The Final Destination
Admittedly, the fourth- and dare I hope, final- entry in the “Final Destination” franchise has left me in a bit of a conundrum when trying to rate it. The franchise started off very well in 2000 (and the second one in 2003 continued the success), but the third entry (in 2006) left me bored after a brilliant opening sequence on a roller coaster. Well, brilliant for a horror movie, but you get my idea.
What’s the problem with a little mindless death in the movies? I think the never-ending “Saw” franchise, and the emergence of what’s been dubbed “torture porn,” has something to do with it. Take this movie- what exactly are we rooting for? Do we want the protagonists to cheat death, or do we want to them to meet horrible demises after a precognition during a NASCAR race allows Nick (Bobby Campo) to stave off death, for a while at least?
Of course, this is the dilemma for modern horror junkies in general in a post “Halloween”/”Friday the 13th” movie world, where we pay knowing what we’re going to get- lots of death- without much purpose. But that’s why I’ve actually endeared myself to the “Saw” movies- however twisted, there’s still a fundamental morality at work (although seriously guys, let’s start wrapping this thing up), while “Hostel” left me hollow.
In a way, “Final Destination” was the bridge between the slashers of Freddy and Jason and the rougher franchises like “Saw.” But the thing that worked so well in the first two- wow, we actually cared whether the characters lived or died- seems to be gone now. We’re going for the gory scenes of death, just like some people go to races to see a crash.
“The Final Destination”- see, it’s different from the first one because they put an official “the” in front of the title- plays it’s hand with the addition of 3-D. The characters are mere cannon fodder for the invisible hand of fate to deal out gruesome punishment. Admittedly, it’s the only reason I saw the movie. That doesn’t mean I liked it. Yeah, the deaths are “dear God” imaginative and painfully brutal, but the 3-D is unimaginative, with the filmmakers shooting everything at the audience it can (I think I saw a kitchen sink here somewhere…), though it does deliver the goods during the opening NASCAR sequence by getting you up close and personal on the track.
Is there a reason to even talk about the story? There isn’t really one. Or the acting? Yeah, there’s some hot eye candy on display- one character was even credited as MILF (disclaimer- she is)- but the acting is amateurish and not very affecting (save for Mykelti Williamson as a security guard). But as Roger Ebert says, “it’s not what it’s about, but how it’s about it,” and on that front, “The Final Destination,” well, still feels like something dirty crawled up inside me, and took me over for 81 minutes. If you want sadistic jokes played on humanity, this is your movie. If you’d like a little more substance to it, go back and rent the first one. Liking this movie doesn’t make you a bad person or anything anymore than like the “Saw” franchise makes me a bad person. In both cases, maybe some questions should be asked about our cinematic tastes, but that’s for another time.
