First things first: if you haven’t seen The Ring (2002) or The Ring Two (2005), you can still watch Rings. It doesn’t even matter if you are familiar with the franchise‘s “rules”, as this film lays them out for you simply almost right away. While it is very much rooted in the backstory previously explored to an extent in both previous entries, this is actually a fairly standalone sequel. In many ways, it almost feels like it began life as an original ghost script and had Ring mythos added to it with rewrites.
The film opens with a fun set piece involving murderous spirit Samara (Bonnie Morgan) showing up on a plane to take out one of her latest victims. That’s not a spoiler, as it is a scene that has been teased in a few trailers and spots already. After that, it jumps to the beat up old VHS tape being found and watched once again. This, however, is where the film diverts its course from its brethren. Outside of one more pretty fun Samara-inflicted death in the first act, the majority of the rest of the film plays less like a Ring movie and more like a lot of the early ’00s ghost films that weren’t J-horror influenced. Basically, a haunted individual sets out to “help” the disturbed spirit, whom they become increasingly sympathetic too.
The franchise has toyed with this before, but the accursed individual was always still being terrorized with visions and strange moments of body horror. That doesn’t happen here. Our lead, Julia (Matilda Lutz) gets spooked from time to time, but she’s never in any real danger. In some ways this is refreshing, as it’s clearly breaking from what came before. Mind you there’s nothing terribly original going on plot-wise, but the cast is capable and F. Javier Gutierrez’s directorial hand is steady. So while I found myself watching a fairly typical ghost story, it was a mostly enjoyable affair.
I can’t really comment as to how this compares to the ever-growing difference foreign franchises that encompass the Ring legacy to date. Last I checked, there were upwards of a dozen entries, with multiple different continuities running through all of the various films. I’ve only ever seen the original three Japanese films (Ring, Rasen, and Ring 2) and my memory of them beyond the original is hazy. A revisitation might very well be in order.
As for how Rings fits with the two American films that it follows? Imagery, particularly the infamous video, is certainly carried over from the 2002 Gore Verbinski remake. Some very minor references are made to its events, but the stronger connections actually lie with Hideo Nakata’s 2005 follow-up, The Ring Two. That incredibly disappointing sequel added a few expanded story elements to Samara’s past that are explored to even greater length here. That said, once again, you really don’t need to have seen that film to understand what’s going on. Like any worthwhile seuel, Rings is just as much interested in being a coherent standalone installment as it is in connecting to what came before.
Outside of issues with its rather typical nature, my biggest concern is also what I liked about it most. As I said above, this is a very different film from its predecessors. It’s playing at something a bit more offbeat than the first two, which makes it feel fresher, but also hinders things just as much. After a bit of narrative handwaving, the ticking clock element is completely removed from the story. At first we are lead to believe that Samara is changing the rules of her cruel, accursed game in a ruthless manner. The thought of her being pissed at people exploiting loopholes in her curse is enticing. Unfortunately, it’s something that’s brought up and then dropped fairly quickly, with the film instead focusing on standard “find out what the ghost wants” tropes.
The true nature of Samara’s design returns things to a more sinister path at the very end, but it’s too little, too late. By then the film has become something entirely different and such a turn no longer really fits with what came before. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to find out that the final scene was something tacked on during the reshoots that took place a year after production initially wrapped.
How does one best describe Rings? It’s well-directed, has a decent cast, and a few good little creepy moments as it tells a mostly standard ghost story. As a ghost movie, it mostly works and you’ll be fairly entertained, although likely to forget it a few days later. As a Ring film, while it fills out the mythology of this American offshoot in some interesting ways, it doesn’t function all that well as what one would call “a Ring movie”. In then end, it’s nowhere near as efficiently creepy as Gore Verbinski’s “original”*. That said, it is a lot more satisfying than the outright awful The Ring Two. If you’re a fan of the franchise, you’ll likely derive some enjoyment from this entry. If not, Rings isn’t going to change your mind about the series.
* – Strangely enough, Verbinski has finally returned to the horror genre this year with A Cure For Wellness, which actually arrives in theaters later this month.
