Final Destination Producer Names The Worst Movie In The Franchise (And He's Not Wrong)

We may receive a commission on purchases made from links.

The "Final Destination" movies are perhaps the most efficient communicators of horror in the genre's history. They are staged like slasher movies, but there's no slasher. The idea is that Death Itself, an invisible force, has it in for the films' heroes, and will use whatever physical objects that happen to be around them — soap, cars, falling panes of glass, screws, nail guns, bathtubs, you name it — to off them on a whim. The "Final" flicks challenge filmmakers to invent new and innovative ways for people to die, and most of the movies feature byzantine Rube Goldberg scenarios wherein a loose screw can lead to two women being baked alive in tanning beds. 

The formula is durable and has been reused for all the "Final Destination" movies to date: a single character has a psychic premonition of a massive accident that will violently kill about a dozen people. The premonition-haver will immediately spread the word, allowing all the potential victims to escape death. It seems that Death had a plan, though, and is now infuriated that the premonition interrupted it. Death will henceforth subtly manipulate the universe to make sure those people who were meant to die in a cataclysm actually do. No one will get out alive. The movies all start with a gaggle of living people and end with dead ones. There's no pretense to the "Final Destination" movies. The filmmakers know we're just here to see people get mauled, and they don't even need an excuse anymore. This is "Watch People Get Impaled: The Series." 

Of course, not all "Final Destinations" are created equal. They rise and fall based on the quality of their kills, and not all of them are creative or clever in that regard. Longtime franchise producer Craig Perry was quoted in Clark Collis' upcoming book "Screaming and Conjuring: The Resurrection and Unstoppable Rise of the Modern Horror Movie," and he admitted that the fourth entry in the series, simply called "The Final Destination" (2009), was handily the worst one. 

For those who don't remember, "The Final Destination" was the one that began with a disaster at a professional racing track. The title implies that it was meant to be the final film in the series, although two films have been made since (the most recent film, "Final Destination: Bloodlines," opened on May 16, 2025). It was released in 2009, when Hollywood was still trying really, really hard to make 3D into a pervasive trend, and "The Final Destination," directed by David R. Ellis, was shot with 3D cameras. 

"The Final Destination" was the most expensive film in the series to date, costing $40 million to make; the previous three films only cost between $23 and $26 million. It was also, however, the most successful, netting over $186 million at the worldwide box office (compared to the $90 to $118 million of the first three). It's likely that fans turned out for "The Final Destination" because it promised to be a finale. Those numbers may also have been bolstered by more expensive 3D tickets. They had exploitation movie fans in their pocket. 

Craig Perry admitted it wasn't good. Indeed, by 2009, he felt that the series was pretty much done, and they could bow out. Because of its success, though, he would come back only a few years later with "Final Destination 5." As he put it: 

"I figured that we're done. Then, lo and behold, opening weekend. We're like, 'Uh, okay, here we go.' [...] I don't think the fourth one is good at all. Actually it sucks. But it was successful enough to give us a chance to redeem ourselves with 5."

And indeed, "Final Destination 5" is a much better film. It was also made for $40 million, and came back with an impressive $157 million in earnings. The need to see people randomly dying hadn't been abated. 14 years later, we have the sixth film in the series, and /Film loved it. Death lives on.