Yet more thoughts about the It remake.

Part 3 in my series of preview articles on the IT remake.

Strangely enough I find it very easy for me to use the upcoming IT movie as a kind of coat rack to hang all the little articles roaming on my mental desktop on. I don't know anything about the upcoming movie, apart from what I’m telling you. So here it goes.

This article is going to delve a bit deeper into what we know so far. So be warned. Even though I haven't seen the movie, a lot of my musings can be considered spoilers.

Also if you haven't seen the 1990 mini-series or read the book you'd better stay away as well.

Investigating the trailers some more.

There have been three trailers so far: a teaser trailer for the trailer, the first trailer showing bits and pieces, and the second trailer containing a large chunk of a scene between Bill, Mike, Stan and Eddy.

In my last article I glanced over the trailers in a broad manner because I wanted to focus on investigating promotional pictures of the movie. The reason for this I explained as follows: because it’s fun. It’s fun to find out little details beforehand as long as they don’t spoil too much.

However, the same can be done with trailers. There is only one real distinction between trailers and promotional pictures. Pictures stand alone. Trailers are pieced together creating a clutter of scenes you need to unravel. So you can have one shot from the last half of the movie and one shot from the start and together they form the taster of the movie that is the trailer. So, for instance, in the first trailer there is a scene of little Georgie screaming from the top of his lungs that: “You’ll float too!”. Then there is a shot of Pennywise rising from the water. This, followed by a shot of Pennywise fast forwarding towards the camera.

To me a direct callback to one of the ghouls in the House on Haunted Hill-remake (1998).

But maybe there was another source of inspiration.

You can make the educated guess that the first two shots are together in the final cut of the movie because of the rain booths on the right of the screen. The third shot, however, isn’t. The third shot takes place in a cellar (with a refrigerator and everything) while the two preceding shots take place in a sewer.

So that’s the way to look at trailers. It uses all the available footage of the film and pieces together a cut that glimpses at the end result regardless of chronology to interest and, perhaps, excite the audience – as it should.

So what are these glimpses we’ve gotten? What can I deduct from the footage I was allowed to see?

 One of the fun parts of a popular upcoming movie are the visual outings by the people online. So there is some lovely fan-art floating around (ha! floating). But also some people who made youtube-videos examining the trailers in detail (like what I’m doing right now). Or people explaining/spoiling the history and origins of Pennywise.

In short I’m not the only one. But it’s fun share insights and disagree with some.

The teaser trailer of the trailer.

That’s the easiest one to tackle. Basically it tells you three things: sewers have something to do with it. The blood red letters spelling ‘IT’ assure you that it isn’t going to be a comedy. And most importantly; it’s the only trailer that, until now, has given any audio of Pennywise’s voice – namely it’s laugh.

The first and second trailer.

There are three ‘big’ (relative of course) scenes in the first  two trailers. First, there’s little Georgie’s playtime in the rain and the reveal of Pennywise. The later callback of the boy in the “You’ll float too”-scene. And finally, in the second trailer, a full thirty-seconds of Bill, Mike, Stan and Eddy investigating the sewers and bantering amongst each other.

So those first two scenes were to set up to showcase both a bond between brothers as a motivator as to, simultaneously, put the minds of people who love the original  TV-outing at ease (the rain scene is almost the same as the mini-series).

The third scene, then, was to give a glimpse of some of the characters. Especially Eddy being the hypochondriac mother’s boy and Richie the clown of the group.

I like the banter between the boys. Eddy is a bit more talkative which is good and plays well off the (terrible eyesight-again) Richie. Plus some adult sex-induced teenage boy humor which is always good (it's been a while since the Goonies glued Michelangelo’s David's ‘mini-me’ the wrong side up).

Stan is - as expected from his character- a bit standoffish. However, keeping in mind the amount of time he's in each trailer and the fact that (according to Instagram) the boy was on set a lot (bloodied face and all). I do start to think his role is a bit more prominent in this adaptation.  Remember; it’s Stan on the floor in this promo picture. And it’s Stan that gives the opening speech at his bar mitzvah(I almost didn’t recognize him). Everything tells me that Stan, in this version, is going to feature a lot more prominently than in the mini-series.

Also that shot of him in the third trailer: are those deadlights?

Let's not forget that, in the original mini-series (1991), his was the only character that didn't have a flashback. I think -a smart move at the time because it kind of told the message that: 'what he experienced was so terrible we can't even show it on screen. Just look at the fact that Stan killed himself over a memory.'

I wonder how this remake is going to tackle Stanley’s ordeal?

Can I also make a note of how awesome the soundtrack was in the second trailer? Creepy beyond believe.

The bits and pieces

But the apart from establishing the thematic there is a lot of fun to be had delving into all those little bits and pieces-shots to comprise most of the rest of the trailers. To give you a few examples of what I noticed:

1. It is reassuring to see several used tissues in the first shot of the first trailer. It tells you that Bill is sick, at the time, like the novel. The same goes for the varnish on the desk to waterproof the paper boat or the amount of space-related items in Bill’s room. This, I take as a reassurance that the moviemakers want to tackle the ‘dimensional element’ of the book. More on that later.

2. Bill doesn’t seem to stutter like his book counterpart. True, most of the time you hear him speak he’s in a safe environment so no anxiety to trigger it. But still; I wonder if the movie left it in?

3. That sure is one terribly creepy apothecary. On a scale of one to ten of people I do not want any medicine from he scores a comfortable twenty-six.

4. The creepy house (on Neibolt street) is very front and center in both –big- trailers. A stairway walk in the second one (some characters are missing). Stan on the floor with Richie protecting him in the first as It is growing claws from his gloves.

5. It think the dam building sequence has been replace with a ‘fun in the sun’-swimming montage.

6. Bev is perfectly cast as the tomboyish girl. I’m certain she will still have an abusive father. The question, however, is how abusive. I always preferred the non-sexual abuse in the mini-series (it’s a lot more terrible in the book) and the clear parallels between her father and her (later) terrible boyfriend.

7. Eddy running away from the Leper. This is a very quick show you really need to screenshot before you see it. Here it is . There is something chasing the boy.

8. Ben has a short but very establishing shot in the library eying a balloon. An important place in the book. But that’s about all we get of Ben.

9.  Bowers walking towards the red balloon; A clear sign of evil calling him. Maybe the switchblade is in it.

10. There is a nice shot of Mike being terrified. Mike has always filled the wise-African-American archetype/trope. The boy who provides the back story. In the mini-series it was the photo album. In this movie it follows the book and brings Mike to the old slaughterhouse. In short: Mike is going to find out that Derry has been under a spell of evil since the beginning.

11. Then there is Patrick Hocksletter. Or ’Psycho-boy’ as I call him. His face and name is on a missing poster in the first trailer. But I think you also see him on screen, alive, in the second trailer. So that would imply that he is going to be alive for a part of the movie to be one of the bullies harassing the ‘Loser’s club’. This would be interesting because this completely deranged youth is on some level even more dangerous than Pennywise. A bit more thought on him:

Concerning psycho-boy.

I always wondered why Patrick was in the book in the first place? Like a drug fuelled Stephen King thought that a simple terror-clown wasn't enough. Second I wondered why King decided to turn this character gay (or at least bi-curious/willing)?

Maybe it was a callback to King's original inspiration for this story (serial killer John Wayne Gacy who preferred teenage boys as victims). That might’ve been the reason why he started the novel with a gay couple.

Or maybe it was King's infamous weirdness when it comes to sex.

Apart from the classic fellatio-scene in Thinner. Or the deliciously inappropriate usage of the word “masturbation" to convey a feeling of guilt. I always enjoyed King’s Eyes of the dragon as an insight in King’s troubled view on sexuality. There are about three pages worth of ranting in there in which King tries to explain that a boy playing with a dollhouse doesn’t automatically make him gay. Hilarious and disturbing at the same time.

Anyway, since the character is in the movie the danger the Bowers gang pose can be upped. Because, with a true (classical) psychopath on board you might get more than you bargained for in an after school fight. Yet, he isn’t present in the famous rock-throwing battle, though.

This marks also one of the first times that an author (for me at least) kills of one of the most interesting characters before he/she can fulfill his place in the story. This is a powerful tool in any writer’s arsenal. Like Hitchcock’s Psycho killing off the protagonist in the first act.

What Stephen King told us about IT.

Stephen wasn’t the brightest bulb in the cabinet in the eighties. He was basically a drug-fueled writer coming up with things on the go. For a human this is negative. For humanity –rather positive. Because, quite simply, the bloke wrote some impressive novels during this time (Cujo, for instance, which he can’t even remember that he wrote).

But discussing It at a panel reading King explained the basic premise as follows (I’m paraphrasing): ‘I wanted to create a story that had all kinds of childhood fears –like the wolfman, or Dracula or even the mummy…I put them all together and used a tale of a clown to keep them all together (I’m truly paraphrasing but the gist is the same)’.

So IT is basically an anthology novel. Several horror stories in one.  This partly explains why it is so terrifying, But it also explains why this story is so relatable. It’s not one horror story aimed at one individual – It is a cut-barreled-shotgun firing at us all. Every fear you ever had is in this novel. As such you could honestly say that It is Stephen King’s magnus opus.

Charming Pennywise.

Now I wish to repeat the ongoing worry that I still possess for this movie: whether Pennywise is going to be charming or not. Don't forget the first time shot we saw Tim Curry's Pennywise (though a bit of a jump scare - peeking through the drying linnen) he was a charming fellow. In the current trailers, though, each reveal of Pennywise is him looking terribly evil. Not naughty, charming or even blank (in a Kuleshov-effect) but pure and utter evil.

But I guess  the studio will stay wise enough to keep from giving too much of Pennywise away. So this worry of mine will linger until the premier in September.

One could even say that they've already showed too much (the EW picture).

It'll probably be somewhere in July or August when the third trailer will come out. This time ‘round I assume we will hear a bit more of Pennywise’s voice. 

Space and other themes.

So Stephen King wrote IT during his drug-fuelled days. This explains various scenes. For instance, the fantastic finale. It is absolutely bonkers. There we have Bill traveling through some kind of eternal dimension where he meets a turtle who apologizes for throwing up the world.

Now, based on the footage of the trailers and the general feel of the trailer I can make the educated guess that the preceding novel’s ‘psychedelic scene’ in the ‘smoking hut’ is left out of the movie. But that doesn’t mean that this movie isn’t going to get ‘wonky’ on us. The main script is still written by Fukunaga who wanted to write a “new kind of horror movie”. And all the elements about space are right there in the trailer (T-shirts, models, spacecraft-toys).

So I wonder how the first movie is going to end. Is it going to be psychedelic or is it going to be ‘all out battery acid’?

Apparently Fukunaga’s original script leaked on the internet. I haven’t read it. But it’s probably easy to find.

Which brings us to part two.   

Looking forwards to part II.

So I’ve written two-and-a-half articles about the upcoming It-remake. And I’m not the only one, the whole of the internet is buzzing. Which is a showcase of how excellent a job the promotional department is doing.

My gut feeling is telling me already that part 2 will follow suit. 

Now, we already knew that this movie will be the first part of the story – the adult part is to follow a year later (27 years after the mini-series). So why not use this moment to speculate a bit about part II. What’s it going to be called? ‘It returns’, ‘It part II’, ‘Its’ –we’ll see.

What I can tell for sure is that the original structure of the miniseries has to be let go a bit.

In the book and mini-series the story starts with one of the adults getting a phone call from Mike and then  those characters remembering childhood: a flashback.

Here, since none of the adults have been cast yet, the flashback element goes away. So in the second installment of the saga the movie has to invent a new way of introducing the adult characters and linking them to their child counterparts of the previous installments. Keeping in mind how fast kids grow I hope the moviemakers shot some additional footage.

Casting the adults

So who are going to play the adults? Why not have a guessing game? It’s always fun to have a stab at fantasy casting. So why not me? I’ll just name some actors I feel are reasonably right for the part and go from there:

Bill: Devon Sawa or Nick Stahl.

Ben: Seth Green (I can't be the only one who thought about this one - yes I know he was Richie in the original.)

Bev: Clea DuVall, Laura Harris or Leelee Sobieski (I think she’s too young for the part).

Richie: Matthew Lillard or Bill Hader.

Mike: Chris Rock (I can't help it I like the man when he plays it straight) or Yasiin Bey.

Eddie: Milo Ventimiglia.

Stan: Shawn Hatosy (If the character makes it to IT II).

So basically every affordable child actor of the late '80s early '90s I could think of who also dabbled in horror.

Thank heavens I'm not in charge of casting!

Why not recast all the original kids from the mini-series?
Some of them are dead. Some of the have quit acting. Sorry.

The finale.

As we all pretty much agree the final form of Pennywise in the mini-series wasn't very impressive. After such an excellent built up it was –truth be told- a bit of a letdown.

But the original mini-series finale did have a perk or two. For instance, the reveal that Pennywise isn't as powerful as he lets himself on (he only preys on children - when they are alone). So the fact that an angry mob of adults can literally tear him apart is a nice bloody climax -but perhaps an anti-climax.

There are movies in which this technique worked. Basic Instinct (forgo the ice pick, let's continue what we're doing), Kill Bill (let's have a forty minute dialogue first) or Vertigo (a freaking nun!).

But it's a pulling-the-rug-technique that is quite hard to pull off well. But if you do manage to you've got yourselves a classic. But if you fail you really fall hard. Apart from the terrible animatronics it was this element that let the original mini-series-finale down.

Final words (maybe).

So there you have it. I thought I was done after the first article – then I thought I was done after the second one. But ideas keep floating towards the surface.

I’m rather sure now that I’ll probably write another entry in this series. I’m actually looking forwards to the character posters. Because, I think, not doing that –at the very least only digital- would be a missed opportunity. Here we have a book with seven main characters and one evil clown. So why not ‘pull a Game of Thrones’ and create some favorites. Moreover, in next year’s movie you can use the adult character posters to link the characters.

See you around…B-, B-, B-, Boo!

Mixed tape movies: Pirates.

In the eighties it was the-thing-to-do to make a mixed tape (like an mp3 but touchable, always in need of a pencil and definitely cooler). On it you would make a little playlist of all the cool songs. Now the trick was to make each song correspond with the rest of the tape. In this post I will try to do the same with movies.

Every once in a while I will select a general topic and select movies to accompany it. As you can see the more child-friendly movies are at the start of the day, but  when night falls: ‘here be monsters’. Please feel free to give suggestions of other unknown movies.

One rule though: Auteur themes like ‘Shakespeare’ or ‘James Bond’ are not allowed. ‘Spy-movies’, naturally, are.

Theme: Pirate movies.

Pirates versus Ninjas is a fun internet joke. And the question often is: which do you prefer? Pirates or Ninjas? My answer: Pirates! No question. Let me rape (sorry about that), pillage and rob everything in sight. There’s something about a ship on the horizon carrying a skull and crossbones flag that rings a cord with me. Here is my little mixed tape of my favorite pirate movies.

08:00-10:00 
Pirates: band of misfits: Probably, if you read this blog – you’ll know that I have a everlasting love for stop motion animation. This movie isn’t the best Aardman ever made (the script tends to warble). But visually it is still the best I could ever hope for. A pirate and a dodo ready to save the world. 

10:00-12:00

Sinbad legend of the seven seas: Sinbad legend of the seven seas is a fun cartoon about an Arabian adventurer/pirate. The faults are obvious when you compare it to other animated classics. But looking back at the time this movie was made and the usage of CGI and hand-drawn animation it still stands strong. I would even be so bold as to claim that this movie is better than Disney’s Treasure Planet.

12:00–14:00

Black beards ghost: The brilliant classic. Peter Ustinov as the evil pirate Black Beard. As he is cursed by a wicked woman he has to help our great hero ensure his legacy. He does it the only way he knows how: with a vile sense of humor and a wicked right hook.

14:00-16:00

Kidnapped: How to scar a child? Send a lovable chap up a set of stairs and let him enter a door whereafter there is only pit. I can’t really recall the rest of the story (something about Scotland). But just this scene; that somebody would let his own family member walk towards certain death scared the bejeezers out of me as a child. Forget the rest….

16:00–18:00

Shipwrecked: A little, underestimated, gem. A boy get’s discarded on a lonesome island and decides to fight back the villains when they get there. It’s the ultimate preteen fantasy of traps and tree-houses –oh, and some treasure and a lovable villainous pirate played by –the always great- Gabriel Byrne. Will this boy succeed eventually? Most definitely.

18:00-20:00

The crimson pirate: The great Burt Lancaster and his friend Nick Cravat. They were partners in a circus together before they took on acting in movies. Naturally, because of Lancaster’s great looks he got a career out of it. But don’t pity the ‘little man’ (I apologize for the phrase). He went go two daughters and a happy (second – death waits for no man) marriage.

This is a pirate movie that has all the acrobatics in the ropes you can want. And  the two male leads/friends whose trust in each other shines on the screen. Forget the silly story and watch some true acrobatics and bromance.

 I’m choosing Lancaster over Errol Flynn here.

I’m certain I’ll refer to the legendary Flynn in due time.

20:00-22:00

Treasure island: The Bale and Heston version (the great Christopher Lee is deliciously scary in this one). This is the definite version of Stevenson’s tale. (Though I have a soft spot in my heart for the muppet version). There is sword-fighting, bloodshed, danger and treasure to behold.  Though I don’t really like Christian Bale as a person (that might change) I do love the acting chops he displays here as young Mr. Hawkins.

22:00-00:00

Cutthroat island: The definite classic. Sometimes. It is difficult to pinpoint why a movie failed. This movie is one of them. The story is brilliant (lost treasure). The heroin is amazing: Geena Davids as Morgan. But somehow the audience didn’t flock towards it. Cutthroat island will forever be known as the singular proof that a movie-audience can’t be predicted completely. I never understood why – this is one of the best pirate movies around.

00:00-02:00

Pirates of the Caribbean: The resurgence? After Cutthroat island Hollywood didn’t dare to touch another pirate movie for a decade. This movie proved them wrong – and rightfully so. Pirates of the Caribbean is a delightful tale. The script is wonky at times (even more so in the sequels). But overall this is the movie that makes audience members voice: “Argggggg”. Most of all because of Johnny Depp’s fascinating performance. Just his entry on that leaky boat – brilliant.

02:00-04:00

The island: Finally some pirates in our current time!

True, I neglected to mention Captain Philips.
For good reason, I recon, because I really wanted this article to be about swashbuckler pirates.

The Island, then, is just that: A bunch of pirates capture a father and son because they simply don’t know the world evolved around them. The boy never acted again after, this but his scene with eyes being kept open with sticks will live on in infamy. Yes, it’s a silly movie, but fun to watch. And why do we watch pirate movies? Because we love seeing villains being villainous!

The great Michael Caine is notorious for his ‘paycheck’-movies. And I can’t blame him. We all want to make a buck or two. The Island (or later Jaws 4 –same author) aren’t the highlights of his career. But, he always brings his A-game and he is always willing to let himself be part of the story. Somehow that, to me, rings far more admirable than a selective actor like Daniel Day Lewis – who always brings his A-game, but only on movies he wants. I guess; I’m a working class guy; I love it when my actors are regular Joe’s like me.

Honorable mention:

You might have noticed that I’ve included a lot of children’s movies in this particular mixed tape. The reason is simple: most pirate movies are aimed at children. I could easily show Pirates of the Caribbean to a young child because it is hardly scary (maybe the scene with the skeletons is, but that’s about it). There are very few movies with real horrendous pirates that I either know of or that I feel worthy of mentioning. Still there are some I left out of this list and here they are:

Hook: Peter pan couldn’t be left out of the equation when talking pirates, but I did. Dustin Hoffman as the greatest pirate: Hook versus the lost boys in a battle for the ages. Who needs a crocodile with a clock in its mouth if you’ve got scene stealing performances aplenty – thanks to the great Steven Spielberg?

Captain Phillips: A fantastic movie (that final scene). But I left it out because I wanted to write about pirates in days past. I’m sure I will call upon this movie in some mixed tape about real life stories.

 

Pirates: The great walter Matthau is in this one. And even though it’s a great ride It never really ‘grabbed’ met like the other ones on this list. 

The Fog : Yes there are pirates in this one. But it’s more about the fog than the pirates.

Some terrible mentions: The pirates of Penanze, The ice pirates, Yellowbeard, and some very, very bad horrors. Just don’t watch these. Well…ice pirates is fun if you have a stiff drink ready – maybe a bottle of rum. Hoho!

Get Out – a review.

Chris and Rose decide to spent the weekend at Rose’s parents in the country. Being the only African-American person there Chris gradually becomes more paranoid as a series of strange events unfold. Is there something truly sinister going on?

I think I won’t be able to help myself address the elephant in the room when it comes to this marvelous movie. So consider this review spoiler heavy.

What, then, is the elephant in the room? Get Out is nothing short of Stepford Wives part II. It has the exact same premise as the 1975 classic. And rightfully so. The period Stepford Wives was released in was known for the female struggle: feminism, female rights, right to abortion. Stepford Wives handily used what was going on in society to create a fictional critique on the male (want for) dominance over women.

Get Out, I reckon, makes the brilliant choice of doing the exact same thing. Nowadays, the political framework is the racial struggle in the United States, wherein this movie criticizes this current climate of conflict between white and black.

For example, a delicious scene takes place at a party where the protagonist meets several people who speak the most outlandish racist things with the best intention.

 Like the famous ‘dangling tool size’ question. Or, assuming that skin color automatically makes a person athletic.

This is a hilarious scene because it is so recognizable. Everybody has experienced white people bending over backwards, weighing each word, terrified to say something discriminating. While a less bright family member just blurts it out with the best intention. Whereas a non-white person definitely recognizes the restrain it takes to let certain unintentional insults lie.

In this sense Get Out is a hilarious comedy which encourages you to laugh about those narrow-minded white folk. But with a sharp edge. For example: the main protagonist does actively seek out other African-Americans.

This Get Out then uses to effectively build upon the thriller part of the movie. Creating a lovely balance of the two.

For instance, the reveal concerning one of the characters was wonderfully done (though, I must admit, a bit contrived). Nevertheless the scene that followed really used the information received to crank up the tension.

The same goes for the various hypnotism scenes that created a sense of looming danger ahead (with some very simple, but very effective visual effects to boot).

even though they were a tad too short for my taste -every movie has something to complain about.

The script, then,  is quite effective in balancing the comedy and the thriller aspects of this movie. One or two characters are a bit ‘dropped into the movie’ at times (thus telling the audience that this is a person to remember later). And I do believe that the final showdown is a bit too bloody for its own good. It works as a finale, but the slow buildup until that moment is a bit tarnished by it.

On the other hand: this movie loves to take on tropes head on. The comic relief played by Lil Rel Howery is not only funny, he’s also clever and, as such, he becomes a real person. This is the friend you would ask to look after your dog. This is also the guy that, when he drinks milk from your refrigerator he buys you a new carton. It are these little add-ons that complete characters and give the actors some extra tidbits to work with.

But overall the script is kept simple enough to let the social critique shine through.

 There are even several smart callbacks like the dear or the mother.

Which brings me to another highlight of the movie: the acting. Daniel Kaluuya is brilliant as the sweet caring protagonist (who happens to be black). It’s not an easy part to build a growing sense of paranoia in a character.

Again, I do believe that the bloody finale rather kicked his character down two notches but nothing terrible.

Then there is Allison Williams’s character who is lovely. It is, again, quite difficult to play somebody who isn’t a racist that addresses racial issues. Usually this construct spotlights it negatively. But William plays it easily with an everlasting charm.

It usually comes across like your drunk uncle beginning his monologue with the words: “I’m not a racist but…”.

As Kaluuya grows more paranoid Williams get’s to shine even more. Her character is a bit underwritten near the end but that doesn’t matter because, by then, Kaluuya has taken the wheel of the movie.

Finally I want a special shout out to the parents played by Catherine Keener and Bradley Withford  (loved the turtleneck – only ever worn by villains) who are deliciously polite in the Stepford Wives kind of way.

Which brings me full circle.

Get Out is a smart comedy thriller that uses the template of Stepford Wives as a renaissance to highlight some social critique (racism in the USA) today. It’s funny, nail biting and with a strong moral message.

One thing that did bother me was the 'why African-American'-question.

I don't think the movie gave a satisfactionary answer.

But over-explaining it would only result in misinterpretation.

Rings – A review

The video resurfaces when a college professor buys a VCR on a flea-market. He sets in motion a series of events that brings Samara to the digital age. A series of events that will change the lives of two young lovers forever.

Following the tradition of horror movies from the past Rings (the third outing in the series) is lesser than part two, which in turn was lesser than part one. I expect that in time we will get Samara in space.

Now I shouldn’t be too hard on the movie, it’s a fun outing. It’s just that this movie is brimming with excitement and love for the material yet it doesn’t really come to fruition. Like coloring a drawing with all the wrong colors.

 The story or Orpheus. One character called Gabriel. A clock set at 7:07. You can certainly tell that the creators wanted to add some cultural mythology to the video-legend.

Basically the biggest problem with Rings is, in fact, the title itself. Just going with the title I was certainly expecting several people getting Samara coming over. Considering our current youtube-era I was expecting some Samara vengeance on a worldly scale. Yet that doesn’t happen (until the final end).

For a moment there I really did think this movie was going to take the expected route. A college professor starting a club around the video; that’s a massacre waiting to happen. I couldn’t wait before Samara got to have some fun in the auditorium.

But then, suddenly, the movie shifts gear and turns back into an investigative plotline. The airplane-opening scene is never referred to again. All those college kids (who are probably going to die) never referred to again. Gabriel’s beef with the police –no mention.

So basically this movie managed to concoct itself into several story-strands. And I can’t see the reason why.

 It would have been far better if the movie had cut several scenes out. Like the airplane scene or the video-club.

Or added the title “two years EARLIER”…instead of “Later” to it.

Now I do like an investigative plotline in a horror-movie

Though Rings does oversimplify things: the protagonist talking to herself to inform the audience.

As any other audience member I like to know the back-story of the villain. But, to be honest, after a while you’ve got all the background  information about Jason, Freddy, Jigsaw and Michael Myers you need.

The same goes for Samara. I liked the back-story, but now we should stop investigating any more. Otherwise you have to resort to contrarieties like siblings or aliens. So basically with Rings the investigative angle for the Samara character is over.

 One question does linger though: How did Samara get her powers?

Is she the child of a water demon like the original version?

But, then again, do we need an answer to this question?

In good sequel fashion Rings didn’t dillydally with repeating the big reveal from part one (Samara is pure evil) early on. So in coming sequels we need to get a new plotline going. 

 Spoiler: Who knows, maybe because the video is now widely distributed, Samara stops killing individuals and has bigger plans.

Rings did end with a step in the right direction for that. Which, again, showcases the love the creators had for the original two (American) movies. Too bad they also filled this movie with some mindboggling tropes: a skype call that ends suddenly, a phone out of juice, one or two obvious plot elements that the smart people on the screen don’t seem to understand (the mark on Julia’s hand, the visions, Samara being evil), bad decision making (“there’s an evil ghost after me, let’s go out on my own!”), some plot holes (what about Julia’s mom?) and, of course, casting somebody known for playing villains as the…

But again, staying positive, I do like the fact that Rings kept itself bound to the fictional universe of the two previous movies. Despite the bad press I always enjoyed part two and Rings pretty much redid Samara’s plan. This is a consistency I like. Samara is an evil child ghost – she’s not a James Bond-villain plotting new ways of extortion. She has one goal and one goal only.

Spoiler: My theory is this: Samara wanted her video to be seen by many because she wanted to find the right candidate to bring about her rebirth.

The style of the movie is definitely on par with the rest of the series. Though I think that Gore Verbinsky (the director of the first movie) did the references back and forth between real life and the Ring-video (those little flashes) a bit more subtle.

The overall acting is perfectly fine, if a bit bland – but that has to do with the desired action and dialogue (and the editing at one time). Being cruel I do have to say that the two leading actors didn’t really leave a lasting impression on me

It was actually one of the extras in the auditorium-scene who couldn’t stop smiling I remember best.

But they weren’t annoying or terrible -and actually rather sweet together- just, sorry to say: forgettable.

Overall, It’s just the script that doesn’t really work. Being several stories at once. Because of that you don’t really know where the movie is going towards (Why do the two main characters break into the grave again?). And it looks like the movie doesn’t know either. Halfway through the movie actually forgets the looming danger of Samara being spooky altogether. And, by my count, the movie ends on day three.

But still, as a back-story to Samara, Rings is quite enjoyable. Yes, it isn’t the best movie out there. Yes, you can see the ending coming for miles. Yes, there are quite a collection of tropes to be found throughout the movie. And, definitely, yes, this movie doesn’t sell you what you actually want until the final ten seconds. But, then again, you’ve got to love Samara.