Strange that two R-rated horror films are coming out on the same day. I have no interest in seeing Halloween 2 as I thought the first one was pretty bad (if it gets good reviews I may change my mind, but i'm not counting on that to happen). I have enjoyed all the Final Destinations though, and definitely look forward to the new one in 3D.

I think opening weekend is going to be very close but TFD will take it with the higher ticket prices for 3D.

I suspect and hope TFD comes out on top.

I don't have anything to base it on and haven't seen the first, but I feel like Halloween will do half of FD.

For reference, Halloween made 58 million total, and 26 in it's opening weekend.

Final Destination 3 made 54 total, 19 opening weekend.

This may have an obvious answer, but ticket prices for TFD will be slightly higher since it's in 3d right? Will that effect over all haul?

I'm really hoping the winner is TFD, it's getting my money for sure.

It better be Halloween 2. Final Destination looks like a piece of shit. And I hate the 3D gimmick and it only lasts 82 minutes (!!!!!!!!!!!!!) . Without Credits it might only last like 75 minutes which is absurd.
At least Halloween 2 has a decent cast and not a bunch of nameless CW rejects.

^not absurd at all...thats a perfect length for something like this, so it won't wear out its welcome

I'm looking forward to both. I've been an FD fan since the first and I like how the last two installments haven't taken themselves too seriously and all they're about is finding the freakiest ways to kill people off.

I really liked Zombie's Halloween too. Maybe it took itself too seriously but it was enjoyable anyway.

I think FD 3D will win out though. I think a lot of people were turned off by Zombie's Halloween and the 3D gimmick on a well known franchise will win out.

I'll be seeing both.

You would pay money for something that short? Maybe I am just cheap then. Thats getting very very little if you ask me.

If the movie itself is good, sure. I'd rather have it be a fun 80 min movie than a boring 2 hour movie.

^So why dont you list all the great 80 minute films Hollywood has given us recently? Cause i sure as hell cant.

Certainly not great, but there have been entertaining ones.

Cloverfield. Harold and Kumar was 88 minutes. The original Halloween was only 91 minutes.

But then.. it wasn't rated R either...

My hope is that neither wins the B.O and District 9 remains on top.

Observe and Report was great at less than 90mins. I'm all for a two hour movie, but Final Destination 4 is pushing your argument.

I pretty much agree with Goat, interested in both, but FD will probably win out. No one really like Zombie's Halloween.

Great movies just from this year that are under/around 90 minutes:

(500) Days of Summer
Adam
Humpday
Moon
Taken

Before credits, Taken is barely that of 80 minutes --- and that movie was (surprisingly) some of the most fun I've had in theaters all year.

Final Destination has this in the bag for many reasons:

1. It's in 3D. It's a gimmick, but it's a gimmick that a lot are excited for (myself included).

2. It will be one of the largest 3D releases up to this point based off the amazing deal Warner worked out as over 1000 screens will be playing the film in the format on release date.

3. The sequels continue to out-do each other in both theatrical revenue and that of DVD rentals and sales.

4. Warner also has had more money to promote the ever-living shit out of it the past few weeks to determine it kills Halloween II. For every five television spots I see for the film, I see one for Halloween II.

Taken was a good one, totally forgot about that

I can see high school and college kids lining up for a new Final Destination movie, but who the hell was clamoring for a new Zombie Halloween?

^ but there's an extra 19min of "entertainment and value" for H2!

not me

District 9.

E

As others have said, Taken.

I can't think of a whole bunch, but I can think of a lot of 2 hour movies that would have been better around 80-90 mins (Transformers, GI Joe....well these might not be any better shorter, but at least they would be shorter)

^If anything GI JOE needed more time. And Taken could have been great if it had another 30 minutes. As it stands it's just decent.
I still cant think of any great 90 minute or less movies that have came out of Hollywood recently while I can easily list 20 that last at least 2 hours from the past few years that are fantastic films. .

Holy shit, is this arbitrary 120 minute run-time thing still going on?

Has it occurred to you you can't think of a "great" film that is less than 90 minutes because you simply refuse to accept that one can be?


Final Destination, no contest. Even without the inflated price for tickets, if that's a factor.