RSS Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 The Final Destination: with a title as unquestionably creative as that, how could I possibly resist writing a review of it? With this and Fast & Furious out there, the movie title-making process has to be at an all-time low. I shouldn't be surprised by this considering that the Final Destination series is even staler than the Saw franchise at this point. Think about that for a second. The phrase "going through the motions" doesn't even begin to do this movie justice. I chose to not see this movie in 3D because, frankly, I knew that the whole gimmick was just going to be a thinly veiled attempt to cover up for the lack of any cinematic substance and the terrible acting. How prophetic I turned out to be. The above is from: http://www.earth-2.net/reviews/m/the-final-destination Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Fun read, James! And it's very sad to think that any film / franchise is taking cues from the Saw movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Though I haven't heard anything positive about FD yet, besides "it's better than H2," I think going in expecting good acting and a story is pretty much a bygone conclusion. This series has never taken itself seriously (like Saw does) and from the very beginning was a self parody. You watch FD for the carnage and that's it. Well, that and trying to figure out how everyone's going to die by the various machinations leading up to their demise. I probably won't see it but I wouldn't expect anything more than that if I did. However, if it was between this and H2, I'd probably choose this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrick Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 I've only seen FINAL DESTINATION 2 and thought it one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. It's as if the writers sat down and wondered "what if Death is Wile E. Coyote?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Robinson Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 I had a friend who tried to argue about the merits of the first film. He was really disappointed in the direction the series took with the second one. Personally I thought they did the right thing. The first one was stupid and kind of boring. The sequel? It was stupidly fun. That said; I doubt I'll ever see this. It's such a thin premise. I'm amazed they've dragged it out as long as they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Well, they make a shitload of money... Also, I thought the first one was new for what it was and was very fun. The second was pretty bad but has cinema's very best car crash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 This series has never taken itself seriously (like Saw does) and from the very beginning was a self parody. You watch FD for the carnage and that's it. Well, that and trying to figure out how everyone's going to die by the various machinations leading up to their demise. This is the reason I'll always give these movies a pass. They're stupid fun, and have never pretended to be anything but. Being upset that Final Destination is a bad movie is like being upset that Spaceballs isn't a very good historical documentary. That said, it's my boy James and it's funny, so I'll allow it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 I don't mean to speak for James, but I don't think he was upset that it's bad. That's expected going in. It's more that it's insulting to the viewer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 I know that, but I don't think anyone going in to see this is expecting anything but what they got. It's a much different situation with Saw where there are people that believe those movies to be brilliant pieces of filmmaking and thus we need to throw them off their pyramids of ignorance. I think the people making these things know that it's just stupid gory fun, and so does the audience. I'm also really not trying to piss in James' Cheerios here. It was a good article and I'm glad he wrote it. I just disagree with him on the movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 I'm also really not trying to piss in James' Cheerios here. It was a good article and I'm glad he wrote it. I just disagree with him on the movie. Ditto. It was a fun read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James D. Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 See, the original Final Destination was a good horror movie, in my opinion. The acting wasn't great or anything, but it was a neat premise and I think they executed it pretty well. I never liked airplanes to begin with, but after watching that, I was like, "Fuck airplanes!! I'm never going on one again!" As such, I don't think they should have made sequels because the idea had been done and doing it over again is just monotonous. The last three have been utter caricatures of the first one. (Of course, I understand why they did make more: $$$.) EDIT: And I hope you don't piss in my Cheerios. I loves mah cereal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 See, I don't disagree with you at all there. It was a great and fun premise for a no frills horror flick. The first one was great. The second had one of my most favorite opening sequences of all time followed by 80 minutes of eye-rolling. The third? I watched the trailer and said "no." I too was freaked out by planes after FD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom BITD Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 I've only seen FINAL DESTINATION 2 and thought it one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. It's as if the writers sat down and wondered "what if Death is Wile E. Coyote?" You saying this, my friend, is why I couldn't sit through the carnage scenes of this movie without hearing 'DaDaDa DaDaDaDaDaDum' in the background... I think the FD films, like the Star Trek fantasy, skip every other flick in being good--the odd ones are entertaining, but the even ones are really, really bad. Of course, the odd ones were the ones managed by Glen Morgan and James Wong, so make of that what you will... Oh, and I felt this one was pretty bad, but it's nowhere near as bad as the second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 Warner Home Video sent me a screener of The Final Destination, so, out of curiosity, I started watching it. No joke: I'm three minutes in and already I want to close the file. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 These effects are terrible, and I'm already sick of the "this was meant to be in 3D" shit. In the first 10 minutes at least a dozen things have flown at the screen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 They're doing the 3D shit in the opening credits?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 It's Professor Xavier, not "Doctor" Xavier. And he's not clairvoyant, he reads minds. Ugh! If you're going to make references to other media, try getting them right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James D. Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 Heh, at least I'm not the only one around here who suffered through this steaming pile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 Why did I watch that? It's already been reviewed on the site, so I had no reason to view the screener, yet here I am having just wasted my time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuaveStar Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 Why did I watch that? It's already been reviewed on the site, so I had no reason to view the screener, yet here I am having just wasted my time. To get ready for Saw 7 in 3-D? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annericelover Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 OK, I watched it today for the first time, and yeah I was definitely disappointed. I don't go into these movies expecting to be wowed or anything, I usually put my expectations low, so perhaps I'll be surprised and like it. First off, the 3D gimmick has never worked, since the 1950's studios have tried to make us shell out more money for the us of glasses that make us look like idiots. In the 50's people were wowed by the images of things coming at them, but in this day and age, when technology is so ramped, its not cool or OMG amazing, its just annoying. I went to see Thor and had no choice, but to see it in 3D, cause my theaters didn't give th 2D version, so I had to shell out like 5 dollars for about 10 minutes worth of useful 3D, while the rest of the film was actually in 2D. OK, well I'm getting off the subject here; The Final Destination, just seemed to recycle the same crap again, which isn't surprising, but its like they didn't even try. The acting didn't feel real, it just felt forced, the deaths weren't cool, they were either predictable, stretched out too long or unrealistic(a guy gets suck into a suction drain). Another problem here is the filmmakers did write in a somewhat interesting idea, a lead character that diverts TWO disasters.... SPOILERS Near the end of the film, the lead has a premonition of his girlfriend and her best friend being killed in a mall explosion(starting in the theater where there watching a OMG WHAT A SHOCK, A 3D FILM), by the end of the premonition he sees himself watching her die and than comes back to reality. He than heads to the theaters to stop the disaster and is successful. This means a new group of people were saved from death by this guy, they were all meant to die, due to these two girls being in the area and their still alive. A hobo, later makes a remark that he saved so many people who would have died, but that is all that is mentioned from it. Wouldn't this mean that Death was gonna go after those people now? Why not, start the next movie off with him stopping the theater disaster and following a group of the people that were there and finding out what is going on(it could happen in between the two week span before the actual end of the movie)? Instead we are getting yet another stupid 3D film of a bridge disaster. If these films have made anything clear, its that Death never spares, and yet we get a mall full of spared people, plus the two kids, whose mom was killed by a rock through the eye are still alive(they would have died in the racetrack disaster too) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.