Review: Rings (2017) ★½

A spooky atmosphere goes a long way in elevating works of horror above the muck and mire of indie B-movie shlock. Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979) and John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982) both make excellent use of claustrophobic, dark settings, in which no one is safe. The paranoid mood ratchets up the tension, making the horrific elements even more effective. Gore Verbinksi did something similar in The Ring, a 2002 adaptation of a Japanese film of the same name, in which a dead girl named Samara kills people using a cursed videotape. The Ring was produced during that time in the early 2000’s when just about every film with a dark storyline used a blue filter, creating a cold, creepy aesthetic. Despite how overused this method was, it was effective in creating the right atmosphere and giving the films more visual appeal, and The Ring was no exception.

The Ring also did an excellent job of infusing chilling scares into an investigation of supernatural horror. Though not as claustrophobic as the aforementioned films, The Ring relied on visually “dead” scenes, as well as disturbing, seemingly avant-garde imagery to unsettle the viewer. Hideo Nakata (who was responsible for the original Japanese film) directed The Ring 2 in 2005, but it was largely unsuccessful, as it relied too heavily on supernatural realms outside of our own, rather than being grounded in mystery like the 2002 version. Finally, in 2017, F. Javier Gutierrez brought us Rings, a film that seeks to bring the series into the era of cloud computing and viral videos, for better or worse. While Gutierrez strives to recapture the feel of the original and focus on the thrill of the investigation, the right kind of atmosphere cannot make up for subpar acting and a nonsensical plot.

The film opens on an airplane mid-flight, where an unnamed man admits to having watched the cursed videotape from the first two films. When it is revealed that the man never made a copy of the tape (which is the only way to pass the curse on to someone else), Samara’s spirit brings down the entire plane, killing everyone in the crash. A few years later, a professor named Gabriel Brown (Johnny Galecki) purchases an old VCR that contains the tape. He ends up using it to conduct a social experiment in which people watch the tape and then recruit unsuspecting people to do the same. Later we are introduced to the two protagonists, high school sweethearts Julia (Matilda Lutz) and Holt (Alex Roe), who become embroiled in Gabriel’s experiment, and must figure out a way to stop Samara and discover the secrets of her tormented past.

While watching Rings, one is constantly pulled out of the narrative by strange segues and a generally weak plot construction. The opening scene in the airplane is little more than spectacle, having no bearing on the rest of the story. Gabriel’s “experiment” never really makes sense, as he is essentially just doing what everyone has always done with the videotape: making a copy and then convincing someone else to watch it. The only difference is that he uses digital files and keeps track of everyone who has watched it. Theoretically, moving the series into the digital age should make it more frightening, as the ability to share the video is easier, and thus its threat to humanity is far-reaching, but the filmmaker’s never really do much with this. Instead, they use too much supernatural “logic” and not enough actual logic to explain the power of the video and what must be done to stifle Samara’s power. None of it makes much sense, but what is worse is that the additional lore adds nothing of interest to the backstory of Samara’s hellish childhood.

I’ve gotten this far into the review without mentioning one of the main draws of the film, which is a prominent cameo from Vincent D’Onofrio as Galen Burke, a blind preacher who knew Samara as a child. His performance is adequate, albeit predictable in many ways. Once his character is introduced, the story starts making even less sense, and begins to lose focus in the final act. Nonetheless, he was featured heavily in the trailers, and is by far the most talented actor in the cast.

Though there is little to praise in Rings, it is at least half of a decent film. The first half (with the exception of the unnecessary airplane scene), is a solid reminder of what made The Ring so good in 2002. A dark, creepy investigation into a little girl’s past and the current threat of a videotape that kills its viewers after seven days is more than enough to keep most viewers on the edge of their seats. Rings does a good job of imitating the positive elements of the original, only to shoot itself in the foot with a poor script.

Despite how much I disliked the film, I actually have a strange connection to it. I had the privilege of working as Vincent D’Onofrio’s stand-in for a short time (even though we look nothing alike), and got to watch him work during a few pivotal scenes. D’Onofrio is known for his dedication to the craft, having studied method acting in his youth before landing several high-profile roles. It was fascinating to watch him work and discuss the scene with the director, and it was also interesting to see him leave when he was ready to, regardless of how satisfied the director was with the scene. This was the direct result of D’Onofrio collapsing from exhaustion on the set of Law & Order years prior, which in turn led to all of his future contracts stipulating a set number of hours, over which he would not work.

Sadly, the film was much more interesting behind the scenes that it was as a spectator. Rings and its predecessors follow a trajectory that is similar to many other horror series: a fantastic beginning, followed by a long-line of abysmal imitations.

Rating: ★½ out of 5

Rings is currently available to purchase or view via Amazon Prime here.