I didn't see the movie personally so I have really no opinion on it. However, considering that is probably like the rest of the franchise (I'm not a fan of a franchise that kills off everyone in the movie or in a sequel) and it is in 3D, I'm going to make a rash judgement call probably say I wouldn't like this movie. 3D always seems like a big gimmick to me and makes a statement that probably says. "This movie is not going to be good, but maybe we can sucker people into it by putting it into 3D."
But anyways, I haven't seen the movie so I cannot say if the film is truly good or bad. I would like to hear what you guys (If you have seen it) think of it or maybe the franchise in general.
The other ones are just ugly.
Good concept. Bad film making.
-Jimmybob
Haven't seen the new one. Didn't really care for the first one, but the second one at least had some interesting deaths, like the girl with the air bag. Not interested in the third one. I don't necessarily think it will be bad, they're just not my cup of tea.
Quote from: jimmybob on August 29, 2009, 09:49:49 AM
The other ones are just ugly.
Good concept. Bad film making.
-Jimmybob
Love yer avatar!
Final Destination. I have no clue. Never seen the first or second-so no clue on the thrid. Is it one of those HOSTEL or SAW type films. If so-ugh. I did like FRONTIERES though. Scary. What was that new one about Nazi Ghost zombie?s Like that too. Boy...I must be gettin old. I can remember stuff from 1970...but last month? Ferget it.
I haven't seen this one or the third one and I agree that the 3D seems like a gimmick, but I do like the concept of them. There's just not much of a story so there's no real need to see the next one. It's basically a lot of 'ohh....hows this dude/chick gonna die...'
But they're fine, if throw away, pieces of entertainment while they last.
I've enjoyed the whole franchise. The first one was genuinely creepy; the second two added a campy element but still were fun to view in a sadistic sort of way. I'll probably catch this one on video.
Quote from: RCMerchant on August 29, 2009, 11:13:08 AM
Final Destination. I have no clue. Never seen the first or second-so no clue on the thrid. Is it one of those HOSTEL or SAW type films.
The movies are about teenagers who were supposed to die, but ended up cheating death and living.
Death doesn't like that too much and comes back to get each one...usually in very creative ways.
Many of the deaths are done in a Rube Goldberg fashion. Some are not.
Most of them are really cool. :thumbup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrVn_9TrQCY
I like the super Rube Goldberg deaths, because they're amusing to watch, but I hear this new one is pretty bad. Apparently all the deaths are pure CG, and the CG is actually pretty bad. It also is very gimmicky with 3D, ala Friday the 13th part 3.
This series is a complete guilty pleasure for me. Especially part 2 in which I laughed until I cried at most if not all the deaths. The kid chasing the pigeons who gets crushed by the glass rules.
When I saw the trailer for this, I couldn't help but snicker a lot when it said it was going to be in 3D at the end. These movies just come off as being way too stupid and predictable to be enjoyable, even if they are summer flicks.
I feel genuine respect for the first movie, it has a witty premise and the set pieces pay off. Even the gallows humour is welcome.
The other two are just a cheap excuse to put together gore and unlikeable teenagers.
I don't think I'll see this 3rd sequel, it sounds genuinely lame, and the fact that they've shot it in 3D sounds to me like a desperate call for attention.
I will see it. I really like the first 2, the third one was kind of boring to me and the guy playing christian slayer playing jack nicholson drove me crazy. :drink: Im not into the 3D gimmick and im sure this one will be just like the others but what can i say? I like them.
(http://blinditems.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/05/feh.jpg)
Couldn't stand the first one. Thought the idea was just dumb.
I like the "cheat death and he comes for you" but when you don't have a personification of death, then it is just like some all-powerful force. Humans stand no chance, so from the beginning you know this group of teens is toast.
I also disliked that random, unexplainable things that happened to kill the people. If they had made it bad luck or extreme/bizarre circumstances, awesome. But I seem to recall things like screws loosening or gas stoves being turned on by an unseen force. I didn't like that. After all, the way they were supposed to die was just extreme bad luck that they avoided. Why should their second deaths, even if there is a pattern, be orchestrated by some unknown, all-powerful force?
In the first movie, when they meet the "wise undertaker" and he tells them about Death's plans/patterns, I immediately said, "well, if they cheated death the first time, and he comes for them again, why wouldn't he come for them a third time?" When I thought the movie was ending, I thought the same thing. And then they showed Death wasn't stopping...which means, just as I suspected from the beginning, their was never any hope of winning.
I don't see the point of watching a movie knowing full well the protagonists have nothing to fight back against, nothing as a focal point to the fear, and no way of winning.
But that's just my taste.
QuoteI don't see the point of watching a movie knowing full well the protagonists have nothing to fight back against, nothing as a focal point to the fear, and no way of winning.
Sometimes the struggle is exactly the point, and that can be worth watching the movie for... But that's giving Final Destination too much credit.
I will say, in Final Destination 2, there's one character from the first movie who has essentially beaten death. She's in a situation where, essentially death would never be able to get her. They also discover a potential way to satisfy destiny and not die in the second film.
But, whatever. I still more-or-less agree with you, even though I enjoyed the first three films.
Quote from: Jim H on September 03, 2009, 02:04:04 PM
Sometimes the struggle is exactly the point, and that can be worth watching the movie for...
But that's giving Final Destination too much credit.
I agree that the struggle can make the movie, but with the FD movies, what they are struggling against is too abstract and too powerful. Everyone dies; struggling to survive the current situation is one thing, but struggling against Death (especially when Death is not a personification) seems pointless.
QuoteI will say, in Final Destination 2, there's one character from the first movie who has essentially beaten death. She's in a situation where, essentially death would never be able to get her. They also discover a potential way to satisfy destiny and not die in the second film.
I thought I saw the second one, but I don't recall this. That might help me enjoy the movies more.
***SPOILERS FOR FINAL DESTINATION 2***
Basically, the one girl from the first film has had herself very specifically isolated in a mental hospital at her own volition. I think she's been there for like two years when FD2 starts. The way they discover to beat death is to suffer body death (e.g., heart stopping for a while) and then be brought back via CPR. The lead girl does this and it turns out death stops coming after her
***END***
I liked the concept for the films,even though it wasn't perfect it was fun to see all the crazy deaths. I think that could have did alot more with the films instead having "pretty teens getting killed but a powerful source". Sounds like a slasher to me.