Rings

Rings

Rings

The third entry into the American videotape horror franchise turns back the clock to tell the tale of how the cursed tape came to be – and when Samara’s terror began. Co-stars Big Bang Theory’s Johnny Galecki.

Julia (Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz) becomes worried about her boyfriend, Holt (Alex Roe) 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.

2016Rating: R13, Violence & horror scenes102 minsUSA
Horror
78%
want to see

Reviews & comments

TERRIFYING...ly...bad...

Bad - really bad. I was not expecting much - but what i got was just a warmed over rehash of the original japanese films... again.. I guess it was got what i deserved for spending the cash and being sucked in. should have read the reviews!!!! AVOID!!

1.0
0
Variety

Variety

press

It's now the file-share that kills. I don't know why that's less threatening, but it is, kind of like seeing your favourite album cover reduced to a digital postage stamp.

0
Time Out

Time Out

press

Imagine eating wallpaper paste, listening to Coldplay and watching the entire 'Da Vinci Code' trilogy back to back. Still less boring than 'Rings'.

1.0
0
The New York Times

The New York Times

press

Fans of the franchise will probably be pleased ... Too many horror sequels are content merely to recycle what worked the first time.

0
The Guardian

The Guardian

press

Essentially a well-produced, easily accessed B-movie. Still, it wouldn't kill you to watch it, and it does more than expected to reinvent its particular wheel.

3.0
0
Stuff

Stuff

press

In 2017 Rings is as dated, clunky and unpleasing as the technology it relies on.

0
New Zealand Herald

New Zealand Herald

press

How does the same techno-horror premise sit in a brave new world of smartphones and Netflix? ...not very well at all.

0
Los Angeles Times

Los Angeles Times

press

At no point does the movie manage even a single sequence of sustained tension, or a frisson of genuine terror.

0
Hollywood Reporter

Hollywood Reporter

press

Unlikely to fire up the faithful and almost sure not to attract new fans to this J-horror-derived property.

0
Empire Magazine

Empire Magazine

press

Ring down the curtain, this franchise revival is not saved by the bell.

2.0
0
Variety

Variety

press

It's now the file-share that kills. I don't know why that's less threatening, but it is, kind of like seeing your favourite album cover reduced to a digital postage stamp.

0
Time Out

Time Out

press

Imagine eating wallpaper paste, listening to Coldplay and watching the entire 'Da Vinci Code' trilogy back to back. Still less boring than 'Rings'.

1.0
0
The New York Times

The New York Times

press

Fans of the franchise will probably be pleased ... Too many horror sequels are content merely to recycle what worked the first time.

0
The Guardian

The Guardian

press

Essentially a well-produced, easily accessed B-movie. Still, it wouldn't kill you to watch it, and it does more than expected to reinvent its particular wheel.

3.0
0
Stuff

Stuff

press

In 2017 Rings is as dated, clunky and unpleasing as the technology it relies on.

0
New Zealand Herald

New Zealand Herald

press

How does the same techno-horror premise sit in a brave new world of smartphones and Netflix? ...not very well at all.

0
Los Angeles Times

Los Angeles Times

press

At no point does the movie manage even a single sequence of sustained tension, or a frisson of genuine terror.

0
Hollywood Reporter

Hollywood Reporter

press

Unlikely to fire up the faithful and almost sure not to attract new fans to this J-horror-derived property.

0
Empire Magazine

Empire Magazine

press

Ring down the curtain, this franchise revival is not saved by the bell.

2.0
0

TERRIFYING...ly...bad...

Bad - really bad. I was not expecting much - but what i got was just a warmed over rehash of the original japanese films... again.. I guess it was got what i deserved for spending the cash and being sucked in. should have read the reviews!!!! AVOID!!

1.0
0