Tuesday, September 26, 2017
DarkMedia

Earlier this month Rings was released in theaters across America and left several of us scratching our heads and wondering: did we really need yet another sequel to this horror movie franchise after all these years? Based on the majority of reviews, the answer is no… no we did not.

The movie is set thirteen years after The Ring came out in 2002, and though it does add to the mythos of Samara Morgan, Rings provides similar, dare I say boringly familiar scares.

I genuinely wanted this film to bring something of substance to the table because I appreciate what The Ring did for the horror genre in the early 2000s- it honestly scared the crap out of me when I saw it in the theater back then (which was a big deal considering I’ve grown up watching horror movies ). Up to that point, we had seen little to no Japanese-style horror on the big screen in the states and it was the catalyst to a bevy of movies that piled onto the bandwagon as quickly as they could.

In 2005 we were given a sequel to 2002’s hit movie: The Ring Two. It wasn’t as well received as the first, but did decently in theaters. It did a fine enough job closing the book (er.. perhaps the well in this case) on the franchise, so again- was this third installment really necessary? Necessary? No. Worthwhile to add to your stash of horror movies for a rainy day once released on Blu-ray and DVD because the tradition of horror movie anthologies nowadays is on a serious downturn? Totally.

Like this Article? Share it!

About The Author

Annie Thornton is a lifelong pop culture fan and has been attending Southern California comic conventions for over half her life. Her interests include all things Disney, horror (those two things go together.. Yes? No? Oh well), Star Wars, DC Comics, Marvel, and trying to strike up conversations with other people's pets.