Director: F. Javier Gutiérrez
Stars: Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz, Alex Roe, Johnny Galecki, Vincent D’Onofrio
Stars: Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz, Alex Roe, Johnny Galecki, Vincent D’Onofrio
Fun
fact: the first DVD I ever bought was
The Ring from 2002. It was a total
blind-fire in my movie-watching infancy: I thought it looked really scary, I
heard it was really scary, and I bought the really scary movie. Nostalgia is
likely what brought me to the movie theater yesterday and asked for enough butter
on my popcorn to drown a toddler. I didn’t go into this movie with a lot of
high hopes, but I ate most of my popcorn by the end of it. It wasn’t a stellar
movie, and it wasn’t a bad movie—it was just okay. There wasn’t much that was
really striking about it, but it had its upsides and downsides.
Rings is a third installment of The Ring movies—and here I was thinking
that it was only the second
installment. I completely missed The Ring
2. This newest movie branches off from the original story of The Ring: if a person watches a certain
internet video, one full of cryptic images and grotesque frames, that person
will receive a phone call immediately after the video; a mysterious voice says,
“Seven days,” implying that that is when the viewer will be killed by Samara—who
is something like a technological ghost. Samara was an abused orphan who died
in the bottom of a well after her adoptive mother tried to suffocate her and
dispose of her body, and she now exacts revenge for her earthly suffering on
viewers of the video. Rings picks up
the story as Holt (Roe) leaves his girlfriend, Julia (Lutz), to go to college.
Once there, Holt joins an experiment about the afterlife with Gabriel
(Galecki), the lead professor and researcher. When Holt stops returning Julia’s
calls, she decides to visit his college and find him—but the two of them fall
into deep water as they uncover more about Samara’s past. (Get it? Like they’re
falling into a well! I’m so sorry, keep reading.)
There
were a couple of instances where Ring’s
cinematography struck a chord with me. Julia and Holt think that by finding
Samara’s body and cremating it, that might do the trick to setting Samara free
and ending the cursed video. When Holt and Julia find the crypt where the body
is held, Julia crawls into it to investigate. It’s a horror movie, right? Crawl
into the crypt, why not. As she crawls inside, though, the cinematographer
carefully places the camera in such a way that all of the walls of the crypt
are visible around Julia—thereby creating a feeling of being surrounded or
trapped, almost as if she was being buried alive. In another part of the film,
Julia stumbles across a makeshift prison cell, and again, that “trapped”
cinematography comes back. In one frame, Julia stands in the doorway of the
cell, and we see the left wall, right wall, ceiling, and floor—the frame,
itself, closes in around her. I thought it was a neat effect.
At
the same time, some of the visuals in Rings
were cliché or blatantly contrived. It’s a horror movie, so to fit with the
horror movie genre, the filmmakers had to throw in some creepy-crawly stuff:
there were ants, centipedes, a random snake, and a swarm of cicadas, just to
make sure that we got those people with bug phobias (read: me) to writhe in
their seats a bit. To highlight that something paranormal is happening, we also
have a very quick scene with Galecki standing in front of a wall of windows
where the rain is falling upward. The images throughout the movie feel very
contrived, and that’s my bigger peeve about Rings.
To go along with the ideas of The Ring,
the original movie, the main characters had to watch Samara’s doom-video, and
then the rest of the movie piece-meals the video together in a fairly natural
way—if an image appeared in the video, Naomi Watts’ character would find that
image in real life, and the original movie would have a quick jump cut back to
the video to show the connection. While this felt very natural in The Ring, the images in this Samara
doom-video seem quite deliberate, as though the filmmakers sat down and said,
“Hmm, what’s kind of ominous and spooky and ring-shaped? Oh, I got it! A church
bell when you look at it from below!” Some of these images seem like a stretch
to fit the “ring” motif, and it pulled me out of the movie.
As
far as acting goes, I wasn’t horribly impressed—with one exception. I had never
heard of Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz or Alex Roe before, so placing them into
leading roles for what felt like a large box office film seems a bit odd. The
two of them had a goopy love story, just a couple of young adults in a
relationship; while the goop of their love was quite strong, the rest of their
acting was just okay—nothing really breathtaking. Johnny Galecki certainly
stepped away from his recurring role as the nerdy, timid Leonard on The Big Bang Theory, trading particle
physics for afterlife studies, and I actually enjoyed his acting for the most
part. Some of it seemed like a stretch, such as the first encounter between him
and Julia: she very politely asks him if Holt had been to class lately, and
being the stereotypical asshole research professor, he tells her a bit too
bluntly to forget about Holt and move on. Overall, the acting was okay, but it
was nothing groundbreaking to me.
The
one exception in the acting department comes from Vincent D’Onofrio, and he
steals the show toward the end of Rings.
The last time I saw D’Onofrio was in Netflix’s adaptation of Daredevil as Kingpin, the massive mob
boss who shakes things up in Hell’s Kitchen. I liked him in that role and found
him very believable—just as believable as I find him in this role. In Rings, he plays a kind-hearted,
soft-spoken blind man who lives in the town where Samara’s body was laid to
rest. As Julia and Holt search for answers about Samara’s life—if it can be
called such—he invites them into his home and answers the questions he can
answer. There wasn’t a moment that felt contrived from his performance, so it
was nice to see some stellar acting in this movie.
Overall,
again, I wasn’t horribly impressed with Rings,
but it could have been a lot better. As
bits and pieces of Samara’s life were being uncovered by Julia and Holt, I
always felt like I was one step ahead of them, so the story felt fairly
predictable. I saw where things were going before they showed up on the screen,
but it’s a (1) a horror movie and (2) a sequel. Things aren’t ever thought out
or as planned out as the original, and that definitely shows here. The writing
isn’t horrible, and the dialogue is okay, but again, this movie is a
popcorn-muncher and not much more.