Tag: The Ring

Smile Review

Parker Finn’s Smile is essentially The Ring if that distorted VHS tape were replaced with a distorted facial expression. As these jump scare heavy horror pics go, this one usually hits the right notes (including with its sound design).

Dr. Rose Cotter (Sosie Bacon) is a psychologist working at a busy mental ward. She makes the acquaintance of Laura (Caitlin Stasey), who witnessed her professor commit suicide. Ever since then, she’s been traumatized by an unseen being. Laura is a basket case until… she’s not and a creepy grin emerges. Those who’ve witnessed the trailer know that bloodshed follows.

What also follows (it follows… so to speak) is an evil spirit possibly latching onto the doctor and no one believing her. This includes her fiancee (Jessie T. Usher), an ex boyfriend who’s a cop (Kyle Gallner), and her sister (Gillian Zinser). Their skepticism is understandable as a family tragedy when Rose was 10 years old might explain her bizarre behavior.

Besides the mentions of It Follows and The Ring, Finn’s debut (he wrote it too) borrows plenty from earlier genre pieces. While originality isn’t its strong suit, there are a few legitimately hair raising instances. There’s one session with Rose’s therapist that’s far scarier than the bill.

Despite a few unnecessary shots that seem inspired by Inception, Finn seems like a filmmaker to keep an eye on. Bacon (daughter of Kevin and Kyra Sedgwick) is given a few good moments of genuinely convincing terror. This is genre work executed well as these characters smile though their arteries are bursting.

*** (out of four)

A Cure for Wellness Movie Review

Gore Verbinski’s A Cure for Wellness is a visually sumptuous experience that deserves a fascinating plot to go with the scenery. It’s not really there, however, so we’re left with an eye popping failure that goes on far too long. Spending two and a half hours in the Swiss Alps isn’t so bad at times, but I wish the screenwriter had realized the story is essentially nothing new. There’s shades of Shutter Island (not just because its lead resembles a younger Leo DiCaprio), plenty of Gothic horror entries, and even a Marathon Man school of dentistry moment. Does it add up to a satisfying whole? Not so much.

Dane DeHaan stars as Lockhart, a workaholic at an NYC financial firm who is tasked with traveling across the ocean to retrieve a coworker. That individual is Pembroke (Harry Groener), the company’s CEO who has gone MIA and is holed up at a mysterious “wellness center” in the mountains of Switzerland. The firm needs him back as they are mired in a trading scandal and forthcoming merger. Lockhart, with his unbridled ambition, is eager to do it.

Once there, he discovers a place filled with some of the world’s 1% trying to improve their lives. It’s run by the mysterious Dr. Heinrich Volmer (Jason Isaacs), who encourages Lockhart and his clientele to be drinking the water fed to them continuously. We suspect it’s not just to keep hydrated due to the altitude.

Lockhart is also told that once you’re at the lush spa, you don’t leave and he discovers this the hard way. His seemingly interminable stay (it sometimes feels that way for us too) acquaints him with Hannah (Mia Goth), a mysterious young girl who still acts far younger than she should. It is this duo that tries to discover the truth behind their surroundings.

A Cure for Wellness is a triumph of production design and other technical aspects. Verbinski, the director of Mousehunt and the American version of The Ring and first three Pirates of the Caribbean pics, has shown these abilities before. If only that pesky story were more original. If only the characters inhabiting this peculiar land were more developed. For instance, Dehaan’s lead character is saddled with a familiar backstory of Daddy issues. Two and a half hours is too much time to be spent here no matter how gorgeous it looks.

** (out of four)

 

Rings Box Office Prediction

After nearly 12 years, that creepy contortionist Samara and that deadly videotape returns to the silver screen when Rings debuts next weekend. The horror flick reboots a franchise that began in 2002 with the American version of a 1998 Japanese pic. It was a huge success, followed up by a somewhat lackluster 2005 sequel. The question is whether young audiences who flock to the genre and now older moviegoers who were transfixed by the original turn out.

F. Javier Gutierrez takes over directorial reigns in this follow-up set 13 years after part two. The cast includes Matilda Lutz, Alex Roe, Johnny Galecki, and Vincent D’Onofrio.

Curiously, Rings has been pushed back on multiple occasions. First scheduled for fall of 2015, then spring 2016, and then October – Paramount finally settled for February 2017. The stateside version of The Ring in 2002 started off with a decent $15 million opening before its solid word-of-mouth carried it to a $129 million overall domestic gross. The sequel debuted much bigger with $35 million, but petered out quickly with a $76 million eventual tally.

I don’t expect Rings to come anywhere near the franchise high of Ring Two. There’s also a football game that Sunday that could deter some viewers away. That said, we’ve seen the horror genre outperform expectations twice already in the new year – when The Bye Bye Man took in nearly $16 million out of the gate and Split made $40 million for its start. This could also mean genre enthusiasts may have had their fill in recent weeks. I believe Rings manages to just top $20 million.

Rings opening weekend prediction: $20.3 million

For my The Space Between Us prediction, click here:

https://toddmthatcher.com/2017/01/26/the-space-between-us-box-office-prediction/

Shut In Box Office Prediction

Naomi Watts makes a return to a genre that served her well years ago when Shut In opens next weekend. The horror/thriller places the actress stranded in her home during a blizzard with some potentially unwelcome visitors. Other cast members include Oliver Platt, Charlie Heaton, and Jacob Tremblay (who made waves last year as the child actor in the acclaimed Room).

Of course, the aforementioned title I was referring to with Watts is 2002’s The Ring, which turned into a smash hit. Don’t look for history to repeat itself here. Shut In has had a muted marketing campaign and it’s been pushed back by its distributor several times (it was originally slated to open in February).

Add all that up and I see a pretty bad debut, even factoring in that horror has had a solid 2016. I believe a mid single digits roll out is where Shut In will end up.

Shut In opening weekend prediction: $5.7 million

For my Arrival prediction, click here:

https://toddmthatcher.com/2016/11/02/arrival-box-office-prediction/

For my Almost Christmas prediction, click here:

https://toddmthatcher.com/2016/11/02/almost-christmas-box-office-prediction/

Will Blair Witch and Rings Scare Up Nostalgia?

Two high-profile horror flicks coming out this fall seem to have a lot in common. Both will help answer the question as to whether late 90s and early 00s nostalgia scares up business for the both of them.

Both Blair Witch (out September 16) and Rings (October 28) have had interesting journeys to the silver screen. Witch is, of course, a sequel to The Blair Witch Project from 1999. It came out of nowhere that summer and kicked off the found footage craze of the genre that continued for some time. Shot for a tiny $60,000, it grossed $248 million worldwide. This new one comes from director Adam Wingard (who made 2013’s well-regarded You’re Next). For months, it was known as The Woods and the reveal that it was actually related to the famed pic from 17 years ago was unknown until recently.

Rings reinvigorates the dormant franchise of movies that hit it big with 2002’s The Ring, Gore Verbinski’s remake of 1998’s Japanese flick Ringu. It starred Naomi Watts in the role that exposed her to mass audiences and made $249 million globally. Like Blair Witch Project, it ushered in its own sub genre of horror that included The Grudge. Rings has been delayed a couple of times – it was originally scheduled to premiere last November, then pushed to April, and finally to this Halloween.

A similarity that these two series share: an underwhelming second picture in between the original and the reboots coming our way this autumn. 2000’s Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 didn’t strike the kind of chord that its predecessor did, earning weak reviews and just $50 million in sales. 2005’s The Ring Two also suffered mediocre critical response and audience reaction (making $76 million domestically compared to the original’s $129 million). What I recall most about it is some of the worst CG deer in the history of cinema.

The nostalgia train has been rolling along in theaters recently with some smashing successes (Jurassic World) and crushing failures (Independence Day: Resurgence). The horror genre is one that constantly remakes and re-imagines its popular franchises, but Blair Witch and Rings are among the first to test out moviegoers fondness for these series that hit it big less than two decades ago. Stay tuned!