MovieChat Forums > Final Destination (2000) Discussion > The Original Is So Underrated

The Original Is So Underrated

posted 5 years ago by cyberbob (3488)
13 replies | jump to latest

I think I've seen enough horror movies to tell a good horror movie from a bad one

What is most striking about this particular film is that the writing is much better than the direction. I don't know much about the screenwriter or the director. From what I can see on wikipedia, they are both basically failures. They fizzled out of the industry as their movies got worse and worse. The director, in particular, committed sacrilege by directing the Dragonball movie, which is one of the worst films of all time.

But what I noticed upon re-watching the movie is that, if you focus on the dialogue, there is a real effort to make the conversations age-realistic, meaning that the writer tries to dumb down the conversations enough for you to believe that it's teenagers talking

I'm not surprised that this started as an X-Files spec script. I'm not a huge fan of that show, but I recognize it as one of the most successful shows of all time. I'm sure the writer brought their A game with this script

So yeah. This movie is very good despite several flaws in the acting and directing. A John Carpenter or Wes Craven could have easily turned this into a masterpiece IMO, because there was enough here to do something really great.. And I mean beyond the half dozen shitty sequels and profits for studios

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

So , as a fan of horror movies, which as I understand it generally involves a bunch of teenagers getting slaughtered, do you find that there is often an issue with the characters dialogue being too high brow?

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Well, I dunno if I would say that the writing of horror movies is high brow, but it's just inaccurate or unrealistic

Dialogue is something that you have to develop an ear for. It either rings true or it doesn't. It's not about high or low brown, necessarily. It's just about the little details that a writer may or may not add.

For example, in this film, Clear tells Alex "I've seen enough TV to know that the FBI doesn't investigate teen suicides." This is a very simple example of what I'm talking about. Obviously, a real teenager isn't going to have any familiarity with what does or does not constitute a federal crime or where the FBI's jurisdiction begins. So the writer includes that line of "I've seen enough TV..." implying that Clear is just guessing based on her knowledge of TV shows

I like that because this scene in Clear's garage-cum-art studio is about exposition. It's a transitional point in the film where the story moves from the first act to the second act. The first act is about incredulity; this guy can predict death but everyone thinks he's a freak. The second act is when people begin to see that he is aware of the pattern that death is following. This scene exists to tell us that the FBI is involved, and because the FBI is involved the main character is suspected of causing these deaths. This plot thread continues for the rest of the movie, and its set up in a way that makes you believe that high schoolers could have figured it out

I know this may not seem very impressive to most people, but I did appreciate it. And there's more examples all throughout the movie of how the writing tells a very well-crafted horror story that was brought down by the mediocre direction

[–] vegan_voorhees (383) 5 years ago

I love this movie for the darker avenues it takes, with a little sprinkling of teen-existentialism thrown in (I imagine it was watered down between script and screen for pacing and not confusing the audience).

But you're right, especially about Clear and Alex - they stand out as the ones more 'aware' of the fragility of their existence, whereas the others are more or less cookie cutter slasher film characters.

Clear's apparent nonchalance was what grabbed me, the scene where Carter is trying to scratch Terry's name into the memorial plinth thingy. The dispossessed way she asks "What are you doing?" like it's so trivial compared to what's actually happening.

There's a lot of nuance throughout as well, like the color palette changing from bright and happy before they get on the plane, to washed out and darker after. Most teen horror films of that era never went to this much effort to change the mood.

The sequels kinda ruined it by Xeroxing the bus-splat jump scare over and over for effect and the characters just became oblivious morons over time. When you go from writing people you root for to people you *want* to see die, you know things have gone off track.

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Yeah, the franchise went in the same direction as the Saw franchise. The sequels lost all of the intelligence and atmosphere of the originals and focused only on making elaborate deaths

This is pretty typical of long-running horror franchises, I suppose. They always become cheap cash grabs. Final Destination is supposedly going to be rebooted by the writers of the last few Saw films, which makes no sense to me. How can the creators of one franchise in the gutter resurrect another franchise in the gutter?

I always thought it would be a cool idea to do a "period piece" Final Destination. Like set it in the 70s when the Jonestown Massacre occurred but have a small group get off the island. And then we get period-specific death scenarios. i doubt anything like that will ever happen though lol

[–] vegan_voorhees (383) 5 years ago

It is! I actually tweeted Jeffrey Reddick about it and he responded (!) saying he's aware of the general story and approves of it.

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Thanks! Just saw this, but that sounds awesome. I'm glad a person involved in the franchise actually liked it

I just think it would make the movie visually fresh and would help to bring a batch of fresh death-scenarios

[–] mitzibishi (1617) 5 years ago

That opening sequence is one of the best ive seen in the cinema, so memorable. for a teen horror flick that was some pretty good film making and a great set up for the rest of the film.

[–] GotWood84 (384) 5 years ago

If I had to guess, I would say you weren't even born when this movie came out. This movie wasn't underrated, most people liked/loved it. Final Destination 6 is coming out this year, so that should tell you something.

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

i was born in 1992

And it was commercially successful, but didn't receive much critical support and did not receive enough credit for its innovative take on the teen slasher genre. I don't think I can name even 5 other films with an invisible non-corporeal antagonist. It was a bold choice and the end product turned out quite scary

[–] vegan_voorhees (383) 5 years ago

Yeah it got quite mediocre reviews at the time - I don't think anybody expected it to, excuse the pun, 'take off' in the way it did.

The main thing I remember was that the trailer gave the ENTIRE movie away.

[–] jdforyou1983 (1470) 4 years ago

I feel it's the best of the bunch

[–] johnmiller (3390) 2 years ago

In my opinion, the original is the best. You just can't beat having "The X-Files" creators James Wong and Glen Morgan on the directing and writing team. Their construction of the movie is very skillful and the logic works a lot better than in too many of the sequels.

[–] DMT (3874) 2 years ago

amazing film!!!