Rings: A Modern Twist on a Classic Horror Franchise
If the Samara Morgan franchise needed a sequel, it needed one just like this – youthful, more technologically advanced, and less predictable than the first two Hollywood films.
The misfortunes of the restless spirit Samara Morgan didn’t end after Rachel’s jump off the cliff. The ominous tape continues to circulate, claiming new lives. One day, a university professor, seeking answers about the existence of the soul after death, watches Samara’s nightmare recording. After studying the legend of the curse transmitted through the video, he sets up a “conveyor belt” where subjects pass the tape to each other, “infecting” entire chains of students. But this can’t last long. The experiment spirals out of control, people start dying, and fewer are willing to “take” the curse upon themselves. Holt faces imminent death, but the day before Samara appears, Holt’s girlfriend Julia takes the curse upon herself. Now, she has seven days to save herself and stop the evil spirit forever.
Principal photography for the film concluded in the second half of 2014, but due to various reasons, “Rings” didn’t reach screens until almost three years later.
A Franchise Refreshed
Despite Gore Verbinski’s storytelling talent, his interpretation of the Japanese horror film “The Ring” had a significant “inherent” flaw – it was more of a family film than a horror film. The presence of a single mother and child as the main characters guaranteed their survival until the end, something audiences wouldn’t accept otherwise, even in the most daring project with the most adult rating. Knowing that no one of particular importance is going to die in a horror movie diminishes the interest in such a film. “The Ring” suffered from this, and “The Ring 2” followed the same path. However, the sequel “Rings” is a different story altogether. The 12-year hiatus benefited the franchise, and the creators didn’t just give it a cosmetic makeover; they completely rebuilt it. New times, new rules.
.jpg “Rings Film Still”)
Staying True to the Roots, Embracing the Modern Age
The rules, however, remain the same: seven days, transmission of the curse by copying the video and passing it to a new victim (something Verbinski completely abandoned), defects appearing in photos, and other paranormal phenomena. “Rings” meticulously maintained its origins. But it also dared to do something new. Director F. Javier Gutiérrez translated the video into a modern digital format (now a file distributed on a flash drive), added new shots to the already classic video, and shifted the story’s focus from Samara to her biological mother, as viewers still only knew about the girl’s adoptive family.
Bonnie Morgan spent six and a half hours daily in makeup to become Samara, a process complicated by the need for waterproof makeup, as the character is inseparable from the water dripping from her body.
A Breath of Fresh Air
Of course, these moves aren’t entirely original, but “Rings” feels surprisingly lively, and the elegant play with genre clichés adds freshness to the film. The conventional “Professor” figure, typical of such films, doesn’t offer advice on how to get rid of the spirit but instead diligently summons it. Samara’s biological parents have their own “dark secret,” and the ominous girl herself becomes increasingly persistent. “Rings” won’t be a groundbreaking film, but it certainly breathes life and light into the original-unoriginal duo starring Naomi Watts.
Minor Stumbles, Energetic Performances
Unfortunately, the screenwriters couldn’t avoid some plot inconsistencies. For some reason, Samara grows rapidly, even in death; she can hardly be called an eight-year-old girl. The video recording works somewhat selectively; frame-by-frame viewing doesn’t frighten anyone, and modern horror filmmakers can’t seem to shake off the traditional solo trips to dark basements – the genre holds us all hostage. But during the viewing, one can easily dismiss these issues. The characters live energetically on screen, even if they make foolish decisions, ignoring reason and external cues.
Is it Scary?
Is “Rings” scary? This is a valid question without a straightforward answer. Fans of slashers or horror films that rely on jump scares won’t find much to enjoy here. However, those who miss “teen frights” like “I Know What You Did Last Summer,” “Final Destination,” or “The Butterfly Effect” will find “Rings” welcoming. For young couples tired of monotonous comedies and overwhelmed by the number of Oscar nominees in theaters, it’s a perfect excuse to hold hands in the cinema. Other viewers will appreciate another look at the brilliant Vincent D’Onofrio, note Johnny Galecki’s surprising transformation, and take note of Alex Roe and Matilda Lutz – they’ve outgrown their television roles and are ready for new challenges.
A Competent Continuation
Under studio pressure and within the established rules of the franchise, “Rings” can’t reach extraordinary heights. However, as a continuation of the old story, building a bridge to the future, it’s competent and even good. Samara isn’t just stopped; she’s become stronger. Isn’t that reason enough to watch the film and breathe a sigh of relief that your phone didn’t ring with a message about “seven days”?