"As Good" isn't bad

Rating: 8/10 (16 June 2009)

In many ways this Final Destination installment one-ups its stylish and original predecessor. However, while the best elements are improved to dramatic effect, the returning presence of the wretchedly-named Clear Rivers brings some un-needed hokum to an otherwise feverish and thrilling dance with death.
The original Final Destination used benign everyday terrors to make every bit of supernatural indulgence seem utterly believable, and it is in this respect that the second chapter exceeds the original. While the plane crash in the first FD tapped into the fears of all rational people who understand that multi-ton pieces of metal shouldn't sensibly be able to fly, by setting this film in the aftermath of a disaster borne from the routine car rides we tempt death with every single day, this sequel bases its horror in roots that apply universally. After all, most of us CHOOSE to get on an airplane, but very few of us have any say in the roles that automobiles play in our everyday lives. We don't have any choice but to commute to our jobs or schools, and if a car is needed for these important functions, we have to simply accept the fact that there is a possibility that we will not make our destination due to circumstances on the road beyond our control. This is a balance we tempt every time we drive, and cars crash far more often than planes do, so the scenario in this film trumps the original sort of by default.
The horrific pileup that sparks this chapter's conflict with Death is by far the most harrowing and genuinely scary car accident ever seen in a film. As in the original, the details preface the carnage with sadistic glee, and the intricacies within the crash itself are as believable as they are devastating.
By topping the dramatic and terrifying catalyst in the first film, this sequel starts off on a promising note, and its a promise that is almost maintained throughout. After the set-up, which basically mimics the first FD, the film-makers are savvy enough to know that since there is a formula in place, the shock of the kills is going to be diluted by the sense of the familiar. Of course, the only way to counterbalance this is to make the kills themselves as spectacular and superior as the crash. This, they offer whole-heartedly.
While employing the same Rube Goldberg chains found in the original film, the death scenes in Final Destination 2 floor anything we've previously seen in the franchise. Both the tension and gore are amped up to grisly and boisterous effect, and the elevator and fire-escape set-pieces not only rival anything in the franchise, they are on par with the best in the horror genre. Again, by using things we see every day as tools of death, the realism the series is rooted in is kept very much intact.
It would be a shame to give away any particulars for anyone who hasn't seen the film, so I'll keep the grisly details in my head and off the page. But, it's a safe bet that anyone seeing this film for the first time will have fresh insight about the banality of barbed wire and car safety features when the film is finished.
If the film was just a series of gory and over-the-top executions, it could have easily surpassed the original in terms of sheer thrill factor. However, when the film delves too deeply into the unnecessary mythology, things get a bit silly, and the sharp tension generated through the underlying premise is diluted by the screenwriters trying to make sense out of the senseless. Don't they realize that it's scary enough that Death is stalking these "lucky" survivors one by one? That idea is sufficient to carry this film, but for some reason, the film-makers saw fit to muddy up this effective premise with endless postulating about why Death is chasing our cast. Death is going in reverse, and "tying up all the loose ends"? Really? Is Death really that organized? Are we all just Power Point pie charts on Death's laptop? Somehow, it seems a bit scarier if Death is just as senseless as the brutal and heinous bits of life-ending generated in the initial car accident.
And why, oh, why did they bring back Clear Rivers? In addition to inducing eye-rolling every time someone says that ridiculous name, Ali Larter's character in this film is an annoying and gibbering caricature with all the credibility of a bag-lady carrying a "The End Is Near" sign. In the first film, she was an understated and well-played normal person dealing with extraordinary events. Somehow these events have transformed her into a raving prophet of doom who knows all of death's secrets and passes on her sage-like madness to this new batch of future victims. The dialogue fed to her is atrocious, as is her broken-soul delivery. And being introduced to her in a mental institution where she is lent so much authority you'd think she built the joint certainly doesn't help matters. (Really? Mental patients have closed-circuit television monitors in their padded rooms that allow them a view of the hallway outside their cell?). Larter's screen time is mercifully short, but in the second act, when she's allowed to run free with her ramblings, the movie slows to a mediocre crawl.
If the film were able to sustain the adrenalized surge it captures from the opening pileup on, Final Destination 2 would have easily outpaced the original. The deaths are certainly magnificently rendered and shocking, and the "gotcha" ending is a grimly hilarious, if predicable, curtain call. But, given the areas where it exceeds the first FD, I suppose it's a great accomplishment for a sequel to even be as good as the film that spawned it. At least in that sense, Final Destination 2 has to be viewed as a success.