The Official RAZZIE® Forum : FINAL DESTINATION 3-D http://www.razzies.com/forum/ This is an XML content feed of; The Official RAZZIE® Forum : FINAL DESTINATION 3-D : Last 10 Posts Sun, 26 May 2013 19:57:27 +0000 Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:54:25 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 9.70 30 www.razzies.com/forum/RSS_topic_feed.asp?FID=380 The Official RAZZIE® Forum http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_images/RazzieLogo02.gif http://www.razzies.com/forum/ FINAL DESTINATION 3-D : Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!? http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=35477#35477 Author: BurnHollywoodBurn
Subject: Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!?
Posted: October 25 2010 at 4:54pm

Then maybe they should have stuck with that structure.  Instead, they made the "half-assed-sleep-walked-through/you're-only-watching-to-see-what-creative-new-ways-we-can-kill-people-off-and-no-other-reason" movies that came after #2.]]> Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:54:25 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=35477#35477 FINAL DESTINATION 3-D : Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!? http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=35475#35475 Author: moviewizguy
Subject: Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!?
Posted: October 25 2010 at 1:23pm

The 2nd film is arguably the best in this series. It's the only one that has a different structure from all the others!
]]> Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:23:52 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=35475#35475 FINAL DESTINATION 3-D : Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!? http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=35474#35474 Author: Vits
Subject: Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!?
Posted: October 25 2010 at 12:22pm

I think the series died after the first 2. The 2nd one may have been bad, but at least it gave some closure to the 1st one. After that, there was barely any continuity and or connections between the movies. If the plan for the last one is to tell us all the main characters from each movie will die no matter what, fine! But end the saga already! 

]]> Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:22:34 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=35474#35474 FINAL DESTINATION 3-D : Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!? http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=35473#35473 Author: BurnHollywoodBurn
Subject: Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!?
Posted: October 25 2010 at 12:11pm

Again, notice the pattern? The sequels just keep getting worse. The first movie was okay, but they have been milking it for a decade now. And besides MWG, I don't know anyone who wants to see a 5th movie. To most people, the series died with the 4th one because it was utter s***.]]> Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:11:32 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=35473#35473 FINAL DESTINATION 3-D : Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!? http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=35471#35471 Author: Vits
Subject: Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!?
Posted: October 25 2010 at 11:54am

Spoilers ahead!

It's so easy to tell that this entire production was lazy and rushed. The characters are uninteresting, and the actors aren't awful, just bad(Bobby Campo is just copying Devon Sawa). The deaths are as shocking as always, but predictable, non-scary and barely cringe-worthy. The effects may be made for 3-D, but they're still fake looking. 
 
By having actual premonitions throughout the movie, this doesn't even feel like a FINAL DESTINATION film. By having another big and wise black guy as the side-kick, it feels like they're too desperate on to make it seem like the first one. Having everybody die at the end, instead of letting it remain ambigous, was OK when this was still the last one, but now they're making a 5th one. 

Let's just hope the crew for the new one is the same crew from FD I & III, rather than the crew from FD II & IV. 
 
This are my ratings for the saga:
I:7/10
II:1/10
III:5/10
IV:3/10
]]> Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:54:31 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=35471#35471 FINAL DESTINATION 3-D : Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!? http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=32090#32090 Author: BurnHollywoodBurn
Subject: Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!?
Posted: June 21 2010 at 5:06am

I'm just glad you've realized that not every movie is great, nor is every movie worth defending --Sometimes, movies are just plain BAD.]]> Mon, 21 Jun 2010 05:06:02 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=32090#32090 FINAL DESTINATION 3-D : Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!? http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=32085#32085 Author: moviewizguy
Subject: Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!?
Posted: June 20 2010 at 8:45pm

Well, I actually gave this film a 5/10. I rewatched the film, hoping it would be better, but nope. I hated it a lot more this time -- It's trash! 
]]> Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:45:58 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=32085#32085 FINAL DESTINATION 3-D : Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!? http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=32083#32083 Author: BurnHollywoodBurn
Subject: Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!?
Posted: June 20 2010 at 5:43pm

Holy s***!!! Are my eyes playing tricks on me?! MWG gave a movie a score lower than a 6!!! Can it be? Is there hope for him yet? Hopefully, this will become common place. Wishful thinking, I know.

]]> Sun, 20 Jun 2010 17:43:54 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=32083#32083 FINAL DESTINATION 3-D : Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!? http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=32079#32079 Author: moviewizguy
Subject: Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!?
Posted: June 20 2010 at 5:25pm

I actually rewatched the film and have now rewritten most of my previous review:

I would like to start off by saying I'm a fan of the FINAL DESTINATIONseries. Even the much maligned third film is starting to grow on me.When it was announced that David Ellis was returning to the directorchair (along with screenwriter Eric Bress), I was quite excited,considering that part two is arguably the best in the series. But thisone. If I were to describe this film in one word, I would sayDISAPPOINTING. In fact, this is one of the most disappointing movies ofthis year! The fact that the makers of part two has returned just addson to the frustration.

The film starts off pretty rushed. In fact, the film is rushedaltogether. You feel as if the filmmakers wanted to get through withthe film. The laziness is so apparent in here that you're wondering howmuch the executives offered in their salary. The film is so lazy thatthere are even glaring plot holes in the hackneyed script! How the helldoes a film that is based on something ridiculous have plot holes? Thefilm—better yet, the franchise, spends most of its time in setting uprules on the order people are going to die yet this film ignorespractically everything and kills people in any order it feels like!

Even the clever foreshadowing from the previous films is quite blatanthere. The laziness is also extended to the death scenes. Remember,quality, not quantity. Even though this film has the most death scenescompared to the previous entries, most of them suck and even that wordwouldn't give the deaths that much justice. We all have to admit itsooner or later but we see these films for the death scenes. What isthe freaking point in watching this film if they turn out to be lazy toan extent that some death scenes are rehashed from previous FD films?Exactly. There is no point.

Another problem about the death scenes is that there is barely anysuspense when people are about to get killed. Usually, in the FD films,seeing the set up of the Rube Goldberg-like death scenes IS thesuspense, but in here, they feel as if they come out of nowhere becauseof how rushed everything is. They're surprising, yes, but the surpriseswear off very quickly. Google up Alfred Hitchcock's definition of"suspense" to learn the difference between surprise and suspense.

Let's move on to the next problem: CGI. With the 3D technology, it'sobvious the filmmakers wanted to add more CGI effects so the imagescould pop out on the screen. The problem here is that the FINALDESTINATION series is always known for their practical effects. Thepremonition sequence in here works well in 3D, sure, but the CGI isterrible! They look so fake that I questioned how this film wasn'treleased direct to DVD.

You know you have a bad film when a franchise that was supposed to bescary and mysterious now turns into something that pokes fun of itself.It has happened many times before, most notably, the NIGHTMARE ON ELMSTREET franchise. It's as if the filmmakers were aware that thefranchise is dying and that their last attempt was to add self-awarecharacters and idiotic, dumb lines in the film with the many problemsthe film already has.

Even the characters are more like an excuse to kill them off later.It's apparent that this isn't a movie but more of a carnival ride,waiting to see who dies and how they will die. That's how low this filmhas gone. You'd also be surprised to find out that the most fleshed outcharacter is, in fact, not the protagonist, but a supporting character,played by Mykelti Williamson. He gives a laughable and forcedperformance but that's nothing compared to Bobby Campo, who is easilythe worst premonitionist in the franchise. He can't act to save hislife. And the less we say about the others, the better. However, I'mwilling to admit the only character I did feel sympathy for was playedby Krista Allen, who plays a motherly role with an extremely shortrunning time.

However, there are other few things that I liked about the film(emphasis on the word "few"): There's a sequence in a salon and a carwash that have at least SOME suspense. I don't know if this counts butI also liked the opening credits, which I thought was ingenious, amontage of the previous films' memorable death scenes. And that's aboutit. Three things. What an accomplishment!

I guess it isn't hard to tell but this is, by far, the weakest in theseries because there's nothing new. You'd expect that a mythology soeasily expandable would be explored here but no. By the end of thefilm, you feel underwhelmed. You wished they could have done better. Infact, you KNOW they could have done better. If they were to make afifth film, they better put some thought into it. If you're thinkingabout watching this movie only ONCE, you should see it in its intendedformat in 3D AND in theaters, but I don't see why anyone should wastetheir money on this film. 3/10
]]> Sun, 20 Jun 2010 17:25:47 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=32079#32079 FINAL DESTINATION 3-D : Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!? http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=28492#28492 Author: Michaels
Subject: Final Destination: INADVERTENT HUMOR?!?
Posted: January 31 2010 at 4:13pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy


Did I ever say you couldn't talk about it?
No. But considering "Trannies 2" is a bad movie and is considered a front-runner for Worst Picture, in the awards that these forums are devoted to, then I have the right to mention it as the worst movie of 2009 all I want.
]]> Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:13:06 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3819&PID=28492#28492