Ring Around The Rosie

DECEMBER 4, 2007


Scorsese. Spielberg. Scott (both Tony and Ridley). Stone. And hell, why not: Sonnenfeld. Not only do many of our most revered modern directors apparently have names that begin with the letter "S", but they also all, at one point, put Tom Sizemore in their high profile films. How does a guy go from working with some of the greats to starring in a total piece of shit like Ring Around The Rosie (directed by the non-S Rubi Zack)? Oh, right. Drugs and hookers. Fuck the “this is your brain on drugs” ads, I think the youth of today should just watch Saving Private Ryan and this goddamn thing (or worst, Bottom Feeder) back to back so they can see how truly fucked up their life can become.

At least Bottom Feeder had the good sense to attempt to be fun, and actually include something, you know, HAPPENING every now and then. Rosie does not follow suit. Instead, we have the Jeepers Creepers girl walk around a house getting scared at just about everything, falling down a lot, getting leered at by Sizemore, engaging in uncomfortably close behavior with her sister (there were at least three instances where I thought for sure they were about to start making out), and getting scared at other things. Ironically, I thought the film was going turn out to be a gem, as she begins seeing things and getting spooked almost immediately after arriving at the requisite “inherited old house”, but as anyone else unfortunate enough to have seen this thing already knows, the movie basically peaks at that point, roughly 15 minutes into the film.

I guess when you can’t afford Oliver Hudson you just get this guy?

For the next hour, nothing else happens of note. Literally. Sizemore teaches her how to ride a horse in the film’s biggest action sequence. Then, finally, with about 10 minutes to go, Sizemore suddenly tries to rape the two girls, one of them dies, and then Jeepers girl’s douchebag-y boyfriend shows up and provides a twist ending that is not only stupid but also fails to resolve the film’s central storyline. Some kind souls on the IMDb posted some theories, I just read the first and accepted it as canon just so I wouldn’t have to think about the movie anymore. Let’s just say the movie is a ripoff of A Tale of Two Sisters (the review is linked, but don’t bother reading it, all it says is “I have no idea what I just saw, but I liked it.” I was really lazy that day).

Shockingly, there are FIVE credited writers on this goddamn thing. I think that’s a record for a non Bruckheimer production. I wonder which of them came up with the scene where the douchebag drags a dead deer off the road, or the scene where a bunch of postcards and photos fly around a room for no reason. Was it in the script that two sisters who look a lot alike as children would grow up to look as un-alike as any two women in the entire world possibly can? And who among the five decided that it would be easier to tape a "D" over the "C" in "Candyland" rather than get permission to show it in their shitty movie?

Oh, Sizemore. *shakes head sadly*

What say you?


  1. ya, i saw this a while ago (damn my random dvd buying habits) and it is indeed a steaming pile of crap (i gave 1/10 on imdb) and i don't even want to know what kind of movies the people who gave this a high rating hate...because i think that watching one would cause a death similar to watching The Ring video

  2. like it, sorry. yes the plot makes no sense. That's not enough in itself since some movies given high praise also make no sense. I am not saying making no sense is a good thing, just that it can be. You say "nothing happens". What do you want, explosions? Corpses? Every little quiet "we never find out what it means" thing that happens adds to the total effect and to whatever the hell the movies is about. A great deal of it revolves around falling (that's clear enough), a closet (not explained) and a man (mostly seen only as feet) in the protagonist's dreams/visions.
    All that said I do have this idea that somehow they lost (or forgot to shoot) the last 5 minutes of the film and decided not to care. In this missing ending it was explained that grandpa (who it's revealed look exactly like the imaginary caretaker) regularly molested the surviving sister and murdered the dead sister when she found out and was going to tell. Or some variant on the above. That makes the sudden rapiness of the caretaker, leading to the sister's death, a hallucinative retelling in the present of the childhood events. The closet fits in here but this is too long already.


Movie & TV Show Preview Widget