The sixth installment is already breaking May box office records and has horror fans losing their minds online. But is it actually good filmmaking, or are we so starved for fun cinema that we've lowered the bar to 'at least someone died creatively'? Pick your side.
Join the debate to comment
Reading is free. Members pay to post — that's why it stays clean.
Add your commentlol at people analyzing a movie where people get crushed by HVAC units like it's a criterion release
watched it with my whole friend group and we were CACKLING the entire runtime. not in a bad way. in a 'this is exactly what movies are for' way. pure communal joy.
Saw it opening night and honestly? Best one since the original. The opening set piece alone is worth the ticket price. The escalator scene had the whole theater screaming.
Bloodlines has the best opening premonition sequence in the entire franchise. I will not be taking questions.
Everyone saying it's nostalgia bait, I was literally born in 2004 and I've never seen a single other FD film and I thought it ripped. So there.
The theater experience for this kind of movie is irreplaceable. The collective gasp, people grabbing strangers' arms, someone laughing hysterically to cope. I haven't felt that since Barbarian. Just go see it.
Hot take: Final Destination 2 remains the gold standard and nothing will ever beat the highway pileup. I refuse to be moved on this.
we were starved for theatrical fun and we know it. i'm not ashamed. give me more of this. i'll take ten more sequels if they keep delivering.
I took my mom to see it because she loved the original ones back in the day and she genuinely covered her eyes three times. That's a win in my book. She also cried a little at the family subplot which I did NOT expect from a Final Destination movie.
lowkey the franchise peaked with 5 and nobody ever talks about 5. the ending of 5 was genuinely brilliant and I will die on this hill
counterpoint: sometimes a movie doesn't need to be more than fun. not everything requires thematic depth and subtext. some films exist to entertain you for 100 minutes and go home. that's valid.
My anxiety went absolutely haywire watching it which means it worked perfectly. I was a mess in a pool of my own popcorn by the third act.
My coworker spoiled three deaths for me before I could see it and I still jumped at all of them in the theater. That's good filmmaking. You can't stop the inevitability.
went in expecting garbage, left genuinely impressed. director clearly studied every previous entry. the references and callbacks are earned not lazy
can we acknowledge that the sound design in this one is doing like 40% of the heavy lifting? every creak and hiss made me want to crawl under my seat
^ YES finally someone who appreciates FD5. That twist ending was one of the best in horror history and it's criminally underrated.
nostalgia is doing HEAVY lifting here. objectively it's a decent slasher. calling it a 'return to form' is cope from people who were 13 when the first one came out
The franchise is essentially a theme park ride in movie form. You know what you're getting. Arguing about whether it's 'real cinema' misses the entire point of its existence.
The CGI blood is an issue I won't be quiet about. Part of what made the original trilogy work was practical effects that felt real and gross. This felt like a video game cutscene at times.
it has a 79 on rotten tomatoes which by modern horror standards is basically a masterpiece so
The franchise has always been B-movie genius wrapped in a dumb premise and anyone expecting Kubrick is watching the wrong film. Judge it on its own terms.
People forget that the original Final Destination was genuinely trying to say something about mortality anxiety post-9/11. It was a cultural artifact as much as a horror film. This new one is just trying to make you jump. Both can coexist.
The 'bloodlines' title implies generational trauma as a metaphor and if that's intentional it's smarter than the franchise has any right to be. If it's not intentional it still works by accident which is kind of charming.
The 'bloodlines' angle is actually a clever pivot for the lore. Tying death's design to hereditary patterns opens up story possibilities the earlier films never had. I'm cautiously impressed.
I think horror fans are just really easy to please right now after years of 'elevated horror' that was sometimes boring. Anything with actual kills and momentum feels like a masterpiece by comparison.
I genuinely believe this is the scariest Final Destination since the first one. The pacing is tighter, the kills are more inventive, and there's an actual emotional core to the story that the middle films completely abandoned.
The new cast is fine but nobody in this one has the charisma Ali Larter brought to the original. Chemistry matters in horror. When you don't care if anyone survives, tension evaporates.
The 'bloodlines' concept is actually scientifically incoherent even by the franchise's own internal logic but whatever I'll allow it
everybody online is acting like this film invented cinema. it's a perfectly average entry in a perfectly average franchise. the hype is more interesting than the movie itself at this point
Breaking May box office records means literally nothing when half the month had no competition. Context matters people.
The moment audiences start celebrating mediocrity because it's 'fun' is the moment studios stop trying. We deserve better and we keep accepting less.
Is it wrong to choose not to have children just because you don't want to?
110 comments
Would you still eat meat if you had to kill the animal yourself?
109 comments
Netflix's 'Adolescence' shows a teenage boy becoming a killer — did the show actually get modern boyhood right, or did it miss the point entirely?
109 comments
Are dating apps genuinely harder for men or for women?
108 comments