[icon ] blenderdumbass . org [icon star] Reviews

Final Destination 3 is a return to form

July 22, 2025

👁 7

https://blenderdumbass.org/reviews/rodan__1956__jetted_its_way_to_alpha_centauri. : 👁 2

#finaldestination #jameswong #film #movies #review #cinemastodon

License:
Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike

[avatar]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".


2 Minute Read



Final Destination 3 is yet again directed by James Wong who is a very needed return. The second movie in the franchise seemed almost like the parody of the genre. With the third film, came back the suspense and the good acting and most importantly, the movie suddenly hits again.

For $25 million this movie is insanely ambitious. This budget is nowhere near enough to make a movie that Wong was going for. But to be frank, he opened the first film with a bloody plane-crash. So having a few new exfiltrating action set-pieces in this one was kind of expected.

The film has way too many, way to complicated set pieces. Like you need, especially in 2005 a blog-buster budget to achieve something like this movie is, without the effects looking all jank. But Wong nearly pulls it off. The effects do look like jank, especially when it's an intense action scene. But despite that, the way Wong directs the scenes still makes them work somehow. I don't have a problem with the dated CGI, or the obvious miniature work in this film at all. In the edit it all feels properly amazing.

At times it felt like Mary Elizabeth Winstead is too good for this film. Ryan Merriman keeps up with her, but the rest of the cast is a bit closer to the cast of the first film in quality. Wong has a insane way to get good performances out of them anyway, somehow. This movie is Oscar-worthy compared to the jank acting of the second film. But it is not too ahead of the first film. It seems like due to the budget, they had to use actors nobody knows about. And therefor the actors are not yet pros. Wong is a pro though. He operates this inexperienced cast like Spielberg directs children. He pulls off magic out of them.

With all the jank this film has to offer, this is a breath of fresh air, after the stupid ass second film.

Happy Hacking!!!

[icon unlike] 0
[icon left]
[icon right]
[icon terminal]
[icon markdown]

Find this post on Mastodon

[icon question]











[icon reviews]Man on Fire 2004 is Tony Scott's Leon: The Professional

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 17 💬 1



Critics gave negative reviews to 2004 Tony Scott's film Man on Fire because of "grim story that gets harder to take the longer it goes on". Are you fucking serious? How then Lars Von Trier movies get good reviews? Something isn't quite right here. To be frank, the film is very ultra-cinematic. Which could rub some critics the wrong way. Scott doesn't just direct the shit out of it. He also edits the shit out of it. Making one of the coolest directed films in existence. Which if you think about it, isn't particularly what critics find as a serious picture. And yes, the film is grim. At times it feel like a horror film. Not just a thriller. But the film is a rather satisfactory experience.


#manonfire #tonyscott #dakotafanning #DenzelWashington #film #review #movies #cinemastodon


[icon codeberg] Powered with BDServer [icon python] Plugins [icon theme] Themes [icon analytics] Analytics [icon email] Contact [icon mastodon] Mastodon
[icon unlock]