Urban Legends: Final Cut

Amy is in her second year of her film studies course at Alpine University and is still wondering about what her student film should be about. She decides to make a short horror film where a killer offs his victims in the style of urban myths. Despite the fact that a major Hollywood had been done on this subject less than two years before, her teachers give her the go ahead, compare her to Hitchcock and her friends are all enthusiastic. However as she attempts to shoot her various scenes, somebody is really killing people in that style and hiding their bodies; but can Amy stay alive long enough to convince other people that it's really happening? Given that the first film just gave up on its connections to urban myths I suppose I should at least praise this film for having a script that works out how to keep the material at least semi-related to the title/concept. However that is pretty much the only praise I will give to it because it is just a standard slasher movie – they all have a hook (a gimmick or, in the case of "I know What You Did etc", literally a hook), sexy girls, buff boys, red herrings and lots of gore. So if that is all you want then this average film should just about do you. The plot isn't much cop and it is pretty much a case of counting the cast members alive to work out how long is left, but it is passable for this sort of film. Of course it is only OK if you ignore what it could have done. It could have said so much and taken a sly look at violence in movies; for example the bit where they watch a film of a girl getting killed and enjoy it; that could have been a clever question to the audience but it didn't do anything of the sort. Of course what I did like were some clever in-jokes and confused film realities that served to provide another level to distract me from the poor main – this is occasionally subtle but also works when it is blunt (ie Gayheart's cameo).

Some of the stuff is actually quite thrilling and the film has a good atmosphere considering it is just a slasher movie. It does have some good ideas as well and I did thing the Mexican standoff at the end was a nice touch. The cast are par for the course at best. Morrison is a typically bland blonde and didn't do anything special with her lead role – she isn't awful but she is nothing special. The rest of the cast just go through the motions, acting suspicious, scared or sexy as required – the sight of Anderson terrified me but happily he had little time, however it is simply cruel to cast Eva Mendes as a flirtatious lesbian but then only give her a small amount of screen time! Overall this is a standard slasher movie but it works better than the original film because it actually sticks to the concept as well as having some nice self-awareness and film within a film sort of stuff that is distracting from what is really a red-herring laden, twisty plot that could have come from any slasher film. The cast are pretty average but some of it is quite exciting if you get into it and, while it is an average film in a generally poor genre, it is not a bad film.

A student filmmaker's thesis project encounters production problems when the actors and crew of her film start getting killed by a monstrous force.

Jennifer Morrison stars as Amy Mayfield, a student at a prestigious film school, unsure about what her thesis film is going to be. But after a conversation with security guard Reese Wilson about her experience with a series of murders that had happened on the campus she had previously worked in, she is inspired to make a film about a serial killer murdering in the fashion of urban legends.

I rewatched this on Blu-ray in the new collector's edition trilogy, although I have seen the film in the past. The film is carried by Morrison's gratifying performance, alongside Loretta Davis bringing comic relief to the film. Where the film succeeds is in its classiness as a horror picture, and director John Ottman has proven that he can successfully cross over from being, not only a gifted composer but also a respectable filmmaker. The film embraces the horror genre wholeheartedly and giving us a nail-biting, heart-jolting experience. Where I found the film fell short is the fact it's very keen on keeping the film (mostly) bloodless and a lot of the deaths happen off-screen or cut away just as it happens, although I think the film would've benefitted from more gore and brutality. Which is not something I would normally say. The end of the film wraps up reminiscent of an episode of "Scooby-Doo" with a nice nod to the original courtesy of Rebecca Gayheart. It's a fun watch.

I hate films that have extended sections of a fictional film in the real film pretending they are fake films but only reveal it's a fake film after what appears to be one take although in reality it would have been lots of takes if that makes sense. I mean if a film student made the film in the opening with all that cast and crew and production quality then they are not a film student they are an expert. Anyway, whatever, the fun opening was ruined by a poor concept. The film is well made but silly in an entertaining way. I hate films about film students. Conceptually I hated this film, it's not really about urban legends at all. It reminded me of Peeping Tom (1960) but with higher production value and less interesting. The cast is so generic. There's a silly moment when someone hears something through a microphone but it's nowhere near them, you can't hear someone on a boom mic through a few walls. The locations are cool and it has some really good set pieces and I actually liked the ending. Not the worst sequel but also not very good, slightly below average.

As a former film student the setting for the film had some appeal. Film students after the coveted Hitchcock Award strive to make the film that will secure them a spot in Hollywood, just like the honored alumni before them. Unfortunately the power of greed has someone taking out the competition.

It begins with an obvious film-within-a-film cliché to introduce us to all the principal characters/victims of the film. The cast, a slew of nobodies, lacks any true depth and continually stumbles through forced 21st dialogue. The only recognizable face, Joey Lawrence of Blossom fame, has matured in looks but not so much in talent. In fact, the most entertaining parts of the film are when the killer `urbanizes' his victims making the viewer happy to see them go.

The entire story is weak and too many standard horror movie conventions are tossed into the mix. Bumps in the dark, shadows in the background and masked characters that appear out of nowhere are tired repeats of films in our past. As expected, every character is given a reason to be the killer until the very next scene when they are exonerated because another character seems more deserving.

With many veiled references to Alfred Hitchcock's films, the filmmakers may have thought they were honoring the great director but in reality the idea is so poorly done that they only come across as cheap rip-offs. Stair climbing in a tower ala Vertigo and a weak wheelchair scene ala Rear Window are two that come to mind.

The whole scary movie genre was given life by Scream and now it ought to be put out of its misery with one swift swing of the ax.

2 1/2 out of 5

starring: Jennifer Morrison, Loretta Devine, Joseph Lawrence, Matthew Davis, Anson Mount, Jessica Cauffiel, Eva Mendes, and Jacinda Barrett.

plot: A killer in a fencing mask is killing off students at a prestigious film school, staring with actress, Lisa (Jacinda Barrett). After a popular director named Travis Stark (Matthew Davis) is found shot, apparently from suicide, his twin brother Trevor (still, Matthew Davis) sneaks into campus and teams up with writer Amy (Jennifer Morrison) to try and catch the killer as more bodies begin to drop.

review: This is a very fun sequel. I love the cast, its got Loretta Devine from the original UL, Joseph Lawrence from Do You Wanna Know A Secret?, Jessica Cauffiel from Valentine, and Jacinda Barrett from Campfire Tales. This has great gore, great acting, good directing, and good writing. But the killer's motive stinks!

9/10.