License:
Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike

by Blender Dumbass

Aka: J.Y. Amihud. A Jewish by blood, multifaceted artist with experience in film-making, visual effects, programming, game development, music and more. A philosopher at heart. An activist for freedom and privacy. Anti-Paternalist. A user of Libre Software. Speaking at least 3 human languages. The writer and director of the 2023 film "Moria's Race" and the lead developer of it's game sequel "Dani's Race".

The second installment in the Final Destination saga is different from the first film. While the first film was breathing mystery and suspense, this time around, the film feels almost like a slapstick comedy, if not for the gruesome deaths.

This time, director David R. Ellis replaced James Wong ( who directed the first film ) and with him, he brought a sense of unhingeness. David R. Ellis ( who died in 2013 ) just before his death was going to direct a movie which ended up receiving 0% rotten tomatoes ( maybe because he didn't directed it ). But based on what I know so far ( the movie is called Kite ) the project itself seems kind of unhinged too. Maybe the whole point of David R. Ellis is being this kind of a cinematic troll who is making very self-aware parodies of the films that are on the page.

Final Destination 2 feels like a proper action film. It has movement. Ellis is very good at flow. The camera is at a constant ballet. Sometimes he overdoes it and the shots end up being a little bit too energetic. If you know the movie Old by M. Night Shyamalan there is this shot towards the middle where the kids are playing, that has way too much camera movement for what it needs to be. Final Destination 2 doesn't go that far, but in some moments it feels like with just one more energy drink, it would have gone there.

While Ellis seems to be good with camera, he isn't that good with actors, unfortunately. Compared to this film, the acting in the first one is phenomenal. And it's not the actors fault, I would suggest, because Ali Larter did a fantastic job in the first film, while in this film, she acts really badly. So I blame the director for not carrying about it.

The main character is played by A. J. Cook who is trying to do a good job. But it seems like there was a lack of vision, or something that while in some shots she acts good ( in terms of: it works for the movie ), in the other shots ( specifically those with subtle emotional stuff ) she is kind of cringe. But, again, I don't think it's her fault here. It is possible that Ellis was choosing all the wrong takes in the editing room. Or that he was so preoccupied with making the best camera-move, that he forgot to direct the actors.

The movie is at times unintentionally hilarious. Like the whole part with this pregnant lady. It's just comedy gold. And some of the ridiculous death contraptions in this film are stupidly hilarious. In the first film, when shit goes bad, you feel the tension of, oh no, it will start soon. Everything soon will go to shit. And then in an instant, almost, everything goes to shit. In this movie, the buildup is already stuff going to shit. And it just keeps going more to shit, to the point it becomes stupidly funny.

The movie is very enjoyable. It is a ride. In every sense of the word. The film is not taking itself seriously almost at all, but the stuff works, to create a very good level of dopamine.

Happy Hacking!!!

0

Find this post on Mastodon

Find

Post