Sunday, February 14, 2010

The Final Destination (2008)

Garbage Horror at its finest. The FINAL DESTINATION series has become a joke of itself, so one can only hope that the title sticks. This entry easily possesses the worst writing and most basic dialogue out of any of the films, and it hardly carries the audience between each of the deaths. Being a date movie does not relieve the filmmakers of the burden of plot and structure, but apparently all of these basic elements have been scrapped in place of the gimmicky 3-D FX. The deaths themselves are so far-fetched and implausible even they become a chore, but what is worse is the ridiculous amount of time that is wasted in setting up false scares and anticipation. These cheap tactics are used to pad the already thin run time, and even with the extended red herrings, the film only strikes a pathetic hour and fifteen minutes. At least the second film attempted to build upon the first and the third film dropped all seriousness in place of a ridiculous amount of gore; the fourth entry feels like a near-remake of the original, and entirely lacks creativity. For mindless gore, there are a few cheap thrills, but this is the bottom of the barrel for the series.

Rating: 6/10.
Entertainment: 5/10.
Gore: 7/10.
Number of views: 1.



HorrorBlips: vote it up!

10 comments:

  1. If it's worse than part 3 then it MUST suck.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All I was looking for was a mindless film and seeing douchey teens killed in zany, over the top ways. I got what I wanted. But the dialogue was the worst in the series by far.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I actually liked 3 more than 2, at least they realized it was starting to slip and they needed to make it more fun. I'll give you the gore though Cortez, it took care of a looot of teenagers

    ReplyDelete
  4. I bought this as a blind buy since the gf doesn't share my love for older, or more obscure horror movies. I didn't much care for it. I thought the kills were kind of drab compared with the first two movies. It was okay and nothing overly memorable. I'm a bit surprised it made as much money as it did, though. Guess it was the 3D.

    I never saw the third film, though. Is it worth it?

    Carl, have you watched it in 3d at home? How does it look?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I watched the last one because of the gimmick of changing the outcome. That only made it worse. I already had no interest in this installment, and you've just cemented that. At least there's always the first one.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If there's one thing out there that cheeses me off royally, it's the fact that Hollyweird feels the need to remake horror movies that came out in the 90's or worse, only 8 or so years ago. WTF is the point of that?! I consider this a remake. The title doesn't elude to it being a sequel. It would be like if they wanted to remake Scream. Which I don't put past them.
    Haven't seen this one, yet, doubt I'll break my butt to do it, either. But, maybe I will because like a good little horror fanatic, I just can't stay away from a good train wreck. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  7. V we watched the 2D version, but I loved the 3D in MBV3D in the theaters, only to get sick when I tried it at home. Probably the same case here but I cant verify it unfortunately.

    I hate to admit that 3 is my favorite in the series, Devin Sawa and that Heroes chick annoy me in the first one and 3 is all fun and no seriousness

    ReplyDelete
  8. I loved the 3D in that one, too, seeing it in the theater. I'll try FD out in 3D soon to see how it looks on the LCD monitor.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I love the first one the best, part 2 is a good follow up. 3 could have been a good 'end', but 4 is just BLEH! Nothing new brought to that table.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've only seen the first of the Final Destination movies, but I liked it well enough. I did think it would be difficult to apply the same formula successfully to any future sequels. Once you know the plot of one, you know the plot of them all. I think I'll give this one a miss.

    ReplyDelete