I’m re-reading what I wrote on all the entries in the Final Destination series and I’m struggling to understand why I have a soft spot for them in my heart. They are probably such a staple of the 2000s, which was the decade I came of age as it were, that it’s hard to disentangle their value as a pop-culture phenomenon from my own experience with movies.
I came across this 40 minute clip featuring all the deaths in the series and thought…well, it’s pretty cool. Because that’s what Final Destination is all about. Everything else in between is filler and, for most of the franchise, it never really aspires to be more than that. I’m glad that Bloodlines dares to depart from the faithful formula and bring something new to the table, more than a decade after the previous entry (which, also, was more daring at the time).
Thinking that FD came out when reaction videos where not a thing, yet it is a product designed primarily to elicit extreme reactions, is an interesting paradox. There’s something in the formula that’s an exceptional draw, and it’s obviously the gory deaths of hundreds of hapless anybodies. Which brings me to something that I think FD does very well – not rely on brand recognition.
I recently watched a clip hypothesising how Twilight has brought onto us the dawn of the star-agnostic Hollywood production, where the value is in the franchise brand, which studios control. But FD does something similar, by casting mostly unknowns, which is both a strength and a weakness. The challenge in doing this is establishing relatable/identifiable characters, which is not easy to do in ninety minute movies that spend half their runtime framing elaborate death scenes.
I do find it fascinating, how the 00s brought us these very related on-screen experiences, of Final Destination, Saw and, heck, Jackass. They all share the same DNA and explore it in different ways, but I wonder what it says about the things that made us feel alive at the turn of the century. Not-dying-gruesomely-while-others-do.
Final Destination (2000): I had the vague ambition of re-watching the…however many FD movies are out there before seeing the new one. Based on my ratings (because I have just logs-related-PTSD and no other memories), I didn’t really love any of them. It’s interesting though to see where it all started, as I do get the sense that this series influenced the likes of Saw, with its over-the-top fatalities. The first movie is too concerned with setting the stage to be really fun and also suffers from that distinctive bland look of man turn-of-the-century movies, but it does set up some neat moments. Surprisingly, or not, only Ali Larter became a household name (kinda). That said, the series has its own legacy – and working up towards the new release, here we go. 6
Final Destination 2 (2003): The follow-up pretty much sets the pattern for the other movies in the “original” series – a catastrophic event, followed by a hapless group of people trying to trick death and break the chain, which never works. What FD2 does well, is improve on the fatalities, featuring the already mentioned log-icide that so many people associated with the series. The deaths become gorier and more spectacular, but the rest of the movie just feels like a pretext. 5
Final Destination 3 (2006): Pretty much more of the same here, though James Wong, who directed the original, returns to helm it. FD3 stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead, which is a boon, and she’s got Amanda Crew of Silicon Valley by her side, but the rest of the cast is uninspired and unmemorable. Fatalities are once again the highlight, with the movie having an overall smoother look than the previous ones, but it sure felt like this was scraping the bottom of the barrel. 5
The Final Destination (2009): This was supposed to be the last on the series and it would have been a real shame to end on it. It barely scrapes 80 minutes, rushing through set-pieces that don’t even bother to be particularly creative. With a non-descript cast, that can’t do too much to elevate this, given they are inhabiting soulless characters, TFD is the definition of a lazy sequel. Add to that the over-reliance on special effects which look decisively “meh” and you have just the bare-bones of what made FD moderately enjoyable. If you can believe it, I rated it as a two, but it’s probably worth a 3
Final Destination 5 (2011): A substantial improvement on its predecessor, perhaps even equal to the original, FD5 is the first movie in the series that tries to do something a little bit different. With a much better cast and the return of Tony Todd, FD4 gets back to the better deathly moments of the first movies and indulges in some twists and turns of its own. It is however held back by some visual effects that are as uninspired as they were in TFD, highlighting the shift from more practical effects, to more digital ones. All in all though, pretty decent stuff. 6
Final Destination: Bloodlines (2025): I mean, could one expect naming consistency in this series? Probably not. But looking beyond this, FDB was just received positively by critics and I think this is a good insight into how critics rate movies today. I will easily agree that FDB is the best put-together movie in the franchise, with a better structure, more compelling characters and equally gory deaths. It is not, however, an exceptional movie, which one might dare to believe by the 92% it garners on RT. That said, I won’t complain about a good FD, even though this week-long marathon has tired me some – and definitely made me more aware of all the deathtraps surrounding me. To be honest, there is not a very good reason to subject yourself to this, so it’s good that FDB can be your one-stop-movie in the franchise with stand-alone quality. 7
tributary stu 