2002’s The Ring is responsible for a trend in Hollywood during the turn of the century, in which J-horror film remakes were going to become a point of focus for film studios. The film, directed by Gore Verbinski and starring Naomi Watts, is an intelligent, atmospheric, and well acted adaptation of the 1998 Japanese film that set a high standard for these remakes, of which it hasn’t been met since. The likes of The Grudge, Dark Water, and others have been adapted for the American screen, and even The Ring’s own sequel couldn’t touch what had been accomplished with the remake. Rings, however, tries to stick to what made the first one work, but unfortunately can’t capture that sense of dread, mystery, or emotion that its predecessor manifested.

After numerous delays and floundering in development hell for years, Rings is the third stab at the Ring series, originally conceived by director Hideo Nakata. Acting as an attempt to revive the franchise, Rings features an all new cast, of which anyone from the first and second films are notably absent. The infamous video footage from the first two films are still in use here, but essentially all the information you’re going to need is provided in the film, making this the studio’s attempt to have new crowds jump on board without having to watch what came prior.

I must say, I was expecting an “okay” movie based on the trailers, of which they give far too much away concerning the plot, but even still, it seems like the movie exists simply to hold the rights to the series. Wooden acting and maybe two notable performances included are what  prevent any kind of emotional connection with the cast, along with a plot that lines up with the 2002 film’s almost beat-for-beat, leading one to predict the majority of the film once I picked up on where things were going.

Matilda Lutz stars in the film as Julia, who becomes concerned once her boyfriend, Holt, (Played by Alex Roe) goes missing. It turns out that Holt has watched the mythical tape created by Samara and is running out of time. In order to save her boyfriend, Julia watches the tape, and that’s where the film starts to move forward with its plot. Getting to this point, however, goes by with uneven pacing and a generic delivery that fails to totally draw you into this experience. Lutz and Roe try their best to carry the majority of the film, but in actuality their acting is just not up to par to make the characters work. Lutz bears the most faults, seeing as she’s given the most cringeworthy of lines available, with Roe fairing better than his co-star, but still falling victim to the script’s downfalls.

Perhaps what is most criminal of the film is that it, literally, hits the same beats and cues that the 2002 film did. While The Ring Two was just a bad film all around, it at least tried to do its own thing. That much I can give it credit for, because Rings relies so much on the 2002 film and its happenings that it becomes obvious this is more of a remake than a revival or reboot. Because of this familiarity, there’s no suspense and often it becomes that of a second-rate attempt at capturing what Verbinski did so well to begin with.

Yet Rings is not all faults and problems. In fact, the film’s third act ultimately saves the film from being a throwaway film. The ending itself is a bit forced and seems to go to an unnecessary extreme to leave the film with some sort of tension, but the getting to this point and the revelations in the main story end up making this last twenty or so minutes more interesting and creative, much like the 2002 film where all the pieces came together and made sense. Coupled with some cool visual tricks in which the image on screen corresponds with the footage from the video. It may seem like hand holding and spoon feeding to the audience, but it at least, aesthetically, looks nice.

Despite things being ripped from the first film, such as an encounter with the ghastly Samara that echoes a famed sequence (or a death even being eerily-similar to one from the remake,) Rings at least tries to be creative and do some new things. The atmosphere, while not as melancholic as Verbinski’s, does a nice job at capturing the dread scattered throughout, which can help make up for the shortcomings the film has. Even still, while you could just watch The Ring, both the Japanese and English versions, (It doesn’t matter at this point) you could still get a better experience with all the same story beats, (People thought The Force Awakens copied too much, apparently, while this movie makes it look totally original) Rings also has some fun performances by Vincent D’Onofrio as the blind Burke and Johnny Galecki as Gabriel. Both, while still getting a few lines that may cause a wince for being so forced, are clearly having fun and, in Galecki’s case, show potential for more demanding roles in the future.

So that leaves us with one question: was Rings necessary? Well, was The Ring Two a requirement? Absolutely not, and I feel Rings is a league or two ahead of its predecessor, but doesn’t come close to touching the original or its famed remake. Instead, Rings flounders as it reaches out of the well (PUN INTENDED) to reclaim what made the Verbinski film so great. Sadly, it remains tangled with the likes of every other J-horror remake that came out afterwards. Even still, it floats while many more have sunk, but that doesn’t excuse it for just how okay it really is.

Rings is now playing in theaters. You can view the more vague of the two trailers below