Final Destination 4

You can just imagine the suits sitting around their big round table discussing how to churn out another financially beneficial Final Destination movie and get away with it. Big suit number one puts forward that they obviously need more inventive mouse trap like deaths. Big suit number two has the genius notion that 3D is again taking off so why not utilise that option too. And that's pretty much all that it took, with the end result being a movie that is very self aware of its roots, but still plays out as the runt of the Final Destination litter.

Just as the director of the first one, James Wong, was brought back to direct part 3, the makers here bring back the director of part 2, David R. Ellis, to direct part 4! Which ultimately proves to be nothing more than some sort of nepotism like factor because The Final Destination is basically just over 82 minutes of poor acting, bad writing and a series of kills weaved together by the odd 5 minutes of barely relevant characterisations (the exposition as painful as the gory deaths!).

The kills entertain as they pretty much always have throughout the franchise, with the opening disaster sequences (here set at a speedway stadium) continuing one of the series' great traditions. While the opening and closing X-Ray/Skeletal credit sequences are superb and a credit to those involved. Yet it all feels so tired, where in spite of the willingness to upgrade the technology, it's still lazy and has nothing to really justify its very being other than that to make easy money.

The makers of part 5 would have to come up with something special to not turn this franchise from being one that was once bright and inventive, into that of a money train joke. 4/10

I would like to start off by saying I'm a fan of the FINAL DESTINATION series. Even the much maligned third film is starting to grow on me. When it was announced that David Ellis was returning to the director chair (along with screenwriter Eric Bress), I was quite excited, considering that part two is arguably the best in the series. But this one. If I were to describe this film in one word, I would say DISAPPOINTING. In fact, this is one of the most disappointing movies of this year! The fact that the makers of part two has returned just adds on to the frustration.

The film starts off pretty rushed. In fact, the film is rushed altogether. You feel as if the filmmakers wanted to get through with the film. The laziness is so apparent in here that you're wondering how much the executives offered in their salary. The film is so lazy that there are even glaring plot holes in the hackneyed script! How the hell does a film that is based on something ridiculous have plot holes? The film—better yet, the franchise, spends most of its time in setting up rules on the order people are going to die yet this film ignores practically everything and kills people in any order it feels like!

Even the clever foreshadowing from the previous films is quite blatant here. The laziness is also extended to the death scenes. Remember, quality, not quantity. Even though this film has the most death scenes compared to the previous entries, most of them suck and even that word wouldn't give the deaths that much justice. We all have to admit it sooner or later but we see these films for the death scenes. What is the freaking point in watching this film if they turn out to be lazy to an extent that some death scenes are rehashed from previous FD films? Exactly. There is no point.

Another problem about the death scenes is that there is barely any suspense when people are about to get killed. Usually, in the FD films, seeing the set up of the Rube Goldberg-like death scenes IS the suspense, but in here, they feel as if they come out of nowhere because of how rushed everything is. They're surprising, yes, but the surprises wear off very quickly. Google up Alfred Hitchcock's definition of "suspense" to learn the difference between surprise and suspense.

Let's move on to the next problem: CGI. With the 3D technology, it's obvious the filmmakers wanted to add more CGI effects so the images could pop out on the screen. The problem here is that the FINAL DESTINATION series is always known for their practical effects. The premonition sequence in here works well in 3D, sure, but the CGI is terrible! They look so fake that I questioned how this film wasn't released direct to DVD.

You know you have a bad film when a franchise that was supposed to be scary and mysterious now turns into something that pokes fun of itself. It has happened many times before, most notably, the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET franchise. It's as if the filmmakers were aware that the franchise is dying and that their last attempt was to add self-aware characters and idiotic, dumb lines in the film with the many problems the film already has.

Even the characters are more like an excuse to kill them off later. It's apparent that this isn't a movie but more of a carnival ride, waiting to see who dies and how they will die. That's how low this film has gone. You'd also be surprised to find out that the most fleshed out character is, in fact, not the protagonist, but a supporting character, played by Mykelti Williamson. He gives a laughable and forced performance but that's nothing compared to Bobby Campo, who is easily the worst premonitionist in the franchise. He can't act to save his life. And the less we say about the others, the better. However, I'm willing to admit the only character I did feel sympathy for was played by Krista Allen, who plays a motherly role with an extremely short running time.

However, there are other few things that I liked about the film (emphasis on the word "few"): There's a sequence in a salon and a car wash that have at least SOME suspense. I don't know if this counts but I also liked the opening credits, which I thought was ingenious, a montage of the previous films' memorable death scenes. And that's about it. Three things. What an accomplishment!

I guess it isn't hard to tell but this is, by far, the weakest in the series because there's nothing new. You'd expect that a mythology so easily expandable would be explored here but no. By the end of the film, you feel underwhelmed. You wished they could have done better. In fact, you KNOW they could have done better. If they were to make a fifth film, they better put some thought into it. If you're thinking about watching this movie only ONCE, you should see it in its intended format in 3D AND in theaters, but I don't see why anyone should waste their money on this film.

Arriving on local theaters without the benefit of 3-D, the novelty of "The Final Destination" goes doubly kaput, as it not only lacks inspired deaths and sympathetic characters, but also because the flatness of David R. Ellis' body bag-fodder isn't mitigated by whatever shallow entertainment an additional dimension might have brought.

Eric Bress' script wastes no time in shaping its interchangeable characters as, apparently, Death has to immediately dive into placing its cardboard victims in intricate fatalities that have been the series' central gimmick. Nick (Bobby Campo) experiences a premonition of a disaster in a race track and manages to get a few people out, who would have otherwise died. As per the franchise's tradition, Death won't be cheated and it starts to do anything -- like toppling cans and letting waters drip -- to create a ripple of events that would eliminate the survivors.

Despite showing how lame entertainment can be entertainingly lame with "Snakes on a Plane," Ellis -- who also directed "Final Destination 2" -- doesn't strive for an ounce of creativity, resulting to a terribly disposable fare that fails to hit its its mark despite aiming so low. And as embodied by the narrative shortcuts this gorefest constantly employs, the Rube Goldberg set pieces start to feel less impressive than mechanical, which makes one believe that Death has worked itself too much over the last three installments.

This was the worst entry in the series for the following reasons:

1. At approximately 80 minutes the film is too short and there isn't any sort of time given to building up tension.

2. Pretty much all of the deaths are given away in the previews, so when someone dies its no surprise whatsoever. By taking away the surprise aspect the movie was ruined.

3. There is even less of a plot here then the other 3. Granted the basic premise is the same but they didn't even try here.

4. The deaths themselves were very "meh" and fake looking. Way too much CGI was used. Not only that but they cut away from what probably would have been the most visually interesting death. 5. No Tony Todd. He was seen in the first 2 and heard in the 3rd one. At this point the fans expect to see him. They should have tried to get him in here somehow.

I could go on and on. I hope that if they make a 5th one that James Wong (who directed the first and third films) returns to give the series a proper send off as the David Ellis entries to the franchise (the second and fourth films) are definitely the weakest links in the series. To his credit though, part 2 did probably have some of the best deaths in the series (opening premonition, fire escape ladder, and plate glass).

The characters were annoying,cast was annoying,nearly every scene have deaths so there were a small and fastened plot,which was bad. But it was still watchable and original bloody carnage movie. Like Hunt's death and the Mechanic-with-no-spine. As I say,the worst of the series,but not boring.