Urban Legends - Final Cut

There is some interesting film school banter if you're a big film buff. And it's an OK teen slasher film if you like those - lots of jump cuts accompanied by sudden loud noises, lots of waking up and it was all a dream, lots of "aha" moments when the wall is erased and you see that it's a film. Or a film within a film. Or a film within a dream, or .......

Well, you get the picture. John Ottman never directed a film before, and I feel bad for the guy, because he didn't write the script, and everyone hated the film. Reviewers hated it (6% on the Tomatometer). Filmgoers hate it- 3.4 at IMBD - Ed Wood range.

But somehow it made $21 million before people decided that it stunk.

It isn't as bad as the reviews claimed, in fact I believe it would be considered an OK little cult item if it had been made five years ago, but the reason people hated it is that they've seen it already, and this movie wasted their time by forcing them to watch it again. I kept checking the box, wondering if I had already seen the movie before, which is a bad sign. It just doesn't have one original thought.

DVD info from Amazon.

Widescreen anamorphic, 2.35, looks great. Also a full screen version.
It has features up the wazoo. Director commentary, making-of featurette, gag reels, deleted scenes, plus the usual cheesy stuff.

Bo-ring. Same old same old. Been there, done that. Seen it. Pushing up the daisies. Joined the choir invisible. This is a late movie.

Andrew Manning of RFE wrote the best review of this film: "Psst ... did you hear the one about the movie that sucked"

The second best was Wesley Morris of the SF Examiner, who called it "an above average extra bloody episode of Scooby Doo". That is a perfect description.

The Critics Vote

General consensus: just below two stars. Ebert 2/4, Apollo 48.
Rotten Tomatoes summary. 6% positive overall, 11% from the top critics.

The People Vote ...

With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters hate it at 3.4, Apollo users a similar 40/100. These scores are worse than the critical consensus.

With their dollars ... it wasn't a smash, hit, but it took in $21 million domestic on a $15 million budget. It maxed out at 2500 screens.

IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a C-. Genre pic with good production values, but nothing more. Boring and predictable.