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)

The Fanatic.

Review #1719: The Fanatic.

Cast: 

John Travolta (Moose), Devon Sawa (Hunter Dunbar), Ana Golja (Leah), Jacob Grodnik (Todd), James Paxton (Slim), and Denny Méndez (Amanda) Directed by Fred Durst.

Review: 

I'm sure you are familiar with the director in Fred Durst in that this is his third feature film since he decided to venture a path beyond just singing nu metal for Limp Bizkit, which he helped form in 1994 as the front-man and lyricist. Sure, The Education of Charlie Banks (2007) and The Longshots (2008) weren't wildly seen by audiences, but they-Nah, never mind. You aren't here to hear a description about Durst, a guy that I hadn't heard of before this film. It is probably a dubious achievement that the first time I heard of his band was in this film, since he includes a portion of his own band's song in the movie, describing it as something "good" - no comment. Anyway, you aren't here to wonder why Redbox has decided to get involved in being one of the seemingly endless amounts of companies behind the film. No, no, no, you are here to see just where John Travolta goes with the material. At least, that is what I hope you are here for. Perhaps nobody has had as many highs and lows as Travolta, particularly since he has seemingly managed to be the best thing about each and every single one of those two types of film qualities, whether that means hits like Saturday Night Fever (1977) or stuff such as Battlefield Earth (2000). Of course, I am saying this as more of a blanket statement for when I eventually encounter some of Travolta's other works within this decade, which includes Gotti (2018) and a handful of forgettable stuff you might find on the video-on-demand circuit (or while rummaging through DVDs). 

It seems strange to think that it has been two years since the release of this film, one that certainly inspired more derision than actual sales, as if the aura of seeming like a bad cult movie was just too much to handle in terms of actual appeal. Think about it: an actor with plenty of experience in going the full mile in presence (whether over-the-top or not) paired with a singer for a director and a premise that seems ripped right out of a generic Lifetime movie? How could this not be an "extra primo" bad movie for the (laughing) family?  The problem with bad movies is that it will remind you of better movies that cover similar material. Of course, the truly bad movies will basically slam you over the head and make you truly cringe in what you should be watching. This is one of those times, and it is particularly curious because of the lead performance that comes for such a ridiculously dull waste of time. Imagine spending 89 minutes watching John Travolta wearing a silly hairpiece and perform in a certain manner (possibly) on the autism spectrum that has more energy than the rest of the small cast combined. How many movies could be linked by this film in being better than this one? The easiest one could be The King of Comedy (1982), one that involved a lead character that has obsessive fantasies about being friends with a celebrity and going for a big break by kidnapping a talk show host. With that in mind, that movie was done by the same director behind Taxi Driver, which has inspired quite a few arguments about their similarities (incidentally, the star for both movies in Robert De Niro ended up starring in another movie about obsessions with The Fan (1996), albeit about baseball). Sure, one could reference Rain Man (1988) when it comes to the acting challenge, but One Hour Photo (2002) is the true other movie to look at - that involved a lonely man obsessed with his work and with a perfect family. All of these movies have something that The Fanatic lacks - a three-dimensional character, complete with a supporting cast that also are meant to be full-fledged people. Sure, each movie has an interesting idea when it comes to celebrity worship or idealization of folks (along with performances by respectable actors), but The Fanatic manages to take the most generic routes possible while managing to say absolutely nothing at all, unless one thinks unintentional comedy is a statement. The very first line of the film pretty much sets it up, what with a character "needing to go poo." It just spirals down from there, really. It might as well rival The Vulture (1967) in terms of its absurd leaps of logic with character decisions or motivations, and I am saying this about a movie that saves its one surprise for the climax in an ending that is as limp as the rest of the movie. 

Again, one must re-iterate that Travolta is pretty effective here. Sure, the movie is incredibly cringe-worthy to actually sit through, but he never seems to ham it up for detriment. He sinks right into a fanatical role and makes it seem like something that could be interesting to view when it comes to the mind of someone who lets his curiosity go too far. The movie doesn't have a likable character, but the devoted desperation seen here by Travolta almost works in exceeding the lack of dimensions shown by the script (for which Durst wrote the story while co-writing the screenplay with Dave Bekerman) in the parts that don't involve him as much. Sawa is almost as interesting, in the sense that one can be just as irritated at the ongoing events as he would - of course, the movie has no inclination of actually doing anything interesting with him besides the bare minimum of "well, he's the one being stalked, so let's have him give out threats and that is it". For such a small cast, the others might as well be transparent in the ways they come and go (the shop owner that we see in the opening disappears halfway through, and the randomly placed security guard used to motivate the lead to "stand up for himself" also does the same). Golja plays a paparazzi that I suppose is meant to represent the third leg of a triangle about celebrity obsession or something...while also serving as the narrator (maybe she was the only one who could stomach such generic lines). She is mismatched here, easy to say. Besides, the actions the script has the character take serve as the first (or second, if one thinks about it) domino of lunacy to fall that just inspires numerous derisive questions. 

To spare one the details, the whole movie hinges on someone not getting an autograph. Scratch that, it hinges on the characters lacking logic; imagine seeing your friend (obsessed with certain things like horror and stars) get kicked out of a party that you helped him break into, and you decide to tell him about an app that tells him about where celebrities live. Gee, what could go wrong? The fact that the celebrity responds to this dude going to his house multiples times by threats and not just...calling the cops, is more baffling. Somehow, the accidental death of a housekeeper (by falling on their head in a scuffle) is only noticed after at least a day of being in the yard dead (Moose thinks its a nosebleed while deciding to go in the house, so I don't think he went so far as to move the body. Nah, he has time to go in the house and play with antlers). Of course, the climax is both the best and dumbest thing about the whole film: imagine the irony that the best part is a character deciding to respond to being tied up and breaking away by shooting the attacker's hand off, shooting near his ears, and then stabbing him in the eye. Again, since there are no characters to really emphasize with, it makes for great amusement in all the wrong ways, a vapid and illogical experience that doesn't say anything new about obsession nor does anything interesting as a thriller beyond a plethora of clichés. If you find yourself compelled to see every Travolta movie or perhaps want to see a dull cringe time, this might be for you. Others will either be bored by what they see because of its bland execution or will just roll their eyes and find something better to do. In that sense, The Fanatic might live on as a grand curiosity for people who like to see abject failure with dignity. It doesn't come close to being one of the worst, but a 3 seems aptly appropriate.

Well, we have done it. Anniversary in August has reached its 16th and last review for this month. Oh sure, we had a busy time in August last year, but August is a month that generally follows busier times, as evidenced by the fact that the busiest months in Movie Night history are July, June, and December. Hmm. I hope you folks enjoyed these reviews, which ranged from interesting curiosities to...other stuff. Consistency is a goal I hope for with Movie Night, which has had ten reviews in each month since April 2019. Onward we go. Technically, other months should get their own months with how quiet it usually is, such as September or February. Well, there is one idea...

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.