Good start, bad finish...

Rating: Null/10 (31 March 2000)

Final Destination has a decent beginning, with the explosion scene not being afraid to show what it wants. That was all very real, but sadly to say, it was the only part of the movie that was real. Critics who give this movie the credit of being "highly realistic" must have their heads screwed on backwards. Please. Only in a movie would some wind or a little crack lead to a highly elaborate and gruesome death.
It wasn't a poorly made film, actually it was done rather well. It has its moments (I don't want to give anything away, but I will say that the best scene is about a quarter of a second long and involves a bus.) But where is the script? Where's the ending? Where's everything else that was meant to be explained? This movie really left questions on the tips of everyone's tongues. How come Alex, or only Alex, saw before hand what would happen with the plane? And what happened to the guy they met in the morgue? He was intended to be the grim reaper, right? Or maybe I just thought that the script was trying to be clever but in actuality it really was dumb.
And as far as I'm concerned, there is no ending. NO ending. Six months later they arrive at Paris, suddenly strike up a conversation about what happened, and then it suddenly starts happening again? And then the movie ends the way it does. Sheeesh. Its almost as if they got tired of writing the script so they just threw something together so they could get it out of the way.
Some people said, well they didn't explain it all because there will probably be a sequel. Bad thinking! Sequels are done for commercial reasons, to make more money. If the movie happened to bomb, were they really going to put out a sequel? A script like that could very well have guaranteed a bomb, therefore not leaving any chance to make a sequel.
** out of ****.