not a bad horror movie, but...

Rating: 5/10 (6 April 2003)

The battle between fate and free will has been explored in much of literature and film. Whereas Minority Report, the best picture of last year, examined the idea through large plot twists and the human emotions of its main characters, Final Destination 2 strives to do so through the impaling of large intestines and main arteries. What culminates is not a bad horror film-it is better than its predecessor-but its reliance on the genre of horror sequels leads to its inevitable demise.
With the exception of Willard, all of the horror movies released this year (Darkness Falls, Dreamcatcher, and now Final Destination 2) have had their strongest moments in the film's opening minutes. Aside from obvious flaws in Ellis' direction, the sequence on the highway, from what most of the trailer is derived, stands out as the film's highlight. The scenes after it should be renamed Final Destination Too, because the whole plot is the first movie. The only exception is that it does not waste its time developing characters that we know will be killed off anyway.
It is not essential to have any knowledge of the happenings in Final Destination. The screenplay's exposition takes place in between both films, and all the returning plot elements are exhaustingly expressed through cheesy dialogue. Through an overdose of foreshadowing, the predictability factor is just as high as its elements of surprise. This unevenness hints at yet another sequel in the film's resolution-if it can be called that.
**1/2 out of ****