Rings

Movie review by
Jeffrey M. Anderson, Common Sense Media
Rings Movie Poster Image
Some scares in otherwise dull, unnecessary horror sequel.
  • PG-13
  • 2017
  • 117 minutes

Parents say

age 13+
Based on 8 reviews

Kids say

age 13+
Based on 15 reviews

A lot or a little?

The parents' guide to what's in this movie.

Positive Messages

Against considerable odds, characters attempt to undo horrible wrongs committed in the past. But the "the horror isn't over/more sequels coming" ending more or less nullifies any work accomplished.

Positive Role Models & Representations

Julia sacrifices her life to save her boyfriend's life, even if it only involves watching a 2-minute video.

Violence

Scary stuff; dead bodies with horrifying faces. Brief images of a woman held prisoner; images (also used in earlier movies) of a girl being pushed down a well. Ghost murders people. Man attacks a woman, swinging weapons at her and trying to kill her. Men fight; hitting with shovel. Man falls down stairs. Strangling. Man electrocuted in his car. Brief, disturbing images on Ring video (squirmy bugs, emaciated baby, etc.). Bloody noses. Hand punctured on a nail, with blood. Bruises and "marks" on skin. Coughing up wet, stringy hair.

Sex

A teen couple lies in bed together, clearly comfortable with each other and wearing only underwear. Kissing. Flirting over Skype. Brief sex talk.

Language

At least one use of "s--t," as well as "ass," "a--hole," "hell," "God," and "Jesus."

Consumerism

Skype mentioned and shown, iPhones and Apple computers used. Brief Netflix logo on a remote control.

Drinking, Drugs & Smoking

Sips of wine, whiskey drinking. Brief pot smoking (by an adult).

What parents need to know

Parents need to know that Rings is a sequel to the horror movies The Ring (2002) and The Ring Two (2005), which, in turn, were based on a series of Japanese novels and movies. As in the other stories, the characters in this movie watch a short video and then get a death sentence. There's a lot of scary stuff, including some supernatural elements (ghosts, etc.), killing/dead bodies, jump scares, disturbing images, a bit of blood (mostly bloody noses and a hand injury), fighting, swinging blunt instruments, and falling down stairs. The college-age main characters are shown lying in bed together in their underwear, kissing. There's also some flirting and brief sex talk, as well as at least one use of "s--t." An adult character drinks a little wine and whiskey and is shown smoking pot. Only die-hard fans should bother.

User Reviews

Parent of a 11 and 12 year old Written byCarla A. February 4, 2017

Terrible

The movie drags very little suspense.
Adult Written byAustin O. February 18, 2017

Turn the car around

Unless you enjoy demonic activity and want to question your sanity or even your existence on this earth, i would recommend going back home. However, if you do d... Continue reading
Kid, 12 years old February 4, 2017

Great Movie for 12 year old's and up

I think this movie right here is a really good movie even tho it has some violence in it I think its a great Movie for everyone.
Teen, 14 years old Written byharryrj2002 February 16, 2017

What's the story?

In RINGS, the cycle of the mysterious video and subsequent deaths continues. After a plane crash kills the latest victim, a professor (Johnny Galecki), visits an estate sale and buys an old VCR. Inside he finds the death-causing tape and watches it; he then receives the inevitable phone call that he'll die in seven days. He saves his own life by "passing on" the curse to others, including clean-cut college student Holt (Alex Roe) and his girlfriend, Julia (Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz). With the curse resting on Julia, she and Holt begin investigating, using the images she sees in the deadly video. They're led to a dying small town and the home of a blind man (Vincent D'Onofrio) who may know more than he lets on.

Is it any good?

This lethargic, sadly unnecessary horror sequel attempts more of the same mythology but quickly proves to be utterly boring, with dull characters, no genuine scares, and nothing to say. Following the American films The Ring (2002) and The Ring Two (2005) and based on the original series of Japanese novels (by Koji Suzuki) and movies, Rings adds nothing to the franchise's mythology, with the possible exception of updating the old VHS tape to new, digital files that can be played on phones and desktops.

The characters' attempt to solve the mystery only begs the question: Didn't they already take care of this in the last couple of movies? And being stuck with the two main characters doesn't help; they're arguably the dullest couple ever to grace a horror movie. Director F. Javier Gutierrez goes for only jump-scares -- including the sudden opening of an umbrella! -- but they're so glumly routine that it's impossible not to guess when they're coming. In the end, this Rings is less "lord" and more "bored."

Talk to your kids about ...

  • Families can talk about Rings' violence. How much is shown, and how much is implied? Would the movie have been scarier or less scary with more gore? Why or why not? What's the impact of media violence on kids?

  • Is the movie scary? What's the appeal of scary movies?

  • How does this movie compare to the previous entries in the Ring movie series? Why do you think it took so long for the next one to get made?

  • If this happened to you, would you choose to "pass on" the curse to someone else, or would you try to find another solution? Why?

  • What do these movies have to say about the way we share media with each other?

Movie details

Themes & Topics

Browse titles with similar subject matter.

For kids who love scares

Our editors recommend

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

See how we rate

About these links

Common Sense Media, a nonprofit organization, earns a small affiliate fee from Amazon or iTunes when you use our links to make a purchase. Thank you for your support.

Read more

Our ratings are based on child development best practices. We display the minimum age for which content is developmentally appropriate. The star rating reflects overall quality and learning potential.

Learn how we rate