User reviews

From David Ellis, the director of "Snakes on a Plane" and "Final Destination 2", came the fourth outing for the Final Destination franchise in 2009. It came out during the brief 3-D resurgence in cinema, and it was one of many horror films that received the treatment.

Unfortunately, this was not a patch on the previous three, and crucially there was nothing new offered in this outing. The film suffers as a result, and feels stale. These films are always easy to watch and enjoyable, but by the ending, it has a feeling equivalent to bad fast-food - you've an empty stomach, and you could do with some more.

The plot is the usual in this franchise. A group of people cheat death and one-by-one Death begins to hunt them down. Many of the deaths are over-the-top and left me shaking my head (The pool drain, being the strangest). It was enjoyable enough, but completely pointless and added nothing new for the franchise. I found the CGI to be overdone and very distracting. All the deaths and action looked very fake because of it. The short-run time is worth mentioning, as the film barely clocked in at over 80 minutes. Probably just as well.

For me, a rating of 5 out of 10 means I didn't like the movie, but I didn't hate it either.

"The Final Destination" is a 3D horror thriller gimmick. Even though I saw this in 2D, there were many elements that were very obviously designed to be in 3D to take full advantage of the medium.

However, the film itself just isn't good.

The acting is terrible. The story is formulaic. There's nothing really interesting as far as the plot. No discussion of death. No new interesting concepts. Lots of fluff in the form of false kills. And the entire film from the opening credits to the closing credits is about the methods in which these people die.

What this movie is really about is killing young, attractive individuals in a manner which will compliment the 3D. Nothing else. It's just killing people using a Rube Goldberg device or a flying object in 3D.

Some of the special effects are good, and a few of the deaths are interesting, however, the film doesn't really do anything for me. It's just kind of there. I don't really hate it, but I don't really like it either. I also don't really care for 3D in general. I think it's a stupid way of getting you to pay a little extra, like IMAX (which is a bigger screen and some extra speakers. Yaay).

Overall, if you like the 3D gimmick; you're just looking for a movie to take a few friends to and have a little fun; and you don't really care about plot, characters, or story, you might have some fun. To anyone else, I wouldn't really recommend it. It's just a studio gimmick and can be easily ignored.

5/10 - Nothing special.

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).

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.

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

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.

Bad acting, Terrible CGI, deaths seen before they actually happen, no tension build up, ending horrific oh and BAD acting (again as it was so god damn BAD) !!!!

I'm not sure who pays for these movies to be made or why. They should stop, like right now. What an absolute waste of 90 minutes of life. Pathetic and terrible. Avoid like the plague!

Bad acting, again!

I would rather watch repeat episodes of the Tellytubbies than watch this garbage. Everyone involved should be ashamed. 'Actors', 'director'. Honestly it was horrendous, so bad in fact, that I'm now off to wash my eyes out and meditate as I'm so horrified and in the worst possible way!

If you're a fan of the franchise, you'd know the drill by now, and can probably mentally run through all the cliché moments you'll be expected to see being played out on screen once again. Start with a spectacular death-defying escape from certain demise, and because Death cannot accept those who cheated on him, hence begins that hunter-prey game where the Death's invisible hand starts to design some elaborate life-ending sequence for its victims, sometimes with some wickedly black humour thrown in.

Seriously though, Death has turned hip in the series, allowing a select group of survivors led by a prophetic messenger, if anything just to challenge himself to pick them off one by one through the simple rule of elimination in order of the premonition, dangling the carrot that whosoever can break any of his death traps, will be worthy of a second chance in life, not. One thing's for sure, an audience is not going to just walk in and expect great acting or high drama. All we want, simply and crudely put, is to see how brutal or comical death can result from sometimes the most ridiculous of set ups.

To top its predecessors, this installment had its introductory big scene set in stock car racing, which is the perfect avenue for 101 things to go wrong, and when they do, have thousands of potential victims to pick off from. While the very first movie had a spectacular, and some say too realistic for good taste in having witness from within a plane break up and explode upon take-off, this one had an adrenaline pumping race that got enhanced thanks to the latest gimmick in town, 3D.

And while some films are presented in 3D format without exploiting its 3D elements to the maximum, The Final Destination milked every single sequence that it could. From the get go you have objects darting around and flying toward you, be it huge tyres or mashed body insides, everything got hurled toward you from the screen, which I have to admit made me duck a couple of times, having deliberately chosen to sit up front so that the screen totally enveloped my field of vision. But there were still some sequences that looked quite cheaply done though, akin to the quality of those made for television movies due to a smaller budget devoted to effects. But for what it's worth as a 3D film, this is one of the better contemporary live action ones out there now.

One does not expect Oscar winning material in its storyline or acting, though the eye-candy cast made sitting through this film palatable, even if they're acting range comes with vast rooms for improvement. The film's relatively short, clocking under 90 minutes, and had enough cheat sheet deja-vu moments (which included the opening credits priming you on what to excpect) to repeat itself for the sole purpose of bloating the runtime. It also ran out of steam in its final act, leading to a very convenient and rushed conclusion which was just probably director David R. Ellis' way of saying "I do not know how to end this".

Will there be another Final Destination? Sure, if the writers can dream up of another shocker of an opening sequence to set the stage for more deathly carnage to happen. It's no brainer, and if box office results this opening weekend prove to be stellar, then we should expect this franchise to develop some legs to keep going on. And on. But if that happens, this will be viewed in 3D, or naught.

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.

Can somebody please tell me how a movie released in 2009 could look worse than one made in 2000? It seems like they turned a supernatural thriller into a cheap B-horror, and being a fan of the franchise, it rubbed me the wrong way.

I wouldn't have bothered about the campiness had the writing or the performances done their duties! I agree that the creators have put some creativity in the kills, but Final Destination as a series, contrary to popular beliefs, is not all about the kills; you need to come up with a modest story with at least functional personalities; this one had neither.

Terrible CGI, bland narration, uninspiring characters; this was bad on so many grounds!

The Final Destination is easily the worst in the Final Destination series. I thought the third one felt lazy, but that seems like a masterpiece compared to this.

Firstly, I need to get off my chest the absolutely appalling animation used in this film during the premonitions. It looks like the graphics from a playstation 1 game. No excuse for that for a film released in 2009.

The ending is also awful and lazy and so unsatisfying. I think I read somewhere that the ending was reshot or went through multiple iterations. How they managed to land on this as the final output is beyond me. It can't have been the best option that a group of adults with functioning brains came up with.

Now that I have got those two major gripes out of the way, the rest of the film is just a bit bland. None of the characters are remotely memorable. None of the kills are noteworthy. The constant premonitions get a bit tiresome. I'm not going to pretend like any of the franchise makes sense, but this one in particular takes the biscuit.

If you are a Final Destination die hard you will probably want to watch this to be a completionist, but if not I'd steer well clear and save yourself 80 minutes.

but i doubt this will be the final installment.these things are so cheap to make,what with their no name actors.maybe i'm just getting old,but i found myself bored out of my skull with this thing.i guess maybe i'm just not all that entertained by people dying in gross,disgusting ways anymore.that and i just found it all too absurd.not too mention the story is old hat.at slightly less than ninety minutes,this thing is slightly less than ninety minutes too long,in my opinion.for the fourteen to mid twenty crowd,i guess this might hold some value,and yes,it would have for me,at that age,and even beyond.until recently in fact.it's only been maybe two years since i realized i wanted more form my movie experience.one thing's for sure,when the next installment comes around,that's one destination i won't be going on.for me,The Final Destination is a 3/10

There is a LOT I could say about this MOVIE....

....But FIRST: Let us FOCUS on the Title's Content and Context....

This is a Review STRAIGHT from the GUT! (My "ID" was in Suspended Animation while viewing this...As was my brain!)

Yesterday, I read MOVIES or FILMS Review for The Final Destination, where she mentions how much fun the 3-D element was. It occurred to me that I hadn't seen a 3-D movie in a theater for OVER 40 Years! "FUN" being the operative buzz-word, suddenly, I had a tremendous urge to see the 3-D version, ASAP!

Well, I just got back a couple hours ago! This Movie and my opinion of it can easily be encapsulated in just a few words: "3-D GLASSES ON: 7.5******** "/ 3-D GLASSES OFF: "4****!" That's the whole Enchilada! I went to see "The FINAL" with a very specific purpose in mind: To enjoy the hell out of the 3-D gimmick aspect! And solely based on that single criterion, "The FINAL" was most satisfying indeed!

As entertained as I was with the 3-D images, I'd like to add some observations: Would NEVER consider seeing it again, with or without glasses! Would not see another 3-D movie in a Theater, unless I was convinced the film had stand alone merit!!! This REAL 3-D process, incidentally, is FAR superior to the old RED/GREEN 3-D glasses we've known for many years!

No headaches! No blurry vision during the film! Much crisper and cleaner image! The film hardly has anything else positive going for it..."Same Old-Same Old" in just about every area you could mention, except for everything related to the visual and 3-D department.

....ENJOY! / DISFRUTELA!.

This entry to the series takes a different approach. From the moment I saw the X-rayed-death-scene opening credit sequence with the hard rock cover of the creepy main theme of the series, I knew that the movie was not to be taken seriously, and a little help from the third dimension drove that idea home.

The Final Destination is a caricature of itself and the the entire series for that matter. This film was made with the knowledge that people still see these films for the ridiculously over the top and creative death scenes. Its like watching the trap go off in mouse trap; Its the only thing people came for.

There are about a dozen deaths in this entry as opposed to the regular 6-8 and the majority of them are fairly lengthy. Little attention is payed to the story or the characters but why bother? We've seen all this before? And I find that the hammy dialogue that the characters do manage to sputter out, only enhances the self-parody.

Fans of the series are either going to love it or think its OK and almost everyone else will hate it. SO If you've stuck it out through the other 3 films, check it out, and don't take it seriously.

The Final Destination series is another guilty cinematic pleasure, similar to the Saw series, the Hostel films and before that, the Friday 13 and "Nightmare" movies.

It has been two years since "The Final Destination" hit movie screens and it now plays fairly often on premium channels such as HBO or Encore. This movie and the series in general differs from other horror movies such as the Scream series in that the predator "Death" is unseen. All of the FD movies follow the same general premise: a group of teens escapes from death in a catastrophe only to have "death" follow them (you can't escape your destiny, right?).

Each successive movie offers new and spectacular ways for good-looking young people to die. TFD starts out at a NASCAR type race, which is a social comment: the underlying reason many people go to such races is for the possibility of a violent and spectacular crash. Yet a soulful young man has a premonition that there will be mayhem and guides his three friends and a small pack of hangers-on to safety.

The spectacular crash happens and "Death's" methodical predation of the survivors begins. To discuss the various ways people die would court spoilers but the writers of TFD put some wonderful humorous touches in what is a very taut and lean script (one of the complaints about the movie is that it is too short). A young mother has her two boys put tampons in their ears to protect their hearing from the loud stock car engines, for example. In another scene, a racist stalks the black security guard from the car race and during the mayhem that ensues, the War song "Why can't we be friends?" plays on the radio.

Some reviewers lament the lack of character development in TFD, but they're missing the point. Most of the characters are either caricatures (the racist, the angry redneck, the cowboy) or eye candy (the four core teenagers who try to thwart death). The most interesting main character is Hunt, the roguish, sexy blond young alpha male. A sequence at a pool involving Hunt is one of the most clever and ironic in the entire movie. Without giving too much away, let's say that Hunt's problems start when he tries to retrieve a treasured "lucky" coin.

TFD also contains a clever "movie within a movie" scene. The script also contains symbolism for coins, water, and America's love affair with the car. Admittedly these are nuances that the average moviegoer is likely to miss. At the same time, the movie has flaws, such as a contrived scene in a hospital and an annoying homeless character who pops up in a couple of scenes. Overall, the production team has succeeded in giving FD fans and new viewers a thrill ride of gory, guilty pleasure.

First off 7.3? That has got to be a joke. This movie had nothing going for it besides the 3D effect, which was not used well in my opinion. The trailer for the scrooge movie used it better/more. Besides the fact the 3D was not used well, the acting was dreadful, even by horror movie standards(what happened to Bubba from Forrest Gump?) and the director did not take advantage of what he could have done with the 3D, it was like he read a book on directing and just did all the basic shots you are taught, when he could have got really creative with it.

Sure if your 14 maybe its tolerable, but if you have any knowledge of how real movies should be made, save yourself.I wish the my final destination would have hit me before I watched this useless trash.

The previews for this, along with my way too high expectations, kind of ruined it for me. I simply knew too much thanks to hanging out on the IMDb message boards, but the previews are also much to blame for it, as they gave away far too much, virtually eliminating the "surprise" factor.

I love FD2. It's one of my favorite movies (and I don't generally like Horror). This time, director David R. Ellis did a weird kind of copy-paste maneuver that I'm just not sure worked as well as it could have--unless, perhaps, you haven't seen his FD2. This isn't the exact same movie, but I knew the routine too well this time for it to have the kind of suspenseful impact on me that FD2 did. And the opening disaster sequence, although superior to that of FD3, just didn't blow me away like the freeway pileup in FD2 did.

The 3D is worth it, though. This kind of movie just lends itself to having crazy stuff pop out at the screen, and I can't say that the gore and 3D "wow" factor weren't pretty cool.

If you're familiar with the first three, you'll probably notice LOTS of references/homages to the previous films. Unlike 1 and 3, this film aims to be funny, and it does pay off in that regard. It has probably the single funniest scene of all four--a scene that pays direct homage to 2, by the way. But like my mom always said, Deja Vu is just God's way of

Throughout the franchise, James Wong and David R. Ellis appear to have done a back- and-forth rotation with directing the series, with James Wong taking the director's chair for 'Final Destination' and 'Final Destination 3' while David R. Ellis takes over for 'Final Destination 2' and this one. The franchise seems to stay right on track with James Wong working behind the camera but not much so with David R. Ellis directing. As Ellis returns to the director's chair for the fourth installment, what results is what is possibly the worst entry of the this average franchise. This film opens up with twenty-something year old Nick (played by Bobby Campo), his girlfriend Lori (played by Shantel Vansanten), and their two friends Hunt (played by Nick Zano) and Janet (played by Haley Webb) spending their day watching the drag races at the McKinley Speedway. Out of nowhere, Nick has terrifying premonition of a car crash causing a rapid chain of disasters that kills everyone in the audience including him and his friends. Nick panics and drags his friends along with several other spectators out of the bleachers momentarily before the horrifying disaster he visioned unfolds and the remaining spectators are killed. Months go by, everyone tries to move on their lives, but Nick learns that the survivors are not safe as well as Death comes back to haunt them and claim their lives one by one as it originally intended when they escaped the disaster on the speedway.

The Final Destination series introduced a unique idea for the horror genre. Sadly, original ideas eventually wear out in the long run, and this film clearly shows it. With the previous films carrying a dark atmosphere, this one takes on a more comedic tone that results in humor making up the majority of the writing and characters while carrying on the same gimmicks from the previous entries. Yes, the film follows the same formula as what we experienced throughout the franchise, only here it gets more silly than something to be taken seriously. The characters are once again limited down to one-dimensional stereotypes but with less distinguishable personalities, and in the end you never come care for any of them. The performances the actors give aren't bad, but they don't help how wooden the characters are. The worse aspect comes to the death sequences which are much bloody and gorier than the ones from the previous films but less authentic and logical. The film takes the liberty of using CGI blood and gore that results in some of the deaths being more laughable than effective. The computer-generated blood splatter may fit well with 3-D (this is the first movie in the series to include 3-D), but overall it's just looks unrealistic. The only fun this movie brings the table is small plethora of thrills and some gory deaths to please those yearning for gruesome thrills than actual suspense. All in all, this film has little to offer than gruesome shock value.

The Final Destination is probably the least entertaining entry of the franchise, and probably the least favorite as well. This movie may some redeeming quality but most of it is buried under its bad script and tiresome formula. For a fan of the series, this one is worth the try but the replay value leads little to be desired.

You have GOT to be kidding me people. Let's preface this: you decided to watch FInal Destination part 174. AKA you know what you are getting into. Every Final Destination has the exact same formula. At this point, if you decide to watch the movie, you are 150% aware of what is going to happen. I find this to be fantastic. I love the fact that when I rent this crap from Redbox for $1 a night, I am getting exactly what I want. TONS of ridiculously silly carnage, cheese, and hot lead characters. If you rated this movie less than 8.5...I HATE you. If you have watched 3 or more Final Destination movies...this film is definitely for you. Grab a beer and a few shots with your friends, and make it a drinking game, for goodness sake.

Indeed, it's not a perfectly great horror movie yet I can't hate it either, and only prefer it above Final Destination 2, coincidentally, has same writer Eric Bress and director David R Ellis.

This is somewhat a bit like Scream 3 and Freddy's Dead as it has lot more (dark) humour rather than horror, the CGI effects to give 3D look obviously look terrible. There is not much interesting in characters even as it's some caricatures for example one is a lonely security guard, another is an aggressive neo-fascist (there's a few unnecessary racial slurs), there's an angry mechanic who loses his girlfriend and a mom to a couple of rowdy young boys. Some other weird things like coffee shop called "Death by Caffeine" and some people do a bit of negligence or carelessness (like George hit by ambulance like Terry hit by the bus).

As for positive aspects of the movie - well, like the rollercoaster from Final Destination 3, do like a NASCAR race event even if disaster is totally unrealistic (cars crashing with tyres and flaming wreckage flying in air and into the stadium on the spectators), the movie has some likeable characters like main guy Nick (he's like Kimberly Corman with nonsensical visions), his pretty redhead girlfriend Lori, Hunt dude (sometimes a hilariously "cool" jock dude despite he only enjoying himself as a priority), security guard George is much likable with history of losing his family through a tragedy (he's one with close resemblance to Tony Todd - who doesn't make an appearance or voice role at all this movie yet hardly needs to be in all of them).

And some favourite kills in movie like Hunt's pool peril (drowning or disembowelment, choice of heads or tails from his coin, LOL) blood geyser, racist Carter lit ablaze and towed by his truck down the road while by War's soundtrack played aloud and the mechanic Andy diced into crisscross fence (I'm sure it was a fake dummy).

What I mainly can't forget is when I first watched the movie, when Nick, Lori and George think that by saving Janet at carwash which they succeeded only the realisation (which I knew as well) they must got the list wrong and that the cowboy although injured survived the speedway disaster who was unaccounted for after initially believed to be a casualty.

I went to this movie on the day it came out in London expecting to see something which was like the first 3, but maybe had a little change, maybe a twist from the original 3.. But i was left disappointed as it is the same as the previous 3 and is just obvious and you can just tell whats going to happen. When this situation develops, you are just going to the movie to see gruesome deaths which just send a tingle down your spine of utter disgust. This movie gets 4 stars because of the following 2 stars- 3D 2 stars- acting of Nick Zano (hunt) I don't recommend this film, but if you are a big fan of The Final Destination and are ready to see gruesome deaths based on the same concept in 3D then this movie is for you.

4/10

I went out with some friends tonight and everyone wanted to see this movie, and it had been a long time since I saw a horror movie, so I thought it might be fun.

I saw the original "Final Destination" when I was younger and thought it was an interesting idea, and that movie was pretty well done. This movie, however, follows the EXACT same formula, in every way shape and form. No new plot devices are used, making this movie feel exhausted and uninteresting.

All the characters are incredibly cliché for a teen horror flick. The nice, protagonist couple, the bitchy friend and her sex crazed boyfriend, etc. Not to mention the completely unnecessary sex scene in the middle of the movie, which only was shown to make sure male viewers remained moderately interested in this poor excuse for a movie, I imagine? The 'horror'. Ohhh, they loved gore, alright. Too bad that the gore came off as laughable instead of scary. I honestly can say that I was never once grossed out by the excessive amount of blood they showed, no matter how much they tried. Every 'death' that occurred in this movie was so incredibly far-fetched that it was extremely difficult to take seriously.

In conclusion, I do not recommend this movie. If you look at this as a comedy instead of horror, you may enjoy it more. You also might enjoy it more if you get drunk first. However, seeing it sober as I did will be very painful, you have been warned.

*****SPOILERS***** Also, while there are many goofs in this movie I'm sure, I would like to add that this film contains a HUGE plot hole towards the end that made me want to rip my hair out. Water would NOT extinguish a chemical fire, it would only make it worse. I believe that this was taught in... elementary school? wtf.

In truth there's nothing especially bad about THE FINAL DESTINATION . There is I hasten to add absolutely nothing good enough to want to make you rush out and spend money on a cinema ticket fot it either . It is merely a marketing tool in order to extend a franchise that reached its zenith in the second movie and now proves there's only a limited number of ways you can kill off characters in a film before audiences stifle a yawn . Perhaps the fact that the only difference between this film's title and the original is a THE tells us all we need to know as to how much creative work went in to it ?

There is of course the small gimmick of it being shot in 3D went merely remains a gimmick. 3D movies didn't catch on it the 1980s and they won't catch on 30 years later despite the studios trying their worst . It also means

1 ) The camera angles are unnatural

2 ) If you're watching this on a 2D television then the framing of the movie is unnatural and irritating

There might be a third point and that is cinema still remains a narrative driven art form and no matter how a film is shot then if you're not compelled by the premise or plotting then everything else is secondary

As some people have pointed this sequel does seem to talk down to its audience somewhat by having signs saying a certain container is combustible etc . This is a flaw and you get the feeling that it's made entirely for dumb teenagers . Certainly the film does have dumb adolescents as protagonists which is a flaw because of of the major strong points of FD2 which makes it the best film in the series is that it contained a wide cross section of the public demographic where as whining adoslecents don't evoce much sympathy