Rings (2016)

[Blzer]

It's actually happening. The trailer is out. I watched about ten seconds before reminding myself that I'd rather go in without seeing it. If you want to, knock yourself out.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uukQ_6szDm8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

From the little that I saw, it looked "made for TV" cheap. I'm not sure why or how. Maybe it's a 3D film or something, as many of those tend to lose their cinematic luster in 2D. That would explain the look I see at least.

The Ring Two is probably the most disappointing sequel that I have ever seen. Hideo Nakata's directing from Japanese horror style did not translate well at all into a U.S. film. Gore Verbinski nailed the tone in the first film, and somewhat maintained it with the short (also titled "Rings") that acted as a prologue for The Ring Two.

I hope this can make me shake in my boots a bit, because this is their last shot at developing some more mystique from the scary Samara Morgan (the proverbial first ghost child of horror cinema).

[Sinner]

Re: Rings (2016)

I liked the original and also thought 2 was a waste, this looks pretty good so hope it turns out good.

[The JareBear]

Re: Rings (2016)

Obviously the original was great and started a trend that lasted for, what, like 10 years? As far as imitations and knock offs?

Hoping this does the original film justice.

[Blzer]

Re: Rings (2016)

Due to reshoots (and probably scared of how Blair Witch tanked), they pushed the release date back to February 3rd, 2017.

Can a mod please change the release year in the thread title?

[Blzer]

Re: Rings (2016)

New trailer.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mpVt0EvA5xk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[daflyboys]

Re: Rings (2016)

First you watch it. Then you die.

Kind of like with "Friends".

[Blzer]

Re: Rings (2016)

Well... here's good free pub at least.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iIjJCMOhlp8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Still waiting to see if my area will get an advance screening for next Tuesday or so.

[Blzer]

Re: Rings (2016)

Just saw it.

I'll start off with some of the good. First of all, it was faithful. Outside of the visual aesthetics, it felt like it belonged in the same universe. Pace was somewhat slower, and a mystery was still there to unravel throughout the majority of the film. Trying to dig up more about the video or its origins is the sole film's intent, which inherently is what the first two films were about as well (and among other things, survival of course). The first thing I worry about with a film coming out in 2017 is catering too much to the modern horror film ADHD crowd. Thankfully, it wasn't too gimmicky.

The story also found its way to stay within the same universe and evolve with the times. The film's title suggested that it would act a bit like the short that was filmed alongside The Ring Two, where the curse turns a little more viral, and in some ways more digital. It becomes something otherworldly that the characters in the film are fascinated by, and naturally drawn to. It's not a film franchise where we will be bothered by idiotic characters, because the curse rules are simple and direct: abide by them, and you should survive. At any rate, the film franchise grew the right way. As much as I "dislike" The Ring Two, after rewatching it today and thinking of that film more like The Babadook, I appreciated its story much more... even though I can't classify that film as horror.

I only have a few main negatives with this movie, and I'll do as best as I can to remain spoiler-free. Here they are:

• The opening scene was poorly edited. By the time it's over, you'll sit there going: "..... WHAT?"
• The ending scene could have easily be rewritten to satisfy audiences more (with essentially the same end result).
• Although it wasn't riddled with many jump scares, a few less of those and a few more tension moments would have been nice... though to add onto this, after the first film it's kind of hard to scare you when you've seen it before.
• The cinematography can't hold a candle to The Ring, though admittedly picturing this film with that cinematography wouldn't quite match the tone either.

If you see this, I really do advise you see the first two films. You may be able to get through the film, but I assure you that you won't be scratching your head if you see the first two before this. Plus, it only flows most naturally that way. This movie may be sort of technically "bad" against the way that I reviewed La La Land as technically "near perfect," but I did like this movie regardless. I think the majority of it is just me being happy that they didn't completely trash the pacing of this film and the audience it is showing it to.

Maybe even with a solid box office, there is more hope for this franchise to continue on. Where else can they go? Unfortunately, if they keep going, normally they just end up going downhill. No matter. I'm glad The Ring franchise is being brought to a new generation of individuals, but I do encourage they see the original U.S. version first.