Watch Now

This is Rings and you are watching CineRill

Please wait for 3 seconds, we are loading Rings stream.

If the Rings stream does not work, please try to stream it with other browser. Pause it and come back in case it gets stuck.

Rings 2015 full movie online free

The film revolves around the events that took place before The Ring. It tells the story of the years before the video tape came to be and the beginning of how Samara's terror began.

Quality: HD []

Release: Nov 12, 2015

IMDb: 7.2

Keywords:
Incoming searches:

Rings full movie review - Skip It

It's difficult to imagine a movie fan dogged and determined enough to wait a full twelve years for a sequel to a movie as plainly obscure as 2005's The Ring Two, although presumably such people do exist.

But just as likely is the suggestion that sufficient time has passed that most of the movie-going audience has forgotten the original two pictures in the The Ring film series, and are simply eager to attend a random movie which might contain a thrill or two.

Earning some $249 million, The Ring was successful enough at the box office that a second film was placed into production?The Ring Two, which debuted in 2005. The Ring Two continued the plot of The Ring with much of the same cast intact, and imported to the production the services as director Hideo Nakata, who had guided the original Japanese Ringu, upon which The Ring was based. But in a clear example of the Law of Diminishing Returns, The Ring Two was not nearly as successful as the original 2002 picture.

Rings, released this past Friday, is not a distinguished moment in the illustrious history of Paramount Pictures, or any of the film's other participants. Quite the opposite. Unimaginable is the notion that anyone became connected with the movie for artistic reasons, because there's nothing at all artistic about the picture. More likely, Rings is just an excuse for most of the participants to collect a moderately-to-obscenely large paycheck. The problem is, that fat paycheck is being funded by the movie-going public.

In an attempt to bring the 2017 viewer up to speed, Rings opens with a scene on an airliner. An unusually nervous flyer sketches to his seatmate the general history of the cursed videotape which causes a viewer's death within seven days. He then acknowledges with remarkable candor that he watched the film precisely six days, twenty-three hours, and fifty-five minutes ago. In other words, in five minutes either the curse is broken, or the entire plane's in jeopardy. The jittery traveler's woeful tale does beg the question of why in the world under those circumstances he'd board an airliner containing a hundred or so people, who are now doomed by association.

Rings' publicity makes a great deal out of the participation in the film of the actor Johnny Galecki, who also plays the amiable physicist on television's enormously popular comedy series The Big Bang Theory. And in a clear and distinct departure from his television role as a professor of physics, in Rings Galecki plays a professor of biology.

Galecki's character buys at a flea market an antique videotape recorder revealed to have been discovered among the possessions of the late, hapless airline passenger two years earlier. And while restoring the ancient VCR to usable condition, the professor discovers inside a mysterious videotape.

And so we're off to the races again: Galecki uploads the haunted video to his computer's hard drive, and begins to share it in a sort of controlled experiment with a number of his students, in some incomprehensible attempt to prove or disprove the existence of the human soul. As an actor earning a reported $1 million per episode for The Big Bang Theory, Galecki should've known better.

One of Galecki's students, played by Alex Roe of last year's teen-oriented science fiction drama The Fifth Wave, becomes so involved in the experiment that he begins to avoid communications with his girlfriend back home, played by the comely young Italian model Matilda Lutz. In an act of either concern or extreme annoyance?we're not quite sure which?Lutz drives some 560 miles to the university to start snooping around to learn what's up. Naturally she becomes involved up to her ears in the curse.

There's more wrong with this picture than there is right. Among the more obvious trouble is the picture's execution, if you'll pardon the pun. A similarly-themed picture from the more cinematically restrained days of 1963, Robert Wise's The Haunting, managed to build, through superb filmmaking and subtle suggestion, layer upon layer of dread and apprehension until by the climax of the movie the audience was ready to explode.

By contrast, Rings director F. Javier Gutierrez opens his bag of tricks early and often, dumps the contents out for the audience to scrutinize, and practically shouts a warning to the audience regarding each new plot twist and surprise. Watching Rings is almost like watching a magician pull a rabbit out of his hat after having first seen him place the animal inside: It just doesn't work that way. While The Haunting is remembered with fondness over fifty years after its original release as a classic of its genre, Rings will be lucky if its viewers remember it through the middle of next week.

While Rings contains an abundance of bizarre images, there's no cohesion, and even less comprehension. It's that rare animal?a horror picture with no horror. The characters evoke not so much empathy and concern as annoyance and a feeling of vague irritation. Even the enormously talented Vincent D'Onofrio, who contributed memorable performances to films as diverse as Men in Black, Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, Ed Wood, and the recent remake of The Magnificent Seven, fails to lift the movie out of its malaise with his colorful supporting role as a blind cemetery caretaker.

But at least D'Onofrio seems like he's having a good time. Johnny Galecki looks like he's in actual physical pain, squinting through his scenes like a nearsighted man without glasses, and barking his lines in annoyance. Young Alex Roe and Matilda Lutz look simply confused and bewildered, a sentiment shared by most of the audience.

Rings is recommended only for movie fans who enjoy the feeling of wasting money. Others are instead encouraged to donate the price of their movie ticket to a worthy charity.

comments powered by Disqus