim on 3 February 2017

    57 out of 78 people found the following review useful:

    Seven days! A simple phrase that struck terror in our hearts oh so many years ago. Certainly, you know I'm talking of The Ring, the horror movie about a death delivering video tape certain to scare you to death. Samara's tale has fallen on to the backburner for some time, but like the cursed video, the series has resurfaced to the modern world to once more have you cowering at your screens. Will Rings live up to the potential? Robbie K here, once more sharing his opinions on yet another film. Let's get started.

    LIKES: • Decent acting • Nice blend into the modern era • Strong story for a horror

    Summary: Okay, this movie is certainly not going to win awards for best performance, but Rings' cast has some skill in their performances of college kids plagued by an evil spirit. Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz and Alex Roe are the leads of this tale, doing a great job of balancing romance and detective work, finally a power couple who wasn't annoying. And Johnny Galecki trades one nerd role for another, though this time his scientific qualities had a little darker twist to the mix. Overall, the cast gets a pat on the back for establishing some good characters to hook on to. Yet the major things this reviewer liked involved the story components of the movie. Rings has jumped into the modern area, dropping the outdated VHS tapes for modern day MP4 files. It will help bridge the generation gaps, and add a new element that the other installments were missing. And the story was much stronger than I anticipated. Rings has more mystery to it, trying to find the answers to the elusive mystery of Samara's origins. Where it fits in the grand scheme of things is a little up in the air, but at least there is some character development and drama to spice things up. And as for the ending, it too is a little ambiguous, providing some delightfully dark closure, but still leaving it open for future installments. Not the strongest finish, but also not bad.

    DISLIKES: • Scare Factor at A Low • Some plot elements lackluster • Not the same Ring

    Summary: Rings story may be on target, but the scare factor still didn't reach the same levels that the first movie was able to achieve. This installment resorted to jump out scare moments, mainly trying to make you jump with sudden loud noises and hallucinations appearing from out of nowhere. Many of these moments weren't well timed, and to be honest many of the objects just weren't scary. Think of the first film and how creepy everything was, the unknown always teasing you until something sprung out of nowhere. All that was very diluted in this installment. Even though they finally show you how she kills her victims, the team didn't quite make it as horrifying as I thought it would be (think ghost rider's soul stare without the flashy fire). Rings was lacking this element, and had more of a mystery theme to it than an actual horror. In addition, there were also some plot elements that didn't shine as much as they wanted. For this reviewer, there is still some questions they still haven't fully answered that you have to draw yourself. The bottom line of the dislikes is that Rings didn't quite hit the same level the first movie had all those years ago.

    The VERDICT:

    In conclusion, Ring is not so much a horror movie in this round, but a mystery film about uncovering the origins of Samara. While the cast is decent, the story is mostly thought out, and we have some answer, it still didn't feel like the Ring series we've come to know. If you are looking for a movie to scare the pants off of you, sorry this isn't the film to do it. And you can probably guess, but yours truly doesn't recommend this one for the theater and implores you to wait until it hits home rental stands. Only people who might enjoy this one in theater are those who care about the story element of the movie, but I still think you can wait for home (I mean we have been waiting twelve years for this one right?).

    My scores are:

    Drama/Horror: 6.5 Movie Overall: 5.0

  • A disgrace to the Ring's history
    by jo_habias on 12 February 2017

    53 out of 79 people found the following review useful:

    Not much to say, after watching the "Rings". If you have seen the first two movies, then you should just skip this one. It's a disgrace for the series. Repiod.

    Awful story, terrible acting, not even a single scary scene. Even when Samara appears, you are not scared, but sad... Not because of her story, but because of the series falloff...

    Personally, I loved the first movie and enjoyed the second, even though I found it mediocre. This one, however, is one of the least interesting movies I have seen in my whole life.

    Shame, shame, shame...

  • I hope I'm not wasting my time, telling you...
    by ron-d-chase on 20 April 2017

    25 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

    ...to not waste yours.

    Remember the writers strike of 1988?

    How bad a good pie recipe is without a cook? How poorly your car runs with no gasoline? How your puppy seems lacklustre and not at all playful since he died?

    There was more suspense on Teletubbies when I didn't see the green one for a few seconds. Remember Duckman? I did, after I struggled thru 46 minutes of this I borrowed my parents VCR and watched it instead.

  • worst movie I have ever seen
    by Hunter Avallone on 18 February 2017

    28 out of 48 people found the following review useful:

    Me and my girlfriend went to see this together, expecting it to be bad. We are both big horror movie fans. I loved Friday the 13th, Hellraiser, and I seriously enjoyed the new Ouija movie also. (so did my girlfriend) anyway we went to the theater expecting a "meh" and mostly bad movie, but this was just HORRIBLE. The acting was beyond cringe, and we had more fun laughing and making fun of the movie then we did actually watching the movie. Nothing made sense and it felt like they were making it up as they went. It was not even slightly scary, long and boring, bad acting, horrible plot, and pointless things happening that had no connection. It also basically just re told the first story as well. I do not recommend wasting your money on this horrible movie.

  • "Rings" is both enjoyable and frustrating.
    by Dave McClain (dave-mcclain@hotmail.com) on 3 February 2017

    25 out of 43 people found the following review useful:

    You may be aware that the release of 2017's "Rings" (PG-13, 1:57) came a dozen years after the previous American sequel in the "Ring" franchise, or even that the very first "Ring" film was Japanese, but most people aren't aware of how the story began and how far-reaching it has become. The story of people dying seven days after watching the strange images on a mysterious videotape was first told in a trilogy of books by Japanese author Koji Suzuki in the 1990s. The first novel in "The Ring Trilogy" was simply titled "Rings" and was published in 1991. In Japan, it inspired two manga adaptations, a 1995 film ("Ring: Kanzenban"), a TV series ("Ring: The Final Chapter"), another movie version (1998's "Ring", also known as "Ringu") and a sequel (1999's "Ringu 2"), followed by two remakes of the 1998 film, one from South Korea ("The Ring Virus" in 1999) and the other from the U.S. ("The Ring" in 2002). The American version made over five times what it cost so, naturally, there was a sequel. The profits for "The Ring Two" (released in 2005) "only" tripled its budget and was also rated much lower than the previous film by both critics and audiences. The success of "The Ring" led to the American remakes of other Japanese horror films such as "The Grudge" (and its sequel), "Dark Water" and "Pulse", but the diminishing "Ring" returns and reviews probably contributed to the 12 year gap between "The Ring Two" and "Rings".

    Updating the story for a new decade means that, rather on VHS tape, the deadly video at the center of the story is now being stored as a digital file and is viewable on a variety of devices, making the clip all the more ubiquitous – and dangerous. Remaining the same, however, is the origin of the video (a murdered girl named Samara reaching out for vengeance from beyond the grave) plus the way in which the video's curse is carried forward (the viewer receiving a phone call with a creepy female voice on the other end seeing strange things that are not there and then dying exactly seven days after watching the video, unless he or she copies the video and dupes some other poor schmuck into watching it before the week is out). We see the culmination of this pattern play out in the first scene on an airplane flight during which a handsome young man explains his nervousness to an incredulous female passenger by explaining, just as the plane is about to land, that he only has to "make it" through a few more minutes.

    Julia and Holt (Matilda Lutz and Alex Roe) are just two teenagers in love… who are about to find themselves deep in a well of malevolence. Holt is heading off to college, while Julia stays back in their hometown to take care of her ailing mother. Texts, phone calls and Skype sessions keep the relationship going… until Holt suddenly and inexplicably stops answering Julia's calls. Desperate, Julia jumps in her car and drives to Holt's college where he is nowhere to be found and where those who know him either don't know where he is or won't say. Julia knows that Holt has been getting extra credit by working on a project for Gabriel, his biology professor (Johnny Galecki), but the prof denies knowing who Holt is, so Julia follows him to another floor of the classroom building to see what's up. She finds herself in a room full of students, video screens and digital clocks which are labeled with various students' names and which are counting down from various points in time. Julia follows a panicked student named Skye (Aimee Teegarden). Skye admits that she knows where Holt is but, before explaining further says, "I have to show you something first". Skye takes Julia home and Julia sees texts from Holt on Skye's phone. Julia learns about the cursed video and that Holt watched it – almost exactly seven full days earlier – so she watches it in order to save Holt, which starts her own proverbial clock ticking. But the video Julia sees is a little different from the previous versions. There are even more disturbing, surreal and seemingly random images in Julia's video – and her experience is different from everyone else's. With Holt's help, Julia follows the clues in her video and the visions that she starts seeing so she can unravel the mystery, save her own life and maybe finally give Samara's spirit some peace. This quest ends up in a small town, where they meet a secretive B&B owner (Jill Jane Clements) and the caretaker (Vincent D'Onofrio) of the grounds of a former church, as they learn of the disappearance of another young girl 30 years earlier, all of which adds background to the version of this saga that began in "The Ring".

    "Rings" is both enjoyable and frustrating. Updating the technology involved with watching, copying and sharing the infamous Samara video opens up more possibilities for story-telling, while delving deeper into Samara's sad history adds interesting background – and also takes the tale of the tape in some cool new directions. On the other hand, the script's lack of exposition makes the movie hard to follow… and the acting is somewhat lacking. The ending brings most of it together well, but getting there will put you through the… wringer. "B"

  • Ten Years Too Late
    by Brandon Zarzyczny on 3 February 2017

    24 out of 42 people found the following review useful:

    The movie was better than it had any right to be, but it didn't try to do anything new. I actually enjoyed the mystery aspect of the film, but it kind of failed as a scary movie, as it wasn't scary at all and was filled with cheap fake jump scares. The acting from the two main people isn't bad, but you can tell they got the parts just because they were pretty. This movie seems much more of a sequel to the original movie The Ring, forgetting most of the nonsense from The Ring 2. Rings also seems to take more inspiration from the original Japanese films, where a lot more is learned about Samara's birth parents.

    From the trailers, I thought that this movie might have a lot more stuff with social media, but other than a few things, this movie could have taken place a decade ago. The only thing to show that the film's in the present is that they copy & paste video files, and they use smart phones as flashlights. Overall, the film isn't horrible, but it also isn't very good, I definitely wouldn't recommend it.

    If you want to see my full review in video form you can check it out here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JstAEbfzXwI

  • Amazingly... boring.
    by David Brailsford on 21 February 2017

    10 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

    I liked The Ring, I even liked The Ring 2, neither were the best horror films ever made but they had suspense, they had scary parts, and there were some scenes I genuinely jumped. Rings was dull. While the teasers hinted there would be more then one Sammora.... this movie barely had one, and when she was in the movie it wasn't out of no where or scary and much of the story is about the protagonist trying to "Save her". On top of that the ending isn't just bad... it's predictably bad... adding to the boringness. There was no reason this movie needed to be made and watching it actually falls into the category of sequels that ruin a franchise (Son of the Mask, Home Alone 4, Halloween Resurrection, Ace Ventura Jr, Christmas Vacation 2 etc).

  • What Happened?
    by Antonio Kowatsch on 17 February 2017

    5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

    I'm not really sure what I just watched but this was a far cry from the previous two movies. The worst offense that this movie has to atone for is the fact that it wasn't scary. Not even in the slightest sense. Keep in mind that this was supposed to be a Horror movie.

    Right from the get-go it was pretty much clear "who would make it out of the movie alive" ["The Chosen One"-trope]. And that's why the whole movie flopped. There was no real danger. The entire movie felt like a "documentary" about the origin story. Also, Samara was barely in the movie, which for the record was the main reason for my disgruntlement.

    Final verdict: This movie is more of a filler. It's main purpose is to connect the links from the past to what is yet to come. This may sound wrong but the end of the movie was actually the best part (and it wasn't because the movie ended. It's because we were left with an intriguing cliffhanger. I like that). I remain hopeful for the upcoming movie in the franchise.

Similar Movies

  • Snakes on a Plane Poster
    5.2/10 by 373 users
    Original Title:Snakes on a Plane
    Release Date:August 6, 2006
    Popularity:3.766347
  • The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence) Poster
    4.5/10 by 245 users
    Original Title:The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence)
    Release Date:August 21, 2010
    Popularity:2.644864
  • Ghost in the Shell Poster
    5.9/10 by 880 users
    Original Title:Ghost in the Shell
    Release Date:March 29, 2017
    Popularity:50.311347
  • Don't Look Up Poster
    3.1/10 by 13 users
    Original Title:Don't Look Up
    Release Date:September 24, 2009
    Popularity:1.283983
  • Sinister Poster
    6.7/10 by 1245 users
    Original Title:Sinister
    Release Date:March 29, 2012
    Popularity:3.18372
  • The Ring Poster
    6.5/10 by 1254 users
    Original Title:The Ring
    Release Date:October 18, 2002
    Popularity:5.847896