LOGIN
REGISTER
RSS
HOME
Haven't watched since the 2nd one also but I dont think I'll be watching this movie.
By the time you reach Part 5 of a given franchise – especially one as repetitive and by-the-book as the Final Destination series – you’re prepared to take a few things on faith. The scenario will offer absolutely nothing new, and the idea that you might be surprised or enlightened by the proceedings is patently absurd. Each entry introduces us to a new batch of Bright Young Things – confident, hopeful and frankly kind of douchey – then spares them from a horrible accident via fortuitous premonition and spends the rest of the movie arranging for their grisly demise as Death seeks to balance his books.
Final Destination 5 delivers this without fanfare or deviation: eight people, spared an ugly death only to collect with interest during the ensuing ninety minutes. Anyone who expects different is a damn fool and needs to be kept out of the cinemas… especially in August, when quick-fix B-movies like this one run rampant. It’s derivative, formulaic and fairly sleazy; the kind of movie your mother warned you about. Calling it “good” is frankly insulting, both to it and to actual good movies which you can probably still spend your money on if you hurry.
Having said that… I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy myself. Within the confines of its limited palette, it endeavors to find a little creativity, with a twinkle in its eye and a sense of gory fun that the right sort of fan will appreciate. “Quality” is off the table here. But below-the-belt Dog Days thrills? Final Destination 5 might be able to scare some up.
The money shots start fairly early, as employees of a mid-level paper company board a bus for a weekend bonding exercise. The bus gets caught on a suspension bridge under construction, and high winds create an unexpected disaster that dispatches everyone onboard with properly bloody results. Except… one plucky office drone (Nicholas D’Agosto) has a horrific vision of what’s to come, and convinces eight of his fellows (including his wavering girlfriend and asshat boss) to hop off before the fireworks start.
Anyone who’s seen the previous entries in the series knows what happens next. Having cheated Death’s grand design, the survivors are now slated for equally grisly demises, unless they can kill someone else and thus gain his or her remaining years. The specifics are duly explained by Tony Todd’s creepy mortician: returning to the franchise after skipping Part 4 and relishing every moment of his all-too-brief screen time. The rest of the film consists of elaborate set pieces, as each of the survivors/victims is targeted by an extensive Rube Goldberg-style death trap. One girl gets it during a gymnastics routine, another during LASIK eye surgery, an office horndog undergoes an unfortunate acupuncture session, etc. The filmmakers set up a number of potential disasters in each sequence, then let us try to guess which one is going to do the poor bastard in. They rope-a-dope us more often than not, pulling something totally unexpected out of left field that creates as much surprise as the inevitable splatters of blood.
The characters are all one-note, and we care nothing about them except the means of their egress. The forces stalking them are invisible and impersonal, turning the entire exercise into a mechanistic observation rather than an actual story. And yet it still holds our interest, largely because of efficient pacing and a strong notion of what the core audience wants. They even find a clever way of repackaging the “twist” ending: the one everyone knows is coming but which still elicits a few honest chuckles.
And I stress again: none of this can be construed as quality filmmaking. Final Destination 5 is quick and dirty, interested in a few cheap thrills for the undemanding. But it knows its task and never holds pretensions to anything more substantive. Its modesty allows it to explore some quirky corners of the franchise, and put some of its lazier predecessors to shame. I won’t remember it a month from now, but I don’t regret seeing it… and I might even be happy to give it another look.
Haven't watched since the 2nd one also but I dont think I'll be watching this movie.
You gave this a B? How many times can you guys see teenagers killed in brutal ways? This, along with the Saw films, is something I just don't get. It is unimaginative and nothing but gore porn. More powere to those who get off on this junk. I'm a bit disturbed myself.
BTW, do you notice he said "cheap thrills for the undemanding"? I usually agree with most of Rob's reviews, but disapointed that he has trashed other films, without cutting them some slack, and gives this tripe (even though he admits it is crap) a decent rating.
They could do so much with these movies. Set them up in different locations and enviroments and scenarios. Imagine one with a war movie setting. A whole platoon escapes death and still have to go fight. Not only are they worried about the enemy but they have to worry about Death, too. Things like that to spice it up a bit.
That's kind of the point of these movies, though, Sanctum. It is like porn. Kills filler more kills filler more kills. If you expect The Devil's Backbone or The Orphanage you're looking in the wrong place.
Trust me. I'd never look to Hostel, Final Destination or Saw for solid horror, or anything of substance. I'm just not one for kill shots. But, apparently, I'm in a minority. I'm not sure how many Saw films were made and we are up to 5 on FD. They are cheap to make, unchallenging and the masses eat up the multiple ways you can decapitate a teenager.
That's a great idea, MrJawbreaking...maybe you should flesh it out a bit and pitch it to the studio? I do enjoy these movies, but agree that they need to mix them up a little more.
I can definitely understand a B- rating on a movie like this. Since everyone understands the premise, it's kind of like watching Twilight Zone. Whoever is in the show is going to be tricked badly in some way. The only thing we don't know is HOW. All Final Destination has to do is make some sort of sense from beginning to end and deliver the gore and the kills like we haven't seen before. Cheap? Yes. Thrill ride? Yes. But even most of us get on the same roller coaster over and over and still want more. Other movies of lesser grades usually get that grade because it didn't make sense, was too complicated for its own good, or maybe even too under-realized.
Have to put myself kinda in INNER SANCTUM's camp here. Don't want to be a hypocrite; in my younger days I saw a LOT of horror movies, including many very bad ones (some very entertainingly bad!) so I don't want to act as if every movie has to be "CITIZEN KANE" to be worth watching. Really.
That being said, I am just not "into" a movie where the plot is SO bare bones that it is just a series of gory, sadistic kills. And yes, I guess you can argue that such a summary could just as easily apply to a FRIDAY THE 13TH or a FREDDY movie... but at least there, there IS a "monster" figure, a basic (very) storyline to it. Maybe I AM being inconsistent, or hypocritical, but for me - for whatever that is worth - stripping away even THOSE superficial plot elements, to basically sell a series of sadistic kills? I don't know...just kinda creepy.
IMHO!
Shadow
Haven't watch one of these since 2, might have to have a marathon this weekend to catch up.