The Final Destination 3D

Anybody watched it in 2D?

It's all well and good having a 3D film in the cinema but it's always pretty shite when it comes to home viewing and i'm not about to sit there with glasses on at home.

Anyway my question was are the 3D bits jarring and do they stand out a lot? Are there people waving things about at the camera and whatnot, stuff i'll really notice and it'll look naff when watching without the 3D.

Saying that from reivews most are saying it's a pile of shite anyway.
 
it was better than the 3rd one but 1 and 2 are still the best.the 3d doesnt really add anything to it.i think 3d is just a gimmick.i dont see it lasting that much longer,especially as they stick the price up.they aint really worth the extra money.
 
I've now seen the 3D one, and I think it was being playful in the same way. It also has some nice little humorous touches. For that reason I'd put it ahead of 3. It's still below 2 because it doesn't add anything to the mythology, or have decent characters, and the opening disaster isn't a patch on the "road to hell".

For me the 3D made it worse, not better. Whenever anything makes to poke you in the eye it always seems cheesy and it always breaks you out of the movie. Even within a cheesy horror movie it detracted. In addition, there is the problem that with real life you can focus on any part of the scene, but with a 3D film the focus is already fixed by the cameraman. Finally, I wear glasses normally so I had to wear two pairs, which wasn't comfortable and also gave me some internal reflections and blurring that I didn't get from either pair alone.

Anyway, it's formula, but it's quite a good formula and as long as they get some imaginatively elaborate set pieces and some nice humour that plays with the audience, I won't mind if they make more, although it's a shame they didn't develop it into something more interesting.
 
googleking said:
The style of the end titles is very similar to the opening titles which feature lots of the deaths from the earlier movies. So some people reckon that showing the earlier movie deaths and then finishing up in a similar style is supposed to show that this film represents the whole series and is bringing closure to it. Personally I think they can just bolt any number of these films in to the series now, this one doesn't have any links to the earlier films other than the aforementioned opening titles and at one point they mention "we googled for people that were supposed to die" or something like that and show a pile of google print outs that I think included the earlier casts, but there's no further linkage, it's not like FD2 where they go find the girl from FD1.

I am sure it mentioned the survivors of flight 180 in the google print out

was that not the flight number of the original plane explosion in the original

not sure I saw reference to the highway pile up or rollercoaster survivors, but it went by so quick, could have missed it
Click to expand...
 
Every so often i kept closing one of my eyes just to see what it actually looked like in 2D and it didn't seem like the 3D was having an overly excessive effect over what it may look like in 2D. Obviously there will probably be bits where the camera lingers on a pole sticking out of sombodies body where in 3D it would have been poking out of the screen, but i can't see it being as bad as some 3D movies. Apart from some of the deaths the 3D was mainly used for it's depth of field effect.

Also, i don't get the negative reaction that this film is getting, what were you people expecting? A masterpiece of thought provoking cinema? It's Final Destination for chirsts sake! People die in inventive and hilarious ways, the end.:rolleyes:
 
I thought it was alright...I don't think people go to see Final Destination films for a deep, emotional plot, they go to see it for the gory deaths because thats what FD is particularly known for.

I thought FD4 was good but I was expecting the 3D thing to be a bit better than it was.
 
Absolutely agree.

Kat (Keegan Conner Tracy) was briliiant, especially the bit with the airbag.

Personally, I think they should've stopped at number 2.

The latest one might be OK because of the 3D, but I don't hold out much hope for the story.
 
I'm looking forward to 4.

I haven't seen 1 yet, does anyone know whether it is coming up on tv soon?

2 is on film 4 tomorrow, and 3 is on channel 4 on Saturday for anyone who wants to see them again.
 
This is my ranking:

1: FD2 - It strongly tied in with the original, even including Clear Rivers. I liked how the survivors of the motorway crash were all linked with the deaths of the survivors of Flight 180.

2: FD1 - Original film in the franchise, everything was new. Was a very original film, with an intruging plot.

3: FD3 - Very good, but broke away from the first two.

Very excited for the fourth :D
 
This film was absolutely and totally rubbish. I really enjoyed the first 3, especially 2, but this had no understandable story, completely non-characters and I honestly couldn't have cared less about what was happening. A complete and utter waste of time, and the 3D did nothing because the film was so monumentally dull.

I really wish it was so much better.
 
The Final Destination movies make me scared to brush my teeth. In case I...

...swallow the tooth brush and choke.

...slip on the bathroom floor and break my neck crashing into the bath.

...or the bathroom mirror falls on me, and cuts my throat! :eek:

:D
 
The deaths just seemed so rushed - they were just one after the other in quick succession. The acting wasn't up to much either but then I was expecting that. The film would have been very ordinary without the 3D element.
 
I saw this yesterday. Brilliant. Better than the third one.

Really enjoyed it. Still wasn't convinced at all by the story that this is the last movie of the franchise.

I noticed certain things popping up like Mckinley, 180 and Clear.
 
Back
Top