Rings
Paramount Pictures | Release Date: February 3, 2017 CRITIC SCORE DISTRIBUTION
25
METASCORE
Generally unfavorable reviews based on 23 Critic Reviews
Positive:
0
Mixed:
6
Negative:
17
Watch Now
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand

Critic Reviews

Critic scorePublicationBy date
60
The GuardianMike McCahillFeb 4, 2017
This offshoot is essentially a well-produced, easily accessed B-movie. Still, it wouldn’t kill you to watch it, and it does more than expected to reinvent its particular wheel. Read full review
58
Entertainment WeeklyChristian HolubFeb 3, 2017
As a threequel, Rings suffers a bit from franchise fatigue. It tries to fix that by giving viewers an even deeper look at the mythology of Samara and the videotape, with mixed results. Read full review
50
The New York TimesNeil GenzlingerFeb 4, 2017
This film doesn’t find any fresh ways to make you jump out of your seat. Ms. Lutz is appealing, though, and fans of the franchise will probably be pleased with the elaboration. Too many horror sequels are content merely to recycle what worked the first time. Read full review
42
The A.V. ClubA.A. Dowd Feb 4, 2017
Rings doesn’t end up doing much with its fresh ideas. Instead, it transforms into a kind of remake of a remake, borrowing not just the washed-out look of Verbinski’s movie—lots of blue hues and overcast skies—but also its basic plot structure, which was itself lifted from the Japanese original. Read full review
40
EmpireKim NewmanFeb 4, 2017
This mess isn’t likely to reboot or revive the American franchise. Read full review
40
The Hollywood ReporterJohn DeForeFeb 3, 2017
Rings finds a couple of nice, if inconsequential, little chills. Read full review
38
The Globe and Mail (Toronto)John SemleyFeb 9, 2017
Pretty much everything about Rings is incoherent. And the most incoherent thing of all is the film’s arrival a decade and a half after Verbinski’s original remake (if such a term even makes sense). Read full review
38
Movie NationRoger MooreFeb 8, 2017
None of the cast brings anything like genuine terror or urgency to the proceedings. Only Vincent D’Onofrio, making a third act appearance, acquits himself with honor. Read full review
30
Austin ChronicleMarc SavlovFeb 8, 2017
Rings is an unfortunate and often incomprehensible mess that kicks off with a neat premise and then never fully explores it. Read full review
30
Village VoiceAlana MohamedFeb 7, 2017
No matter how hard anyone tries to save her, this soggy nightmare just keeps on creeping out of the TV like it’s her job. It’d be even better if everyone just let her be evil. Read full review
30
Arizona RepublicBarbara VanDenburghFeb 4, 2017
It just feels desperate. Read full review
30
We Got This CoveredMatt DonatoFeb 3, 2017
Categorizing Rings as "horror" would be a disservice to genre films, because at least the lowest of the low attempt a scare here or there. Read full review
30
Los Angeles TimesJustin ChangFeb 3, 2017
At no point does the movie manage even a single sequence of sustained tension, or a frisson of genuine terror. Read full review
29
The VergeTasha RobinsonFeb 7, 2017
Rings is a phenomenally distracted film, and it can’t focus on any one concept for too long. Read full review
25
RogerEbert.comPeter SobczynskiFeb 3, 2017
More wearying than frightening, Rings is a total non-starter. Read full review
25
ConsequenceRandall ColburnFeb 3, 2017
Rings is too beholden with current trends to truly exploit the potential it displays in its early going. Read full review
25
TheWrapRobert AbeleFeb 3, 2017
Horror films that backstory the audience to death lose all hope of mining what’s eerie and unsettling about the unknown, and Rings is a perfect example: it doesn’t so much spread its familiar myth as dilute it. Read full review
25
Slant MagazineChuck BowenFeb 3, 2017
Rings is unsure as to whether it’s a sequel to the other entries in the series or a contemporary reboot. Read full review
20
Time Out LondonTom HuddlestonFeb 3, 2017
Imagine simultaneously eating wallpaper paste, listening to Coldplay and watching the entire ‘Da Vinci Code’ trilogy back to back and you’ll have some idea how grindingly tedious the experience of watching Rings becomes. Read full review
20
New York Daily NewsEdward DouglasFeb 3, 2017
Filmmaker F. Javier Gutiérrez really doesn't have a lot to work with beyond a flimsy story, weak script and characters you'll have a hard time caring about. Read full review
20
VarietyOwen GleibermanFeb 3, 2017
The movie, which will be lucky to eke out a weekend’s worth of business, isn’t scary, it isn’t awesome, and it doesn’t nudge you to think of technology in a new way. But it does make you wish that you could rewind those two hours, or maybe just erase them. Read full review
16
IndieWireEric KohnFeb 3, 2017
Rings never solidifies into one of kind movie, cramming a handful of possibilities into its bloated running time. Read full review
0
Rolling StonePeter TraversFeb 3, 2017
If crap movies carried penalties for inflicting torture on audiences, then Rings would merit a death sentence. Read full review
More From This Movie

25 Critic Reviews

4.1 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 86 Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse
2 84 Are You There God? It's Me,...
3 78 John Wick: Chapter 4
4 75 Polite Society
5 73 Air
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL