Review of Final Destination 5 (2011) by Ian B — 24 Jun 2012

"Final Destination 5" and the State of Horror.

It's scary how far the horror genre has fallen.

The frightening state of Hollywood horror films.

Seeing as how the film season tends to slow down at the end of summer, I thought I'd examine something that has to do with all of Hollywood as a whole, seen in microcosm with the most recent "Final Destination" film. What am I talking about? I'm talking about the horror film. It's always been a favorite genre as long as the medium of film has been popular. However after all these years what have we really gained?

When we look back on the success stories of horror, most people cite the famous slasher villains, mostly conceived in the Seventies and Eighties. The desire to be scared is a common human desire when it comes to entertainment, but, what about films like "Final Destination?" They certainly aren't scary. They are simply a series of films where you watch a bunch of characters die.

I find this topic strangely fascinating, because obviously in all of these films little to no empathy is established with these cinematic lambs to the slaughter. In "Final Destination 5" there are literally no likable characters, so basically, you're supposed to be rooting for the death of these people in bizarre and often darkly humorous ways. How are we supposed to feel about that? Hollywood has actually created an entire genre that is, in fact, not about horror at all. It's about watching people die and enjoying it.

I'm certainly not qualified to judge mankind on the subject of schadenfreude. I'm not saying this is a despicable attitude for moviegoers to have. After all, these characters are designed to be as either unlikable or as bland as possible to avoid that sense of attachment. What I'm more concerned about is the loss of horror itself.

"Final Destination" likes to think that just because some of their deaths happen suddenly with a jarring musical scare cord and a little gore that it qualifies as horror. But that's not true. Horror is about fear. It's about atmosphere. And yes, caring about the characters goes a long way to making you scared if they're scared.

When "Paranormal Activity" came out a few years ago, I talked about why it was an effective use of horror. The relatable characters and realistic setting really made the supernatural elements stand out and seem all the more creepy. I had hoped, with its popularity, that it would set the tone to at least marginally bring the idea of horror back to the genre. Sadly all it did was spawn a rash of non-scary clones that thought all of its success lay in making it look "low budget." And so we're back to "Final Destination" because apparently that series needed a fifth movie.

So I guess what it comes down to is asking a question of the audience. What do you actually like to see? Are movies like "Final Destination," or torture porn films like "Hostel" and "Saw" what you want to see? Are you scared during them? If the answer if yes, then maybe I blew all of this out of proportion. Personally, though, I think audiences will simply see a film because it's labeled "horror" and have lost touch with what the genre was originally supposed to be about.

What does this mean for the future? I don't know. The "Saw" series at least proved that it's possible to a run a series so far into the ground that even its dedicated fan base won't go to see it, but that's the attitude studios have about horror films "just keep making them until the audience stops going" is not the best attitude to have. There is always going to be a certain degree of "phoning it in" for Hollywood, but I honestly believe no genre has done so as much as horror. In short, people have forgotten how to be scared. Watching a bunch of idiots get killed by Rube Goldberg deathtraps isn't scary. It's funny. And you know what? There's a whole other genre for that.