Wizard-8 Although "Ring Around the Rosie" was filmed with normal video cameras, it all the same has the look and feel of those ultra cheap shot on videotape movies that popped up in video stores in the 1980s. Needless to say, the low budget means that we don't get that much in the way of special effects or elaborate set pieces. The only way then the movie could have been saved is with the writing, but even in that area the movie fails miserably. The end credits for the movie list FIVE screenwriters, and it shows. The movie can't make up its mind as to what kind of horror movie it's supposed to be. It wavers between being a haunted house movie, a psychological thriller, and a mad psycho thriller, none of which is particularly interesting or creepy. A lot of that is due to the often incoherent nature of the movie. Things happen with no explanation or subsequent investigation (or action) by the heroine, and the characters (particularly the heroine) are murky and hard to get a handle on. How this extremely badly planned and executed project got a star like Tom Sizemore to appear in it, I cannot say. Maybe it was a favor for a friend, but I would bet that friendship was severely tested when Sizemore saw the finished results.

fedor8 Five people are credited to have written the screenplay. That's a major hint right there.It's always an ominous sign when a movie either has a bunch of editors or a large number of writers listed in the credits (or both: that's almost a sure-fire sign the movie stinks). I sort of picture 5 writers (and who knows if any of them is a "proper", competent writer) taking over the project from each other, one by one, each with his own intentions and different goals, creating a bigger and bigger mess as they tie the script into ever more knots.The first writer, fresh-faced and enthusiastic, perhaps wanted to do a thriller. When his third draft was judged "cheap garbage" by the producer, a second writer was hired (perhaps the director's nephew or something). He tried to turn the script into a supernatural horror film. After he got the boot, a third writer (sensing trouble) grudgingly accepted the job, and tried to unite the two genres, make them fit. A fourth writer was called in. At first he rejected the offer when he heard that Tom Sizemore was in it, but a 48-dollar increase in the offer changed his mind. He threw himself on the script, attempting to make heads and tails out of what the previous three had written. And then the fifth one hanged himself, leaving a suicide note that said "this script is beyond repair, and so is my life now".Absolutely nothing, and I mean literally nothing, makes sense in the story. Did I say "story"? Well, I have to call it something. I could call it "a five-man concoction of meaningless nothingness" but that's too long, so I'll just call it a "story" to keep things simple.Did lovely Gina Philips imagine Sizemore's violent outbursts or not? Is Sizemore evil or not? Why would her sister's ghost visit her as an adult (which she never was)? Why would she visit her just to die again, and in the same manner? Why would Gina smile after having realized that she'd imagined it all? Or had she? Who was the old man? Another ghost? Who the hell is he? Was the sheriff real? If so, then why did Gina tell him that there was nothing wrong? Why did she let her boyfriend leave her there alone, in the first place?And why does Gina almost always get these cheap B-movie roles? That's the most important question here. She is a competent actress, utterly gorgeous, likable – so what gives? I'll tell you what gives. She isn't a nepotistic offspring of some hotshot Hollywood actor, director or producer; neither her parents nor relatives work(ed) on TV or on Broadway, or own multi-billion-dollar corporations or have had number one hits on the pop charts. That's what it takes to become a tier-A actress (or actor) today. There is abundant evidence which proves without a shadow of a doubt that the careers of hopeless nepotistic young hopefuls are pushed with much more dedication and vehemence than those of "mere mortals" who dared to get their foot in the door of a business into which they weren't born by golden-spoon right. Hollywood royalty, my ass. No wonder American movies are on the slide.It's not a case of "the ending is ambiguous so it will make you think". Not in the slightest. There are no true hints, clues, or even clear-cut facts that can give you the slightest opportunity to make a clear picture of the story. There are too many loose ends and contradicting events. It's a 250-piece puzzle with 231 pieces missing. A right bloody mess, as the English would say.

Lawrence Griffin Boy, I must be unlucky. Two banal and pointless movies in one week (the other being the extremely bland "Shallow Ground", for reference). I don't think I've been this unfortunate in a long time. Anyway, this is the story of a woman, Karen, who moves back into her grandparents' home after her grandmother dies, following her last wish. She's going to clean up the house and then sell it and marry her boyfriend. But what happens when she starts reliving the horrors of her past every single night?This seemed promising, like some kind of Amityville Horror or The Shining-type of film. It had the lead actress from Jeepers Creepers, which I thought was a good movie overall. So this one was a good pick for me, and I didn't bother reading reviews or anything. But ehh...it's just mediocre at best, if not flat out awful. The acting is...terrible...especially from Gina Phillips, who was nowhere near this horrible back in Jeepers Creepers. Maybe it's the awful script. She screams way too much and they go on for too long. The caretaker is meant to 'become increasingly more violent', but it's actually more like one moment he's nice and kind and the next moment he's a freak. Doesn't make much sense. By the end it's barely even a horror movie. I don't know what to call it, but this was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.I did give it a point or two extra for making me think, because there is a really intriguing idea buried here if you look hard enough. The ending of the movie seemed trite and lame to me, until I thought about it, and realized exactly what the whole thing meant. All the hazy, distorted flashbacks, the missing pages in the kids' book, and Pierce's sexually violent nature...all of it leads up to something that I think I'll let you figure out yourself. This may be a terrible film, but I had to give it a point for making me think and realize the meaning behind some stuff here.

luckyfoshizzle If it was possible to give this pathetic excuse of a movie absolutely no stars I would have. This movie definitely ranks up there with one of the absolute worst movies I have ever seen.For one, it was extremely boring. For like 5 minutes every 20 minutes it'd seem like it was going to get interesting but nope it just went nowhere.The acting was horrible. I, myself, seem like a golden globe winner compared to the acting in this movie.Oh, and don't even get me started on the plot. The whole makes-no-sense plot was all suppose to lead to a "surprisingly good ending", but nope definitely did not. Once the ending was revealed I thought that they were at least going to explain why this girl dreamed the whole movie up, but nope. They didn't explain how her sister died.To sum it all up, if you have a choice between this movie and any other movie on the face of planet, get the other movie. I wasted 3 bucks to rent this movie cause with the title "Ring Around the Rosie" I thought it was going to be about a bunch of creepy kids (which absolutely scares the hell out of me). The title didn't enough have anything to do with the movie. This movie was just the very definition of crap!