Story and tone

From May 15, a new battle for survival with Death is coming to cinema screens in the sixth installment of the cult horror film Final Destination.

Student Stephanie Reyes keeps seeing the same scene from the 1960s. The grand opening of a luxurious restaurant at the top of a tall tower, when a terrible disaster occurs and all the guests perish. Among them is Stephanie’s grandmother, Iris, who has lived a secluded life for a long time.

To find out the reason for her strange vision, the girl goes to visit the “crazy” pensioner. She does not yet suspect that Death has already sharpened its blades for her and her family.

Visual imagination

Without exception, the creators of Final Destination are clearly people who believe in the postulate “if you’re going to die, die with music.”

And franchise newcomers Adam Stein and Zach Lipowski are no exception: it is no coincidence that Johnny Cash’s symbolic song Ring of Fire sounds prophetically just before the fire burns the unsuspecting restaurant patrons to the ground.

Themes

If the creators of the 2003 sequel were afraid to kill off a minor character who was originally supposed to die on screen and were forced to add a few years to his age in order to ultimately kill off a 15-year-old boy with a double-glazed window, the current filmmakers seem to be challenging them.

If the unfortunate heroes of the previous series were not only inattentive but also literally threw themselves into danger, then the local grandmother barricaded herself and learned to recognize the presence of the grim reaper and his evil intentions. “Bitch, I see you!” she exclaims confidently.

To the viewer, this may sound like the authors’ absolute understanding that using a hackneyed concept for the sixth time is perhaps a bit too much.

But in doing so, they urge us to take what is shown as lightly as possible, saying, “Come on, folks, let’s just indulge in escapism and have a good time at the movies.”

Pros

• Spectacular scenes with the on-screen deaths of the next doomed characters; 
• the authors’ appropriate awareness of what they are doing and for whom; 
• a light-hearted, ironic approach that clearly worked in their favor; 
• skillful play with audience expectations; pleasant references to previous installments.

Cons

• lack of even a slightly coherent story and the presence of entirely one-dimensional characters; 
• still relentless exploitation of an age-old concept.

Final verdict

The filmmakers repeat the same mistake: they forget to tell even a minimally meaningful story between deaths and give the characters at least some individual traits. However, they do it so easily, effortlessly, and sometimes even cheerfully that the next coffin in the frame does not evoke thoughts of inevitability.