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.
- Director:
- F. Javier Gutiérrez ('Before the Fall')
- Writer:
- Jacob Aaron EstesAkiva GoldsmanDavid Loucka
- Cast:
- Matilda LutzAlex RoeJohnny GaleckiLaura WigginsAimee TeegardenZach RoerigBonnie Morgan
Reviews & comments
Variety
pressIt'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.
Time Out
pressImagine eating wallpaper paste, listening to Coldplay and watching the entire 'Da Vinci Code' trilogy back to back. Still less boring than 'Rings'.
The New York Times
pressFans of the franchise will probably be pleased ... Too many horror sequels are content merely to recycle what worked the first time.
The Guardian
pressEssentially 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.
Stuff
pressIn 2017 Rings is as dated, clunky and unpleasing as the technology it relies on.
New Zealand Herald
pressHow does the same techno-horror premise sit in a brave new world of smartphones and Netflix? ...not very well at all.
Los Angeles Times
pressAt no point does the movie manage even a single sequence of sustained tension, or a frisson of genuine terror.
Hollywood Reporter
pressUnlikely to fire up the faithful and almost sure not to attract new fans to this J-horror-derived property.
Empire Magazine
pressRing down the curtain, this franchise revival is not saved by the bell.
Variety
pressIt'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.
Time Out
pressImagine eating wallpaper paste, listening to Coldplay and watching the entire 'Da Vinci Code' trilogy back to back. Still less boring than 'Rings'.
The New York Times
pressFans of the franchise will probably be pleased ... Too many horror sequels are content merely to recycle what worked the first time.
The Guardian
pressEssentially 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.
Stuff
pressIn 2017 Rings is as dated, clunky and unpleasing as the technology it relies on.
New Zealand Herald
pressHow does the same techno-horror premise sit in a brave new world of smartphones and Netflix? ...not very well at all.
Los Angeles Times
pressAt no point does the movie manage even a single sequence of sustained tension, or a frisson of genuine terror.
Hollywood Reporter
pressUnlikely to fire up the faithful and almost sure not to attract new fans to this J-horror-derived property.
Empire Magazine
pressRing down the curtain, this franchise revival is not saved by the bell.
Share