Critic Reviews



Based on 23 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com
Rings finds a couple of nice, if inconsequential, little chills.
At no point does the movie manage even a single sequence of sustained tension, or a frisson of genuine terror.
Slant Magazine
Rings is unsure as to whether it’s a sequel to the other entries in the series or a contemporary reboot.
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.
Rings is too beholden with current trends to truly exploit the potential it displays in its early going.
More wearying than frightening, Rings is a total non-starter.
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.
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.
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.
Rings never solidifies into one of kind movie, cramming a handful of possibilities into its bloated running time.

More Critic Reviews

See all external reviews for Rings (2017) »

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Reviews | User Ratings | External Reviews