I'm seeing it tomorrow, I'm not expecting too much but I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy it all the same. ^_^

And to the person who said there was a load of references to the old films - there was quite a few! I'll need to watch it again to pick up on them, but the only ones I picked up on was Clear Rivers and the McKinley speedway (the Goth's surname from FD 3).

There was a Clear Rivers reference?! :o

 

I rewatched FD2 the other day, the best one <3

The sign that said Clear Rivers which prompted the lead fittie to realise that that other fittie was about to die in a water related incident.

I quite liked it ... it was still obviously the weakest of all four but it was nothing TERRIBLE like some people have suggested. :heehee: The deaths weren't the most imaginative (except maybe the swimming pool one! Ew!) but overall it did the job and was a good, fun movie to watch. I think it's good I didn't have my expectations too high though.

It wasn't THAT bad, it was still the weakest yet but still it'd be hard to top the others :o. The ending was pretty good, but it could've been much better, or even a possible sequel containing the same characters (i guess they could've done that in 3 too). I missed how FD3 was cryptic in how the characters predicted the method of the deaths though.

The problem with the last film was though that it was too predictable. We all knew how they were gonna die, and in what order they were going to die in. I've seen the Final Destination films tons of times and they've always been proper cheesy, so i'm used to that but this one just didn't seem to care at all. I'm pretty sure this will be the last one, unless FD 4 does amazing well at the box office and the writers can think of a new death sequence (which I don't think they can really...).

A really good thing about it though I thought was the opening titles when it showed pretty much loads of deaths from the past films, well how they happend.

5/10

 

Not a BAD effort, but far from flawless. As always, some of the scenes were just trashy and thoroughly enjoyable; particularly the two big premonitions (racetrack and mall). I also thought the death of the MILF was well done, setting it up with so many red herrings you don't know which ones going to do it (or at least you don't if you haven't seen the trailer!) I also like the parallel disasters of Hunt and his girlfriend - done so that it really could be either of them who carks it.

Also wins point for Hunt who was GODLY.

 

The not-so positives;

The cast - with the exception of Hunt who won points for his body, the cast was pretty bland and wooden.

The total anti-climax. The end of the mall scene was a total WTF-is-that-it?

I was also annoyed that they wimped out on screening the final deaths in all it's glory, had they spent all of their budget?

 

And like Chemmie has pointed out, I don't get what was so "final" about it. It wasn't concluded in any different way to the first three; no reason at all why another sequel couldn't be created. I hope they don't though, I think the novelty is wearing off quite quickly, and that's pretty much all the series has going for it.

What a load of fukkin' SH!T this is.... Tired, idiotic, stupid, thank fukk I didn't have to actually pay £10 to see this cack.... You can tell that Morgan and Wong (the series creators) are clearly having fukk all to do with these films any more, because they're just getting more idiotic, banal and boring.... You dont even have Tony Todd's weird-ass undertaker this time to liven things up, instead, you have a shockingly bad "token black guy" (oh, and he's a SECURITY GUARD AS WELL, typical.... -_- ). This film has "straight-to-DVD" written all over it, the only reason it ISN'T is because of the gimmicky 3-D effects.... Well, sorry, but I'm just getting a LITTLE BIT P!SSED OFF by the way that 3-D is being used all too often to try and cover up for the fact that the film itself is COMPLETE SH!TE (Journey to the Centre of the Earth, My Bloody Valentine, and that other cr@ppy horror film that I forget the name of.......)

 

There is NOTHING about this film that's good, the race-track and the cinema stuff is frankly a bore (I've seen FAR better 'disaster' sequences than these, the way the plane crash was done in the original Final Destination was far better than anything here, IMO...), the deaths themselves are just becoming utterly stupid and more obviously played for laughs (it's clear that the makers of this film just HAD NO FRESH IDEAS AT ALL, even totally, and ridiculously, apeing the "running over" sequence from the original, with a bloody ambulance replacing a bus ...) than shocks.....

 

This is a shockingly inept, staggeringly stoooopid "Horror" film.... Christ, no wonder the makers of this film didn't do a Press Screening.... This film should be retitled - "Scary Movie 5", because, the makers surely HAVE to be taking the p!ss......

 

0/10

To be fair I agree with Grimly that the series is quite clearly now becoming a comedy franchise as opposed to a horror.

Well it's always been a case of funny horror - tounge in cheek is probably better. A bit like Scream was.

 

Personally I thought the token black guy in the film was amazing. They should have showed more of him when he was trying to commit suicide and he couldn't.

Personally I thought the token black guy in the film was amazing. They should have showed more of him when he was trying to commit suicide and he couldn't.

 

:lol: yeh that bit was actually really funny.

I love the fact that he tried to hang himself with a noose ahah. Oh hi 1920s.

Well it's always been a case of funny horror - tounge in cheek is probably better. A bit like Scream was.

 

Personally I thought the token black guy in the film was amazing. They should have showed more of him when he was trying to commit suicide and he couldn't.

 

 

Rooney, with all due respect, that is just plain BOGUS.... Have you even seen the first film at all...? It certainly was not played JUST for laughs.... The original by Darren Morgan and James Wong, was a highly entertaining, pretty fresh take on the whole "supernatural" genre, sure, it had some funny moments, but all in all, it had some effectively nasty shock moments which were fairly shocking as opposed to being some fukkin' third rate Wiley Coyote or Tom and Jerry bullsh!t..... <_<

 

Fukk this film, there is NEVER an excuse for lazy, bad, and just plaing intelligence-insulting film-making.... This film is a fukkin' disgrace to the intelligence of a six year old tbh.... No one should see this in a cinema, download it if you have to, steal it, hit these b'astards in the pocket where it hurts, then perhaps they'll stop making bullsh"t like this.....

 

Rooney, with all due respect, that is just plain BOGUS.... Have you even seen the first film at all...? It certainly was not played JUST for laughs.... The original by Darren Morgan and James Wong, was a highly entertaining, pretty fresh take on the whole "supernatural" genre, sure, it had some funny moments, but all in all, it had some effectively nasty shock moments which were fairly shocking as opposed to being some fukkin' third rate Wiley Coyote or Tom and Jerry bullsh!t..... <_<

 

Fukk this film, there is NEVER an excuse for lazy, bad, and just plaing intelligence-insulting film-making.... This film is a fukkin' disgrace to the intelligence of a six year old tbh.... No one should see this in a cinema, download it if you have to, steal it, hit these b'astards in the pocket where it hurts, then perhaps they'll stop making bullsh"t like this.....

 

I've watched the first film millions of times. It wasn't played just for laughs - it was played out like Scream. It was a horror film, but it was very tounge in cheek. I mean some of the lines before they get killed - like the girl who gets hit by the bus, or Carter at the end where he thinks he's escaped death then BOOM. I don't think this film was played JUST for laughs either. But the film industry has definitely changed, and the francise is more popular/well known now and I dare day it appeals more to the younger generations as opposed to the older ones now as horror films over the last 7/8 years have just decreased in quality rapidly and have definitely alienated the older, more mature audience imo. Of course you always get odd exceptions, but if this film was made in a serious manner I am very sure (with the budget the film has) it would have flopped big time at the box office.

I've watched the first film millions of times. It wasn't played just for laughs - it was played out like Scream. It was a horror film, but it was very tounge in cheek. I mean some of the lines before they get killed - like the girl who gets hit by the bus, or Carter at the end where he thinks he's escaped death then BOOM. I don't think this film was played JUST for laughs either. But the film industry has definitely changed, and the francise is more popular/well known now and I dare day it appeals more to the younger generations as opposed to the older ones now as horror films over the last 7/8 years have just decreased in quality rapidly and have definitely alienated the older, more mature audience imo. Of course you always get odd exceptions, but if this film was made in a serious manner I am very sure (with the budget the film has) it would have flopped big time at the box office.

 

The original film was popular enough with the 14-18 age group Rooney, and it didn't treat its audiences like fukkin' idiots, that's the difference, same as the first Scream film which also assumed an audience who were fairly sophisticated.... Vastly superior scripting for one thing... Morgan and Wong were two of the chief writers on "X-Files" for years, so obviously they knew a thing or two about writing a good supernatural yarn.... I really dunno how the hell you can make excuses for the extremely low quality of US Horror films, when you look at the quality of progs such as "Supernatural", "Fringe", "Medium", "Lost" or "True Blood", which have scripting of incredibly high standards, I mean, it really IS saying something when TV is becoming a better source for quality Horror/Supernatural than films.... At the end of the day, IMO, it's all about standards, and for my money there is absolutely no excuse for low standards or treating your audience like a fukkin' moron in film-making.... This crummy sequel (and all these sh"tty remakes too...) are guilty on both counts as far as I'm concerned....

 

About the only genuinely good US Horror film I've seen all year is "Drag Me To Hell" (again, VERY tongue-in-cheek and self-reflective, but with a real savvy in the script and plot), but of course, that's Sam Raimi innit...? A real film-maker..... -_-

What a load of fukkin' SH!T this is.... Tired, idiotic, stupid, thank fukk I didn't have to actually pay £10 to see this cack.... You can tell that Morgan and Wong (the series creators) are clearly having fukk all to do with these films any more, because they're just getting more idiotic, banal and boring.... You dont even have Tony Todd's weird-ass undertaker this time to liven things up, instead, you have a shockingly bad "token black guy" (oh, and he's a SECURITY GUARD AS WELL, typical.... -_- ). This film has "straight-to-DVD" written all over it, the only reason it ISN'T is because of the gimmicky 3-D effects.... Well, sorry, but I'm just getting a LITTLE BIT P!SSED OFF by the way that 3-D is being used all too often to try and cover up for the fact that the film itself is COMPLETE SH!TE (Journey to the Centre of the Earth, My Bloody Valentine, and that other cr@ppy horror film that I forget the name of.......)

 

There is NOTHING about this film that's good, the race-track and the cinema stuff is frankly a bore (I've seen FAR better 'disaster' sequences than these, the way the plane crash was done in the original Final Destination was far better than anything here, IMO...), the deaths themselves are just becoming utterly stupid and more obviously played for laughs (it's clear that the makers of this film just HAD NO FRESH IDEAS AT ALL, even totally, and ridiculously, apeing the "running over" sequence from the original, with a bloody ambulance replacing a bus ...) than shocks.....

 

This is a shockingly inept, staggeringly stoooopid "Horror" film.... Christ, no wonder the makers of this film didn't do a Press Screening.... This film should be retitled - "Scary Movie 5", because, the makers surely HAVE to be taking the p!ss......

 

0/10

 

 

I agree! I just saw it tonight and we all laughed the ENTIRE way through the film. How the hell did the hairspray canister MOVE ITSELF across the counter and straight into the hair straighteners in the salon scene? At least with the first three films there was a logical way the deaths occurred, but this was utter horse $h!t. Everything which held a liquid managed to fall over onto something electrical with hardly any force being used AT ALL. It was so unrealistic. And even the 3D side to it wasn't as good as I thought it would be. I've been to better 3D movies in DisneyWorld TBH. Two student tickets for €19.99. Biggest waste of money EVER.

 

I will always like the first three FDs, but this one is best forgotten about...

Edited September 7, 200915 yr by Cal

^^ but the films have always been like that. Just look at the shower sequence for Todd in the first film where the water leaks to make him slip, then when he's dead, the water flows back again...

The first one made water sequences look so good! At least there was actually something -slightly- sinister about it. This one made it seem like an invisible man did all the handywork haa! I don't think it was as bad as Scott and Cal make it out to be, but it was so much more subtle in the first one, whereas here...broken chair, wobbling fan, hair straightners, hair spray, scissors close to the face, the toenail cleaning part [which was the most 'ICK' part of the whole film], the oil that leaked from a hair product...it was all too much and too baits ahaha.