Final Destination 2.

Review #2137: Final Destination 2.

Cast: 

Ali Larter (Clear Rivers), A. J. Cook (Kimberly Corman), Michael Landes (Thomas Burke), David Paetkau (Evan Lewis), James Kirk (Tim Carpenter), Lynda Boyd (Nora Carpenter), Keegan Connor Tracy (Kat Jennings), Jonathan Cherry (Rory Peters), T. C. Carson (Eugene Dix), Justina Machado (Isabella Hudson), and Tony Todd (William Bludworth) Directed by David R. Ellis (#437 - Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco)

Review: 

You may remember Final Destination (2000) came from a spec script by Jeffrey Reddick that would've been proposed for The X-Files if it wasn't for the fact that he had a suggestion to pitch it to New Line Cinema (which led to ensuing writing contributions by James Wong and Glen Morgan). The resulting film was such a success that New Line approached Reddick for a sequel. He agreed while Wong and Morgan (unavailable due to other projects) were replaced by J. Mackye Gruber and Eric Bress. If you would like an impression of what I thought about that first film, here goes: "Cardboard cut-outs getting killed with Rube Goldberg-type deaths is still cardboard cut-outs getting killed. The curse of knowing the potential for death could have made an interesting movie, really. That, or maybe it really was something suited for television." 2021 me did not have much patience for the original Final Destination, of course it took me two years to return to this series. Actually, he thought of a movie where instead of a bunch of bland cutouts led by a guy who looked like a nerd until it became more apparent that "Death" really was coming for them, time would be best served by just making that character a real loser. Two years later, I have come up with one other idea that was inspired by viewing this cheap sequel: a killer that goes around offing people in a manner that look like accidents just so that way he can get people to believe that Death is coming for them (if you have seen a film or story that is based on any of those premises, that is cool, because, well, you won't hear me whining).

Okay, so you can't just say a movie is not good just because it doesn't have the premise better than the one you imagine in your head. But you can say it is not a good film if it doesn't do anything to improve on the original beyond perhaps diving into what might as well be ripe for parody. Maybe I should've seen it coming before, since I never really thought much of naming a character "Clear Rivers" the first time around until I thought, wait, really? I think the only time I felt anything with this film was in laughing at it rather than with it, such as the case of one death scene: a teen spooks some pigeons, which leads to them buzzing by a crane operator that leads to the operator dropping a windowpane right on the teen that reminds me of a Roadrunner cartoon. The scene where a guy decides to just use a gun to try and shoot himself only to have it not fire even with six bullets is probably the only spooky idea presented. Other than that, if you've seen the first film, you basically have seen the second film. I'm not even irritated of what I see here, I just find it hilarious that you retain two castmates from the first and only use them to basically serve as exposition (it amuses me that Larter's character responds to being flipped off by leaving the padded and safe asylum to lead to exposition because [insert reference here]). Wasting Tony Todd the second time around should be a crime, but what do I know? Anyway, the acting is the kind of cut-and-dry stuff you would expect, mildly involving but not nearly enough to make me remember an iota of who these people are. Even Larter seems bemused to be there, as if the only thing worth doing is saying exposition and looking ready for the last check to clear. The death scenes are, well, deadly, which is more of a compliment to the one who had to sketch out how a man will get killed as a result of throwing junk onto pavement minutes earlier (that, or how CGI logs will make a bigger crash than real logs, obviously). You might think I should be more fair with the rating, because, hey, it's not that much better or worse than the original. You know those latter Sherlock Holmes movies Roy William Neill did? Watching those eleven films in all of their average-ness is far more tolerable to write about than being fair to junk like this.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

next up: Night of the Living Dead...remade.

Final Destination.

Review #1749: Final Destination.

Cast:  

Devon Sawa (Alex Browning), Ali Larter (Clear Rivers), Kerr Smith (Carter Horton), Kristen Cloke (Valerie Lewton), Daniel Roebuck (Agent Weine), Roger Guenveur Smith (Agent Schrek), Chad E. Donella (Tod Waggner), Seann William Scott (Billy Hitchcock), Tony Todd (William Bludworth), Amanda Detmer (Terry Chaney), Brendan Fehr (George Waggner), and Forbes Angus (Larry Murnau) Directed by James Wong.

Review: 

“I was actually flying home to Kentucky and I read this story about a woman who was on vacation in Hawaii and her mom called her and said ‘Don’t take the flight tomorrow, I have a really bad feeling about it.' She switched flights and the plane that she would have been on crashed. I thought, that’s creepy- what if she was supposed to die on that flight?”

Oh sure, throw a wrench into the horror film with tinges of the supernatural, that is sure to work out. Technically speaking, having no visible murderer is probably the logical step in trying to make new horror films in the new 21st century without relying on all of the clichés from before. The idea came from Jeffrey Reddick, who was an employee of New Line Cinema for years (working in the worldwide marketing department). A horror fan growing up in Kentucky, he was so gripped by A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) that he actually wrote a brief script revolving around a sequel (sending it to New Line Cinema's chairman Robert Shaye, who encouraged him to keep writing). With the script that became this film, it had actually started as an idea for a spec script for The X-Files, but it was the advice of a work colleague that persuaded him to try and make it into a film script (which was done as a spec script sold to New Line). After working with producers Craig Perry and Warren Zide in developing the script for sale, James Wong and Glen Morgan (a writing pair who had written for the show) were brought in by New Line to produce and direct, and they became involved with re-writing the script in order to have it be made as a film; Wong was quoted as wanting to do for "planes and air travel what Jaws did for sharks and swimming". Four follow-up films followed in the next eleven years (2003, 2006, 2009, 2011), with a potential for a sixth in the near future.

Sure, they wanted to do something that makes you weary about planes like Jaws for sharks, and I guess the build-up to the plane sequence is the most interesting part of the movie in terms of claustrophobia. They wanted to make the entertainment value in the ride and not so much in the outcome that supposedly respects its audience. Honestly though, the ride just is not that interesting to go with, mostly because a ride is only as good as the amount of distractions that get in the way (besides, I am reminded of William Castle when it comes to "ride movies", and he knew how to make a gimmick count). With a movie like this, there are just too many distractions for me to appreciate the movie as anything other than a very average movie that either could have been manipulated for dark laughs or something weirder - the only respect that comes out is that it respects folks who want the easiest deaths possible with the bare minimum of suspense. Honestly, the biggest problem with the movie is that you could probably think of a better movie with the bare ideas presented here than what actually has come from something that probably thought more about the death scenes than what really could have been an interesting way to make a movie about someone cursed with the knowledge of impending death. Of course, my interpretation probably doesn't differ much from the intended idea: instead of having a lead character that looks like a freak to some of the folks (as opposed to say...thanking him?), how about just making him an actual weirdo right from the jump? Or hell, why not a series of deaths that could actually be interpreted as something beyond obvious "accident" material (i.e. more than just a guy slipping on water)? Think about it: a dude goes around telling you the plane is going to explode and a bunch of folks get snared into not dying: what better way to test out fate than by putting them to the test (and it would probably help without having bumbling FBI agents)?  Instead, one is stuck with a middling movie that goes through all the motions with the bare minimum of suspense, which thinks it is clever with the use of John Denver references every now and then (naming your characters after horror directors only works if you aren't thinking about the directors, incidentally). Cardboard cut-outs getting killed with Rube Goldberg-type deaths is still cardboard cut-outs getting killed. The curse of knowing the potential for death could have made an interesting movie, really. That, or maybe it really was something suited for television. Sawa, to his credit, gives it his best for a generic movie, filled with lingering confidence that for the most part keeps on the level with the whole "well, I saw death but I dare to not go insane" thing; simply put, he could be less polite. Larter is also alright, gripped with a sense of knowing that comes from the generic outcast role (incidentally, she would be the only returning actor for the sequel). Smith might be flat, but at least the character is semi-interesting when it comes to one scene near the climax involving trying to get out of the cycle of death (at least, until its end note). Technically, the best performance is from Todd, who has exactly one scene to go and talk about death and runs with it (which includes saying "mack daddy", somehow), which I guess helps out if one needs exposition. The others are pretty flat, in that clichés only work if the ride is fun. It isn't really, but that probably plays into my weird creep theory (the only one who reacts in any interesting way is someone who shows irritation when two of the survivors fight, which is immediately followed by them dying); Cloke is the only adult among teenagers (a loose term, but it checks out), and she has the least to really do besides the death scene (look, you can't spoil a movie that only has a finite bodycount among seven); when you are wondering how much more you could have involving Scott as comic relief, you might have a problem. Roebuck and Smith stumble with the blandest of possible procedural clichés (which only reminds me of how this might have played out before 2001). As a whole, it is a slasher movie with all the middling clichés from before except the part where there is a visible slasher figure. Sure, it has a few decent effects and ideas, but as a whole, making a silly horror movie with one neat trick is still making a silly horror movie, no matter how much gloss you put on it. While I undoubtedly will look on the follow-up films at some point, I can only hope they found better ways of trying to make the ride count for something beyond what they did here.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Saw (2004)

Legally Blonde.

Review #1698: Legally Blonde.

Cast: 

Reese Witherspoon (Elle Woods), Luke Wilson (Emmett Richmond), Selma Blair (Vivian Kensington), Matthew Davis (Warner Huntington III), Victor Garber (Professor Callahan), Jennifer Coolidge (Paulette Bonafonté), Holland Taylor (Professor Elspeth Stromwell), Ali Larter (Brooke Taylor-Windham), Jessica Cauffiel (Margot), Alanna Ubach (Serena McGuire), Francesca P. Roberts (Judge Marina R. Bickford), Oz Perkins (David Kidney), Linda Cardellini (Chutney Windham), Bruce Thomas (UPS Guy), Meredith Scott Lynn (Enid Wexler), and Raquel Welch (Mrs. Windham-Vandermark) Directed by Robert Luketic.

Review: 

Well, sometimes you need a movie about the law to go with a tale of forging a path forward for oneself with confidence, I suppose. Legally Blonde is adapted from the novel of the same name, which was self-published by Amanda Brown in 2001 (although it should be noted that the 1994 copyright filing lists both Brown and Brigdet Kerrigan, who coincidentally had attended Harvard) based on the writer's experiences in Stanford Law School, which namely involved making fun of her classmates with letters sent back home to Arizona while reading Elle magazine; one key experience involved her going to a group for women attending the school that Brown found amusement over their serious tone (such as trying to change "semester" to "ovester"). She dropped out after two years, but she eventually cobbled a manuscript together; while it didn't attract much attention as a book, it did find interest with film studios, and one pitch that was used for it was "Clueless meets The Paper Chase". At any rate, the film was written by Karen McCullah Lutz and Kirsten Smith, who saw numerous script changes that turned a first draft with raunchy material into one with adversity to overcome and a murder trial (including an ending that came from test audiences caring about the success of its character rather than a kiss on the courthouse). In other words, a script that would probably have come off the heels of stuff like American Pie (1999) ended up being more of a feel-good movie that surely plays its own note in the blonde circuit (which has quite a few stereotypes that I'm sure would make for an interesting discussion somewhere else). This was also the feature film debut of Robert Luketic, a native of Australia who had been making short films since he was a teenager before his short Titsiana Booberini (1997) attracted Hollywood.

Honestly, it's just an okay movie. It's an obvious movie, one that plays exactly to the bone of "being yourself with confidence" that makes for a few chuckles for a 96 minute movie that sure takes its time to really get going, even when it has something to say about workplace dynamics in conduct (or perhaps not judging stuff like sorority life or law school by the cover...?) and something something feminist classic something something. Or something like that, because really it is the trial parts that are more up to speed in actually doing something beyond "aw shucks". You know how folks will randomly approach stars and have them do "classic stuff" at a convention? The appeal for this movie is kind of like that, albeit without as many nerd lingo (as any convention attendee would say). That, or it is basically a sports movie for sorority folks. Strangely enough, with a pitch evoking the name of Clueless (1995), it really doesn't seem to have that much "zing" to it, if you know what I mean. Sure, there are quite a few quirky moments, such as the "bend and snap" sequence, which sounds believable when you note that the writers came up with it while at a bar. It comes and goes, really, when you think about it. There is nothing here that is exactly harmful or ridiculous, and I imagine that it certainly proved an inspiration to at least one person when it came to law or perhaps something else - so yeah, average isn't the worst possible experience one could have with this feature. If it wasn't for Witherspoon, this probably would have been a lesser experience. Her sunny charm and wit certainly play off against the others well enough with flourishing interest that you would see from a "fish out of water" type without being played out, and its easy to see how two decades have only cemented the enduring entertainment that Witherspoon brings here. The others keep up fine for the most part. Wilson is casual enough to keep his portion of the film going well enough without asking for too much more (the aforementioned ending involved the two leads kissing at the end, but I think you can see why they just went with a different one). Blair brings up the snobby parts to where it needs to go (complete with the predictable stuff), which is followed by the snooty snake charm from Davis to go with the slithering calmness generated by Garber. Coolidge gets a chuckle in shyness while others get a line or two to show up (such as Larter doing some well-blown hysterics over gluteal efforts), which means that one will do just fine in keeping their attention airtight. As I stated already, it is the law parts that generate interest more, probably because its predictability is a little less obvious than the school segments, but that is probably just me. In the two decades that have followed the release of this film, a sequel was released alongside a musical and a spinoff, and it is perhaps representative of the legacy of the film that another sequel is in development. Is it predictable? Indubitably, but it has plenty of charm in the right places to make a worthy time for those in the mood for what it yearns to say about having fun as oneself without letting folks or other things get in their way. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.