Wong had a pretty good idea on what motivated him this time around. He had really wanted to do FD2 but had some other commitments and felt really left out when he went to a theater and saw the poster for FD2. And the theme of FD3 is that he wanted to put the deaths into everyday situations... very minor spoiler tag but nonetheless so I don't get flamed

Ebert's 2-star review here.

It's kind of funny, it's a negative review but reading it, it really doesn't sound all that negative.

I know there are those that aren't a fan of Ebert, and he isn't exactly in the target demo for this flick so you can hardly fault him for disliking it. So how about a review from the same crowd the film is marketed to?

IGN's Review gave it a glowing review citing it as the best in the series. 3.5 out of 5 stars.

They say the characters and development are basically non-existent, but the movie moves at a steady pace so you don't have time to think about it. Also said the gore factor is upped a notch.

Looks like ebert's review moved. The link above is dead. Here is a new link.

What I don't understand is, the death scenes are the highlight and draw of this movie. It's bad enough the the trailer and TV spots show clips from the death scenes, but now almost every movie related website I go to (including the AOL Instant Messenger window) has video ads with nearly the entire death sequence minus the actual kill. Even the official website has some revealing clips and shows

I would think that the studio and filmmakers would want to keep these death scenes a secret.

I really liked it. I enjoyed the hell out of the first two and number 3 was no different. I like where Wong and Morgan took the story...the photos were interesting and added another layer of impending doom to the proceedings... A few really great, elaborate kills, with plenty of splatter...and looks like they finally got to fully realize Also thought the ending and tying it all back to 180 was pretty cool. Definitely bad acting and little story, but the deaths are great and the movie was a lot of fun. Very satisfying entry in the series... hoping for a nice unrated DVD.

MATT

I enjoyed the fucking hell out of this. While part two is still my favorite and I would've loved to seen some sort of a reference to it in some way (and it's no wonder why since the first flick was Morgan and Wong's baby), it was still a blast.



I am sold for Final Destination 4. Fuck it. For the fourth outing, New Line needs to team up Morgan and Wong with Ellis and company (from the sequel) and make it a 90 minute symphony of death.

wow! can't wait to see it now...

AH! I gotta see this!

Hard to take anyone's post seriously when they first say Fuck X-files and go onto say that it's ok that the story in the last movie was abandoned because the new movie has Hot chicks
When I see the movie it will be because the original creative team is back.
The second movie emulated the first movie but not as well.

Just saw a showing of this today. While I still prefer part 2, and then 1 over this, I still liked it. The pacing was very quick as the movie seemed to fly by. The original still has the best group of teenagers, but this cast did alot better than most you'll see in horror sequels. Death scenes were fairly creative with one that caught me by surprise. The whole McKinley celebration sequence was a bit too over the top for my taste, but in all, a decent film. With an expected $20 million opening, I'm sure we'll see FD4 in a few years.

My favorite scene is the 1st half of the tanning sequence.

Fuck X-Files and fuck anyone who enjoyed it. That entire series survived only because fanboys came all over it. However, The X-Files and this franchise are two, entirely different animals (it's an apples-and-organges debate). But Morgan and Wong still made audiences sit through The One, so they still have a lot left to redeem.

The problem with the first film took itself way too seriously. Morgan and Wong are not Hitchcock, so their main goal for the film (especially in this genre) should've been to entertain the audience. You can't entertain an audience when a majority of the film has characters trying to find out why they're dying instead of getting killed. It takes away the mystery and it takes away the fun. Now as I have mentioned numerous times before, the first film has a great opening sequence. Morgan and Wong started the film off on a brilliant note (who isn't afraid of plane crashes?). However, once that plane explodes, Morgan and Wong pretty much blow their creative load. By the time the third death scene comes around (which comes at a very crawling pace), Morgan and Wong have spent (and continue to spend as the film goes on) most of their time investing into subplots that are over-the-top god-awful and end up going nowhere (e.g. the FBI investigating Sawa's character) once the film reaches it's last reel. By the time act three rears it's head, any interest an audience had in the characters or plot is lost. Morgan and Wong had a great idea, but the execution is utter shit. It's a horror film, not a dramatic film with elements of horror (and even sci-fi) in it. The target audience, especially for this type of franchise, is not one who wants to see a dramatic exposition. They want to see people die and they want to be on the edge of their seats.

That's why Final Destination 2 worked. Ellis and company knew that people weren't going to flock to their film for plot. People want to see a macabre of death, destruction, terror, tension, and suspense. You're expecting a decent plot in a franchise like this? You came to the wrong genre to do that. People want to be scared, but be entertained at the same time. To do that, especially with a film like Final Destination 2, means one has to focus on one particular thing (death and destruction) and less on another (story, plot, character development). Granted, Final Destination 2 has some terrible acting and a weak plot and it didn't win any awards for solid reason, but it's entertaining and for a film of it's kind, that's all it needs to be.

I'm assuming Morgan and Wong saw what worked and what didn't work with the first two films, and because of that, Final Destination 3 works. Did I go in expecting a sensible plot and maybe a bit of character development? No. I know coming into the film that I am going to see 90 minutes of terror and carnage and nothing less. Granted Morgan and Wong tried inserting some terrible subplots again (conspiracy theories that make a 9-11 reference make the film not only try too hard, but we're back in terrible X-Files territory here), but the complete mean-spiritness of this one makes up for it. Death isn't just a force in this one, he's a dirty son of a bitch willing to take anyone out by any means necessary and due to that, we get some of the best deaths in the series this go around (weights, nail gun, and cooler fan all come to mind).

I'm not expecting a film that is capable of winning some awards, I'm just looking to be entertained. And I was.

If I want to go see a film that I will enlighten me, I'll go see Good Night and Good Luck or any of the other great Oscar nominees. If I want to be entertained, I'll give a film like Final Destination 3 my money (especially when the people behind the flick know they're putting out bottom-of-the-barrel entertainment).

Sadly, the only two flicks I've so far enjoyed in 2006 have been this and Hostel. Everything else I've seen (Grandma's Boy, Underworld: Evolution), etc.) has been just bad.

They reference part two

Strange X-Files comments aside, I loved the movie a whole hell of a lot. It wasn't high art, but high art all the time would bore me to death. Sometimes I just want to have fun, and it delivered that in spades and so I was happy. I really enjoyed how, leading up to the deaths, they made every little thing seem so likely to cause the death. This movie was very good at that, and it kept the tension going all.the.time. Honestly, I don't think I want to ride a roller coaster, for awhile.

An article from sci fi wire...

FD 3 Gets New Finale

James Wong, director of the upcoming horror sequel Final Destination 3, told SCI FI Wire that they had to shoot a new ending featuring a subway crash after the original one tested poorly—and that they had hoped to bring back characters from Final Destination 2 in the new coda. The elaborate subway crash sequence was shot in November 2005, long after the initial photography wrapped in the summer of 2005.

The new ending was supposed to have featured characters from Final Destination 2, which starred Michael Landes as sheriff's deputy Thomas Burke and A.J. Cook as Kimberly. But filmmakers couldn't make the schedules work, and the idea was scrapped, Wong said.

In its rough cut, Final Destination 3 ended after an action sequence at a patriotic fair. "We tested the movie. And I really felt the audience was totally with us, totally with us, until the very end," Wong said in an interview. "The moment that the movie ended, you actually ... heard a couple of people go, 'Oh.' Like that. And you know, that's no good. But I mean, the fact, even before we tested it, as I was cutting the movie with [co-writer] Glen [Morgan] and [producer] Craig [Perry], we knew that [the ending] wasn't working. It was just too abrupt. ... You didn't know whether they actually escaped death or, you know, what was happening. ... It didn't have a closure. ... So, before we went to the test, we had a meeting with Craig and Glen and myself, and we talked about what we were going to do, and Craig had an idea where he wanted to bring in the two guys, the sheriff and the [character played by Cook], and they'd be driving somewhere, and they'd get stopped. He wanted to bring those guys in."

Wong added: "But I had an idea about the subway sequence, so Craig pitched his idea, I pitched my idea, and we talked it out, and we thought that the subway sequence would work. And in one incarnation of the subway sequence, the FD2 guys were ... also in the subway, and they were over here while [FD3 stars] Ryan [Merriman] and Mary [Elizabeth Winstead] were talking. So we somehow had that kind of thing going. And ultimately, ... their schedules didn't work. ... After that meeting we tested the movie, and we knew the ending needed to be changed. So the next morning we went and met New Line. That's when everybody said, 'Well, what are you going to do now?' And we had the answer, and we said, 'Here's what I could do.' ... They were ... great. They gave us all the resources that we needed to shoot it, and it wasn't cheap. So they were really behind us."

I thought this was the film's biggest flaw as well. It didn't have as much fun as 2 and 3.

Oh. I thought I heard:

There's also a reference

For me that's what made the first one work so well. It wasn't campy (not that there's anything wrong with that). It was dead serious and creepy. When I saw the trailer it gave me a vibe that gave me chill bumps and that is extremely rare for me. I felt the film, for the most part, lived up to my expectations based on the creepy trailer.

The second one was more about seeing fun creative deaths. The first one was about good suspense and delivering a creepy and entertaining film with great atmosphere AND also some creative deaths.

That's how I feel about the two flicks. However, I enjoyed them both. If the third film had returned to the form of the first, I don't think it would have worked, the only actual way to go was bigger, badder, and meaner deaths...and that's what they did, with actual gore this time.

Where I don't think the film was the equal of its predecessors was in the opening sequence. The opening acts of FD1 and FD2, especially the premonition sequences were spectacular...this one was kind sloppy. Granted, its hard to pull off roller coaster death, it still doesn't come off as top shelf.

I also felt the deaths, while most greusome, weren't as suspenseful. They had a small build-up and bam, death. Where in 1 (and somewhat in 2), there was more suspense and build-up before the death.

It's been a while since I've seen it, but Morgan and Wong had the same problem with the first film. There were no build-ups to the deaths, most just came right out of the left field instantly with no build-up what so ever (e.g. the bus scene and the decapitation). Whereas with the first sequel, they actually played around with the various "bad" situations a character could get into (e.g. the dentist scene) before ultimately hitting their death.

But in terms of Final Destination 3, the taking out of characters without no fanfare works to it's advantage. Gives the deaths a little more oopmph when characters bite it, especially considering the film's pacing is on super-fast.

It had a great opening of over 20 million dollars...Final Destination 4, here we come! It had the highest per screen average for the weekend, and placed #2, just barely below Pink Panther. My guess...A lot of kids bought tickets to pink panther and snuck into FD3.

Does anyone know the name of the song the guy is singing with the guitar in the train at the end? Also played when she is driving. Something about "look behind you".