Final Destination 2 (2003)

That was an excellent one.

SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Amateur movie with Big budget

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

I was wondering why Tim died after the secretary just intervened in his death. What everyone was saying in the film was that if someone intervened in your death, Death skipped you and went to the next person. That didn't happen in his case. Also, according to Kimberly's vision, the police officer died in the car wreck, yet he didn't die or cheat Death at all. I didn't understand that either. Other than that, the movie was good.

Another premonition about a freak accident leads to a different group of 'death cheating' survivors fearing for their lives in this surprisingly decent sequel. While the crash/collision scenes are magnificently intense and very realistic, 'Final Destination 2' does not get off to the strongest start and the first half of the movie feels like more of a remake or rehash of the original, except with even more inventive and elaborate deaths. As the film progresses though, there are some chilling "outward ripple" connections made to the characters from the first movie, which makes the overall project more interesting as an extrapolation on the events of Part One. And yet, even if one does walk away feeling that this is more of a rehash than a sequel, there are several improvements here. The death scenes, for instance, always leaving one guessing as to just what will deliver the fatal blow, the characters are more varied and have more personality than in the first film, plus there is quite a bit of comic relief that actually works. The sequel does not, however, have the visual panache that James Wong brought to the first film and nothing compares to Devon Sawa's hyper-awareness scenes in Part One. The basic idea is also not quite so fresh while delivering the same unanswered questions. As alluded to though, this is still a more worthwhile film overall than one might expect.

Here's a sequel that didn't really need to be made – so simply throw it on the pile with all the others in the same situation. After starting off with an electrifying opening – lets just say it quickly builds up to one of the most terrifying and realistic major motorway accidents ever put on film – the plot takes a step backwards, turning into a mere lukewarm retread of the first film, in which the elaborate death scenes of the main characters take centre stage over acting, plot, and imagination. Of course, in films such as these, the death scenes make the film, and the emphasis is on gore and bloodshed here, so expect body parts to go flying (literally in some cases), sometimes ridiculously so.The cast is generally sub par, delivering lame dialogue with little intelligence or wit. Of the original cast members, only Ali Larter returns, her character greatly improved here, and Tony Todd, making another sinister cameo appearance; his role the highlight of the entire movie. Otherwise this is derivative stuff, which nonetheless builds up the tension as it goes along. The viewer is asked to engage in a fun guessing game with the writers, trying to figure out who's going to bite it next. Things end with a contrived finale in which the final 'twist' scene is so obvious and overdone, the film as a whole is flawed. Only fans of gore, death, and SFX need apply, and if you're happy to sit back and enjoy that kind of thing, then FINAL DESTINATION 2 does enough to get by.

After the financial success hit of the first Final Destination, a sequel had to be thought up. And seeing how the first movie creates potential for a sequel, it seems fitting that another one had to be made and we get Final Destination 2. Yep. Death is at it again. But the question is did they clean up their mistakes from the first film? Did they decide to make the deaths more serious? Are more things explained in this movie as a sequel should do? The answer to the last question. YES. More things are actually explained! That's right. I really liked this movie. I mean, okay yeah, it's not a masterpiece. Miles from it, in fact. But I think it's a very loyal sequel with more things to offer.Here's the story. Kimberly, played by AJ Cook, is taking a road trip with her friends on the interstate. But an eighteen wheeler carrying a bunch of logs passes by. The logs fall off and crash into countless cars, causing a massive pileup, killing many innocents. But this turns out to be a vision of Kimberly's and she blocks the ramp to the interstate to stop several motorists from entering the interstate. The pileup ensues and Kimberly, along with those who were meant to die in the pileup survives. Kimberly believes that all of this is the same thing as the events of the first film in which Death is now after the lucky ones. Desperate to find answers, Kimberly goes to the only survivor of the first film, Clear Rivers, played by Ali Larter. Yeah, Alex died in between films due to… offscreen syndrome. Clear Rivers decides to help Kimberly and the others to find a way to stop Death and find more information about why this is all happening.As you can see, this movie has a very strong connection to the first film—as a sequel should. And more things are explained, like how Death is doing all this. I like how Kimberly goes to Clear Rivers for answers. I like how they demand answers from the mortician, who was very knowledgeable from the first film about how to defeat Death. I like how the survivors become more and more concerned as the deaths excess. Yeah, I think the characters are better in this movie. I mean, yeah, they're stupid in their own way, but I like how involved they get near the end, even the cop. Yeah! A cop actually gets involved in the horror movie and you know what? He believes Kimberly and immediately tries to find answers after the pileup and ends up helping the survivors early on. There's even a deleted scene where the mortician explains how Death works to bring balance in the universe. I just found that really fascinating.Okay, so what's the not so good stuff? Well...like the first film, the deaths are still stupid. In fact, in retrospect, they're goofier in this one. Yeah, they're Loony Tunes territory and more far-fetched. Also, another big change in this film in contrast to the first one is that this movie seems to be leaning towards a little bit of comedy. I guess you can say that since the deaths were ludicrous in the first film, they decided "why not? Make it somewhat comedic. Taking it too seriously would make it even goofier." And the direction they take with the movie just makes it…well, fun. But they don't make it where it's completely a comedy; there's still some suspense in the mix when they try to find more information. Yeah, it's not scary. Just fun.I guess I'm a big sucker for this movie, but seeing how they treat this movie, they really did try to make it a true sequel. Is it stupid at times? Oh yeah. Are the deaths any better? No. But as far as story and characters go, I think it's an advance from the first movie. I know this had a mixed reaction from people, so you can say I'm a fan of this movie. I liked it, despite its mistakes. Next time it's on TV, give it a shot and see for yourself. Just…not while driving.