Final Destination: Bloodlines - The Death of The Franchise?

Final Destination is a franchise with a very specific, easily repeatable formula - from the sequence of events throughout to even the role each character plays - yet somehow it ceases to become stale. Is this new entry the final nail in the coffin to push it over the edge and finish this franchise off for good? Probably not, but it should be. That isn't to say this movie is bad or makes this formula finally stop working, it's actually quite the opposite. I believe Final Destination: Bloodlines is the best movie of this entire franchise and it isn't close.

This newest entry into the Final Destination universe finally strays slightly from its established formula, coming as a very welcome surprise. This gives the audience something new for the most part and while it may not succeed in every facet, it's nice to see this franchise finally venture out. This movie introduces the concept of a 'second-hand premonition' felt by the grandchild of somebody who cheated death decades prior - meaning these grandchildren were never meant to exist. 

This isn't the only welcome change, however, as this movie has a much stronger mystery element rooted within, rather than the usual borderline compilation of death that the others could be described as. This is greatly surprising due to the fact that this movie is predated by five that are about some sort of mystery.

Let's start with the bad, because there definitely is plenty. I originally wasn't a big fan of the direction this franchise followed, turning the deaths from a sequence of very convenient coincidences to almost a hand of god pushing everything to collapse. This did exist in a small way in the first movie, however it became much more prevalent as this series progressed. While I would've loved to have said the opposite, this movie is no different, even amplifying this to a colossal scale. 

Bloodlines turns Death into less of a force of nature and much more of an entity or even sometimes a person. It's referred to as 'him' throughout and even performs actions that aren't meant to exclusively lead to somebodies death. While, yes, the house burning down in the third act did lead to killing Darlene, I believe that wasn't originally the plan. He did mean to just keep them away from safety, however Death saw an easy opportunity after what he'd done. Another point that felt out of character for Death was killing Erik. This was simply because he got in the way and made Death angry - this force having emotions isn't  something we've ever seen before in this series.

Now for the good, of which there was much more than bad. In a technical sense, this movie was a big step up for this franchise. We got some surprisingly good cinematography and an amazing use of the new CGI technology innovations from the past 14 years to create some beautifully gory scenes.

Of course the reason we all showed up for this movie was to see the gruesome and gory displays of death, of which this never disappoints. I'm glad to report that was no different in this movie, but was it a step up? This is a question with two different answers, depending on what you're looking for. First off, the premonition was very interesting. there was much more development of the scene, the world, and the characters before their untimely demises, paired with some beautiful stylisation for this '50s setting. 

However, while easily the best in terms of straightforward gore, carried greatly by the CGI, I wouldn't say these are the best kills of the franchise as a whole. To me, this series is at its best when its somewhat realistic - think Todd's eyes filling with blood in the first movie or Ashley and Ashlyn burning alive in the third - whereas this movie felt like a bit of heightened reality. I believe this is mostly because they simply wanted to show more and if it stayed completely realistic it may not be as satisfying for the audience.

I was lead to believe throughout the series that the late Tony Todd's character was meant to represent The Grim Reaper, a human embodiment of death. It seemed like many of the filmmakers throughout this franchise's life intended this as it makes the most sense. He always eerily knew the most about death and how to combat it, often telling those who cheat death to simply surrender. However, this movie throws out every possibility of that theory by showing us his backstory. I really don't like this choice as I felt his character was best when there was complete ambiguity around him.

To conclude, I greatly enjoyed this newest entry into the Final Destination franchise for mostly the same reasons as I have previously, only with a little added flare. However, I believe the final scene revealed Death was still after our main characters so that there was still a possibility for more movies, even though I don't think that's a good idea. Part of the charm of these movies is seeing our protagonists try and fail to cheat their way out of the most inevitable thing in life, if that method is achieved, what's the point in continuing?