Movies: Horror Movie Discussion

[Osprey]

Have you watched Into the Dark at all? They are more shorter movies than TV episodes but they are all themed around different holidays, there's 2 Thanksgiving episodes, I enjoyed them.

I've never heard of it. I'll check it out. I like horror anthologies. Thanks.

 

[Nakatomi]

I recently watched the original Suspiria for the first time. What an experience. The opening sequence alone, between the colors and amazing soundtrack, is probably the greatest justification for surround sound and a 4K TV I have ever seen. Such an incredible mood.

 

[SwordsgoneWild]

I recently watched the original Suspiria for the first time. What an experience. The opening sequence alone, between the colors and amazing soundtrack, is probably the greatest justification for surround sound and a 4K TV I have ever seen. Such an incredible mood.

Definitely one of the most visually gorgeous horror movies of all time and that theme! ...



God , I love old school Italian scores.

 

[Osprey]

Galaxy of Terror (1981) - 5/10

A rescue team respond to a distress beacon from a crashed spaceship, and learn of its horrifying fate.

This ensemble cast includes Edward Albert, Robert Englund, Sig Haig, Erin Moran, and Grace Zabriskie as the crew of The Quest. The group is instructed by their mysterious leader "The Planet Master" to investigate the planet of Morganthus, where a crashed spaceship is in need of assistance. When the crew arrive, they find the fallen ship to be a charnel house, and discover a mysterious pyramid preventing The Quest from leaving...

Galaxy of Terror was directed by Bruce D. Clark, and written by Clark and Marc Siegler. Produced by Roger Corman, the film is an obvious attempt to cash in on the massive success of Alien (1979). How does this mockbuster fare?

It's cheesy fun, with a lot of problems. Galaxy of Terror has really good atmosphere, in large part due to the sets by Production Designer James Cameron (with some help from Set Decorator Bill Paxton). Considering its budget the movie looks great, especially the interior of the spaceships which are reminiscent of the walkways in Hadley's Hope from Aliens (1986). The film also has a healthy amount of effective gore, including an infamous rape scene involving a giant worm.

Unfortunately, a lot of that goodness is offset but rough performances and a nonsensical plot. The set up to the movie is fine and has similarities to Alien. But once the characters arrive to the planet, they aimlessly walk around and get picked off while spouting brutal, on the nose dialogue. When the movie does try to have a plot, it comes off like a cheesy version of Event Horizon (1997), with its lame storyline involving the true identity of "The Planet Master".

There are logic flaws too, like in a moment where Robert Englund's character is knocked out by another character, but doesn't even seem to realize who did it upon regarding consciousness...despite everyone else being off ship. On the technical side of things, I did have trouble hearing what the characters were saying a few times. I think it's an audio mixing issue but I'm not sure, all I know is I needed to rewind a few times.

Overall, Galaxy of Terror is so bad it's good. Despite a long list of issues, this is a movie I plan to watch again because of how fun it is. There are conflicting reports over how much money this movie made, but it seemed to at least double its estimated $700K budget. I recommend it to fans of cheesy cinema.

I saw this last night and have virtually the same thoughts. While watching it, I was thinking to myself that it's largely the plot of Alien with sets that reminded me of not just Alien, but also Aliens, which was 5 years away. When I saw that James Cameron was Production Designer (and Second Unit Director), it made sense. The sets are definitely the highlight of the movie and contribute to the good overall atmosphere.

It's too bad that the plot is so barebones and nonsensical, as you said. About half of the movie is the crew just cautiously exploring the planet and structures and occasionally stopping to say "We need to keep moving." Also, things like crashing right next to another ship and the nature of the horrors that they face just seem coincidental and random for much of the movie until the explanations finally come. I think that they were going for mystery, but it was more confusing than mysterious. I couldn't help but imagine how much better the movie might've been if James Cameron had also written it.

I, too, spotted several logic flaws, like a woman dying near the top of a cliff and her crewmates discovering her body before climbing the same cliff. It was also funny how one guy doesn't make a sound while a creature is disemboweling him within earshot of his crewmates, but does scream "Awwwwww...." a few seconds later as he's falling into the chasm below.

Anyways, a 5/10 is what I was going to give it, as well. The movie is a bit of a mess and doesn't work, but it has surprisingly good sets and atmosphere and enough memorable, graphic scenes to keep one's interest in spite of the bare, silly plot. Like you, I'd watch it again. It's not good, but probably has more redeeming qualities than most Alien rip-offs. Thanks for the letting me know about it. I'm surprised that I'd never even heard of it, since it's the kind of movie that shouldn't have escaped my attention in the 80s and 90s, especially since I had Cinemax and it's a Cinemax movie if I've ever seen one.

 

[shadow1]

Resident Evil (2002) - 6/10

An amnesiac and a group of commandos descend into a secret underground lab in order to contain a viral outbreak.

Mila Jovovich stars as a woman with amnesia, who wakes up in a secluded mansion along with a cop (Eric Mabius) and a group of commandos (including Martin Crewes and Michelle Rodriguez). Group leader One (Colin Salmon) explains that the mansion is a secret entrance to "The Hive", an underground research lab for the pharmaceutical company Umbrella, whom they work for. The Hive's super computer system initiated a lockdown, and the team must investigate why. Little do they know the T-Virus has escaped, turning the researchers into zombies...

Resident Evil was written and directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, and is based on the video game series of the same name. Development started as early as 1997, with George A. Romero - who also directed a commercial for video game Resident Evil 2 - originally tabbed to write and direct. After Romero's script was rejected, producers turned to Event Horizon's Paul W.S. Anderson to helm the project. How does Resident Evil fare?

It's an okay movie, but bares little resemblance to the video game series. The film borrows some plot points from the games - like the creatures and the Umbrella corporation - but mostly does its own thing, using completely new characters and a new setting. And it does so relatively well. The Hive - which is very similar to "The Nest" in the video games - is a cool setting, and one particular set piece is so iconic it was later added to a later video game. I also think the film is paced well, and does a really good job of building dread early on.

I think the Resident Evil does go downhill in the second act, though. Things shift more from horror to action in the latter half of the movie, which I think hurts it a little. What hurts it more is the plot, which is very generic. The movie has a mystery going on, as does the original game. The game reveals information breadcrumb style, whereas the movie just has our amnesiac continue to regain her memory at the most convenient times possible, resulting in an extremely predicable twist.

I also think the film loses some cachet for how tame it is. I'll admit, I think a lot of zombie movies go overboard, with the lumbering monsters somehow able to rip people clean in half. This movie is an overcorrection in the other direction. The camera cuts away from most of its violence, never lingering on zombie bites. There is a scene in which a character is engulfed in a small room with 20+ zombies and should've been devoured. Not only do we not see a drop of blood, but when that character returns later as a member of the undead, they have only very superficial damage. I was convinced the film was rated PG-13 until I double checked.

Overall, Resident Evil is a decent horror-action movie. However, it bares such little resemblance to the video game series that a minor tweak or two is all it would take for it to be a standalone property. Video game fans have historically maligned the film and the series as a result, but audiences came out to see this film, as it earned $103M against a $33M budget.

 

[shadow1]

Resident Evil (2002) - 6/10

An amnesiac and a group of commandos descend into a secret underground lab in order to contain a viral outbreak.

Mila Jovovich stars as a woman with amnesia, who wakes up in a secluded mansion along with a cop (Eric Mabius) and a group of commandos (including Martin Crewes and Michelle Rodriguez). Group leader One (Colin Salmon) explains that the mansion is a secret entrance to "The Hive", an underground research lab for the pharmaceutical company Umbrella, whom they work for. The Hive's super computer system initiated a lockdown, and the team must investigate why. Little do they know the T-Virus has escaped, turning the researchers into zombies...

Resident Evil was written and directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, and is based on the video game series of the same name. Development started as early as 1997, with George A. Romero - who also directed a commercial for video game Resident Evil 2 - originally tabbed to write and direct. After Romero's script was rejected, producers turned to Event Horizon's Paul W.S. Anderson to helm the project. How does Resident Evil fare?

It's an okay movie, but bares little resemblance to the video game series. The film borrows some plot points from the games - like the creatures and the Umbrella corporation - but mostly does its own thing, using completely new characters and a new setting. And it does so relatively well. The Hive - which is very similar to "The Nest" in the video games - is a cool setting, and one particular set piece is so iconic it was later added to a later video game. I also think the film is paced well, and does a really good job of building dread early on.

I think the Resident Evil does go downhill in the second act, though. Things shift more from horror to action in the latter half of the movie, which I think hurts it a little. What hurts it more is the plot, which is very generic. The movie has a mystery going on, as does the original game. The game reveals information breadcrumb style, whereas the movie just has our amnesiac continue to regain her memory at the most convenient times possible, resulting in an extremely predicable twist.

I also think the film loses some cachet for how tame it is. I'll admit, I think a lot of zombie movies go overboard, with the lumbering monsters somehow able to rip people clean in half. This movie is an overcorrection in the other direction. The camera cuts away from most of its violence, never lingering on zombie bites. There is a scene in which a character is engulfed in a small room with 20+ zombies and should've been devoured. Not only do we not see a drop of blood, but when that character returns later as a member of the undead, they have only very superficial damage. I was convinced the film was rated PG-13 until I double checked.

Overall, Resident Evil is a decent horror-action movie. However, it bares such little resemblance to the video game series that a minor tweak or two is all it would take for it to be a standalone property. Video game fans have historically maligned the film and the series as a result, but audiences came out to see this film, as it earned $103M against a $33M budget.

Side note: I read the George A. Romero script a few years ago.

It's faithful to the games, being set in the Spencer Mansion and starring characters like Barry, Chris, Jill, and Wesker. It also tried to cram in all the key bosses, like Hunters, Plant 42, and the giant snake. There are some creative liberties taken (like Chris not being a member of S.T.A.R.S., instead being Jill's lover who has a personal history with the mansion), but overall it was a good try at adapting the first game.

I remember it definitely having problems though, the principal of which was too many characters. Instead of Chris and Jill exploring the mansion alone, the screenplay had an obscene 12-15 S.T.A.R.S. members, most of whom were not featured in the games. Romero obviously did this to up the body count and gore, but gore and scares are two different things. Isolation is what makes the games scary, and his screenplay was sorely lacking in it (as was the Paul W.S. Anderson movie, to be fair).

Still, I would have loved to have seen it made; it would have been an epic movie in scope. Even 20+ years later, Romero's script was a closer adaptation to the video game series than anything we've ever gotten on the big screen.

 

[The Hockey Tonk Man]

I just watched When Evil Lurks & Calviare.

Gotta say, both were great.

 

[PK Cronin]

Resident Evil (2002) - 6/10

An amnesiac and a group of commandos descend into a secret underground lab in order to contain a viral outbreak.

Mila Jovovich stars as a woman with amnesia, who wakes up in a secluded mansion along with a cop (Eric Mabius) and a group of commandos (including Martin Crewes and Michelle Rodriguez). Group leader One (Colin Salmon) explains that the mansion is a secret entrance to "The Hive", an underground research lab for the pharmaceutical company Umbrella, whom they work for. The Hive's super computer system initiated a lockdown, and the team must investigate why. Little do they know the T-Virus has escaped, turning the researchers into zombies...

Resident Evil was written and directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, and is based on the video game series of the same name. Development started as early as 1997, with George A. Romero - who also directed a commercial for video game Resident Evil 2 - originally tabbed to write and direct. After Romero's script was rejected, producers turned to Event Horizon's Paul W.S. Anderson to helm the project. How does Resident Evil fare?

It's an okay movie, but bares little resemblance to the video game series. The film borrows some plot points from the games - like the creatures and the Umbrella corporation - but mostly does its own thing, using completely new characters and a new setting. And it does so relatively well. The Hive - which is very similar to "The Nest" in the video games - is a cool setting, and one particular set piece is so iconic it was later added to a later video game. I also think the film is paced well, and does a really good job of building dread early on.

I think the Resident Evil does go downhill in the second act, though. Things shift more from horror to action in the latter half of the movie, which I think hurts it a little. What hurts it more is the plot, which is very generic. The movie has a mystery going on, as does the original game. The game reveals information breadcrumb style, whereas the movie just has our amnesiac continue to regain her memory at the most convenient times possible, resulting in an extremely predicable twist.

I also think the film loses some cachet for how tame it is. I'll admit, I think a lot of zombie movies go overboard, with the lumbering monsters somehow able to rip people clean in half. This movie is an overcorrection in the other direction. The camera cuts away from most of its violence, never lingering on zombie bites. There is a scene in which a character is engulfed in a small room with 20+ zombies and should've been devoured. Not only do we not see a drop of blood, but when that character returns later as a member of the undead, they have only very superficial damage. I was convinced the film was rated PG-13 until I double checked.

Overall, Resident Evil is a decent horror-action movie. However, it bares such little resemblance to the video game series that a minor tweak or two is all it would take for it to be a standalone property. Video game fans have historically maligned the film and the series as a result, but audiences came out to see this film, as it earned $103M against a $33M budget.

Side note: I read the George A. Romero script a few years ago.

It's faithful to the games, being set in the Spencer Mansion and starring characters like Barry, Chris, Jill, and Wesker. It also tried to cram in all the key bosses, like Hunters, Plant 42, and the giant snake. There are some creative liberties taken (like Chris not being a member of S.T.A.R.S., instead being Jill's lover who has a personal history with the mansion), but overall it was a good try at adapting the first game.

I remember it definitely having problems though, the principal of which was too many characters. Instead of Chris and Jill exploring the mansion alone, the screenplay had an obscene 12-15 S.T.A.R.S. members, most of whom were not featured in the games. Romero obviously did this to up the body count and gore, but gore and scares are two different things. Isolation is what makes the games scary, and his screenplay was sorely lacking in it (as was the Paul W.S. Anderson movie, to be fair).

Still, I would have loved to have seen it made; it would have been an epic movie in scope. Even 20+ years later, Romero's script was a closer adaptation to the video game series than anything we've ever gotten on the big screen.

I don't think we'll ever get a good live action Resident Evil movie. The entire Jovovich series is so far removed from the games and the most recent Welcome to Raccoon City was plagued by trying to cram too much into one movie. Everyone seems to want to make the movies an action flick instead of a slow burning horror movie like it should be, and I'm not sure why. Perhaps the pace of the games is just too slow to re-create in movie form? I'd sign up for a 3 hour Resident Evil movie if it was done right but I'm sure the masses wouldn't.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Side note: I read the George A. Romero script a few years ago.

It's faithful to the games, being set in the Spencer Mansion and starring characters like Barry, Chris, Jill, and Wesker. It also tried to cram in all the key bosses, like Hunters, Plant 42, and the giant snake. There are some creative liberties taken (like Chris not being a member of S.T.A.R.S., instead being Jill's lover who has a personal history with the mansion), but overall it was a good try at adapting the first game.

I remember it definitely having problems though, the principal of which was too many characters. Instead of Chris and Jill exploring the mansion alone, the screenplay had an obscene 12-15 S.T.A.R.S. members, most of whom were not featured in the games. Romero obviously did this to up the body count and gore, but gore and scares are two different things. Isolation is what makes the games scary, and his screenplay was sorely lacking in it (as was the Paul W.S. Anderson movie, to be fair).

Still, I would have loved to have seen it made; it would have been an epic movie in scope. Even 20+ years later, Romero's script was a closer adaptation to the video game series than anything we've ever gotten on the big screen.

Don't forget his first interaction with series directing that commercial for Resident Evil 2 for Japanese market.



I believe it was his work on this trailer that led to talks on directing movie

Would have been interesting if he had made Resident Evil film and if he would have been given chance to make a live action Resident Evil 2 based on game

 

[shadow1]

I don't think we'll ever get a good live action Resident Evil movie. The entire Jovovich series is so far removed from the games and the most recent Welcome to Raccoon City was plagued by trying to cram too much into one movie. Everyone seems to want to make the movies an action flick instead of a slow burning horror movie like it should be, and I'm not sure why. Perhaps the pace of the games is just too slow to re-create in movie form? I'd sign up for a 3 hour Resident Evil movie if it was done right but I'm sure the masses wouldn't.

I agree, and it's hard to digest because we've seen the "old dark house" motif work in so many films.

A TV show might work, but we've already seen that screwed up once (in an attempt that was also heavily divorced from the source material).

 

[PK Cronin]

I agree, and it's hard to digest because we've seen the "old dark house" motif work in so many films.

A TV show might work, but we've already seen that screwed up once (in an attempt that was also heavily divorced from the source material).

I knew nothing about that show before going in. Once they showed it was a completely different timeline (imagining) of the story I lost all interest. I'm pretty sure I watched two episodes? Maybe one day we'll get what we want.

The studios love me though because I'll go check out anything with the title, for at least a little bit.

 

[Satans Hockey]

I just watched When Evil Lurks & Calviare.

Gotta say, both were great.

I saw when evil lurks in the theater, it was my favorite horror movie of last year. So nice to see things done without a ton of cgi too.

 

[Tuggy]

Watched X and Pearl over the last week. They were good.

I know it will be a trilogy, MaXXXine the 3rd movie. Must take place inbetween the first two (timeline)?

 

[PK Cronin]

Watched X and Pearl over the last week. They were good.

I know it will be a trilogy, MaXXXine the 3rd movie. Must take place inbetween the first two (timeline)?

I recently watched X and didn't enjoy it all so I'm curious if you watched Pearl first or not. Also, would you say Pearl was better? I've debated watching it since I didn't like X much but am hopeful it'd make X better somehow.

Here was my review if you're interested in why I didn't enjoy it.

Movies: - Last Movie You Watched and Rate it | {Insert Appropriate Seasonal Greeting Here}

Jaws (1975) What is so captivating about fiction about men who go out to sea to capture some impossibly large and inhuman beast? I don't know what it is, but it am. Music could have been better. Immaculate besides.

forums.hfboards.com

 

[Tuggy]

I recently watched X and didn't enjoy it all so I'm curious if you watched Pearl first or not. Also, would you say Pearl was better? I've debated watching it since I didn't like X much but am hopeful it'd make X better somehow.

Here was my review if you're interested in why I didn't enjoy it.

Movies: - Last Movie You Watched and Rate it | {Insert Appropriate Seasonal Greeting Here}

Jaws (1975) What is so captivating about fiction about men who go out to sea to capture some impossibly large and inhuman beast? I don't know what it is, but it am. Music could have been better. Immaculate besides.

forums.hfboards.com

I watched X first.

I did enjoy Pearl more. It takes a bit to get going, but once it does it was a decent ride.

 

[Fripp]

I recently watched X and didn't enjoy it all so I'm curious if you watched Pearl first or not. Also, would you say Pearl was better? I've debated watching it since I didn't like X much but am hopeful it'd make X better somehow.

Here was my review if you're interested in why I didn't enjoy it.

Movies: - Last Movie You Watched and Rate it | {Insert Appropriate Seasonal Greeting Here}

Jaws (1975) What is so captivating about fiction about men who go out to sea to capture some impossibly large and inhuman beast? I don't know what it is, but it am. Music could have been better. Immaculate besides.

forums.hfboards.com

Pearl was fantastic. The connection is superficial - the actual movie is completely different from X in every way.

 

[CDJ]

I thought X was solid

I wanted to get to Stopmotion- local theater had an 830 screening tomorrow but they removed it and now it’s not playing anywhere

 

[shadow1]

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004) - 5/10

A ragtag group of survivors work to escape a city overrun with zombies.

Milla Jovovich returns as Alice, who following the events of the previous film awakens in Raccoon City, which has been infected with the T-Virus. Trying to escape the zombie infested city, Alice teams up with a group of survivors including police officer Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory), a civilian (Mike Epps), a news reporter (Sandrine Holt), and a special forces agent (Oded Fehr). Unfortunately for the group, they're also being hunted by the Umbrella Corporation's B.O.W., "Nemesis"...

Resident Evil: Apocalypse was written by Paul W.S. Anderson, and directed by first time director Alexander Witt. Witt, a 2nd unit director on films like Speed (1994) and Gladiator (2000), took over for Anderson due to the latter's commitments to Alien vs. Predator (2004). Unlike the first film, Resident Evil: Apocalypse draws heavily from the video game series, specifically 1999's Resident Evil 3: Nemesis. How does it fare?

Ugh! The first 20 minutes of this movie are Brutal. Why? Horrendous - horrendous - editing. Have you seen Taken 2 (2012), with all of the crazy jump cuts? Apparently, Resident Evil: Apocalypse did it first. The entire film has bad editing and questionable direction, but the opening act is like a music video. If you have any type of sensory sensitivity issues, you will get a headache.

Fortunately, act two calms down considerably and the movie settles in as mediocre popcorn entertainment. The thing Resident Evil: Apocalypse does best is probably lighting, with atmospheric visuals of zombies roaming the streets of Raccoon City. I commend it for a few shot-by-shot adaptations of video game sequences from Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, which were the highlight of the movie. The "Nemesis" character also looks amazing; the special effects team did a tremendous job.

Unfortunately, that's about all the movie gets right from the video game. In the Resident Evil video games, in my opinion no game invokes the feeling of hopelessness more than Resident Evil 3. By comparison, this film is extremely campy and action heavy, featuring big explosions and stunts. The "Nemesis" in this movie feels like a rip off of the Yautja from Predator (1987), refusing to attack unarmed people (why?). There a lot of weird Predator references actually, with thermal vision sequences and a word-for-word rip off of the "We're assets, expendable assets" line from the original Predator.

Regarding the plot, it's nothing special. The movie features a number of Resident Evil gaming characters (principally Carlos and Jill), but they take a back seat to Milla Jovovich's Alice, who spends most of her time doing backflips, using psychic powers(?), and driving motorcycles through church windows (yes, really). Alice is a coldhearted ass in this movie too, bearing little resemblance to how she was portrayed in 2002's Resident Evil. The rest of the characters are extremely shallow; the report is a reporter; the cop is a cop; etc. That's all the film thinks we need to know to care about these people. Spoiler alert, you don't; especially not when there are so many idiot plot moments. My favorite instance of this is when Jill Valentine sends one character to their doom by giving them a handgun they don't know how to use and having them explore a dangerous building.

Finally, I have to touch on the gore - or lack therefore of. Because of similar visuals, I couldn't help but think of 2005's Land of the Dead while watching Resident Evil: Apocalypse. Land of the Dead is extremely gory, and that movie has a carnage filled sequence where soldiers are overwhelmed by the living dead. There is a very similar sequence here, but we don't see a single bite, and it's all shot from medium distance. This movie is maybe slightly gorier than 2002's Resident Evil, but twice nothing is still nothing. I am confident the film could've earned a PG-13 rating with very minor edits.

Overall, Resident Evil: Apocalypse is a frustrating popcorn movie. I never thought I'd say this, but I think it could've been a lot better if Paul W.S. Anderson had directed it. I really wanted to give this movie a 4, but I must concede that despite my laundry list of criticisms, it's not that horrible. It does add a lot of shine to the 2002 Resident Evil movie though; it's a lot better of a film than my 1 star gap indicates. Unfortunately, in 2004 I helped contribute to this film earning $129M against its $45M budget. If somehow read through this needlessly long review, thank you.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004) - 5/10

A ragtag group of survivors work to escape a city overrun with zombies.

Milla Jovovich returns as Alice, who following the events of the previous film awakens in Raccoon City, which has been infected with the T-Virus. Trying to escape the zombie infested city, Alice teams up with a group of survivors including police officer Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory), a civilian (Mike Epps), a news reporter (Sandrine Holt), and a special forces agent (Oded Fehr). Unfortunately for the group, they're also being hunted by the Umbrella Corporation's B.O.W., "Nemesis"...

Resident Evil: Apocalypse was written by Paul W.S. Anderson, and directed by first time director Alexander Witt. Witt, a 2nd unit director on films like Speed (1994) and Gladiator (2000), took over for Anderson due to the latter's commitments to Alien vs. Predator (2004). Unlike the first film, Resident Evil: Apocalypse draws heavily from the video game series, specifically 1999's Resident Evil 3: Nemesis. How does it fare?

Ugh! The first 20 minutes of this movie are Brutal. Why? Horrendous - horrendous - editing. Have you seen Taken 2 (2012), with all of the crazy jump cuts? Apparently, Resident Evil: Apocalypse did it first. The entire film has bad editing and questionable direction, but the opening act is like a music video. If you have any type of sensory sensitivity issues, you will get a headache.

Fortunately, act two calms down considerably and the movie settles in as mediocre popcorn entertainment. The thing Resident Evil: Apocalypse does best is probably lighting, with atmospheric visuals of zombies roaming the streets of Raccoon City. I commend it for a few shot-by-shot adaptations of video game sequences from Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, which were the highlight of the movie. The "Nemesis" character also looks amazing; the special effects team did a tremendous job.

Unfortunately, that's about all the movie gets right from the video game. In the Resident Evil video games, in my opinion no game invokes the feeling of hopelessness more than Resident Evil 3. By comparison, this film is extremely campy and action heavy, featuring big explosions and stunts. The "Nemesis" in this movie feels like a rip off of the Yautja from Predator (1987), refusing to attack unarmed people (why?). There a lot of weird Predator references actually, with thermal vision sequences and a word-for-word rip off of the "We're assets, expendable assets" line from the original Predator.

Regarding the plot, it's nothing special. The movie features a number of Resident Evil gaming characters (principally Carlos and Jill), but they take a back seat to Milla Jovovich's Alice, who spends most of her time doing backflips, using psychic powers(?), and driving motorcycles through church windows (yes, really). Alice is a coldhearted ass in this movie too, bearing little resemblance to how she was portrayed in 2002's Resident Evil. The rest of the characters are extremely shallow; the report is a reporter; the cop is a cop; etc. That's all the film thinks we need to know to care about these people. Spoiler alert, you don't; especially not when there are so many idiot plot moments. My favorite instance of this is when Jill Valentine sends one character to their doom by giving them a handgun they don't know how to use and having them explore a dangerous building.

Finally, I have to touch on the gore - or lack therefore of. Because of similar visuals, I couldn't help but think of 2005's Land of the Dead while watching Resident Evil: Apocalypse. Land of the Dead is extremely gory, and that movie has a carnage filled sequence where soldiers are overwhelmed by the living dead. There is a very similar sequence here, but we don't see a single bite, and it's all shot from medium distance. This movie is maybe slightly gorier than 2002's Resident Evil, but twice nothing is still nothing. I am confident the film could've earned a PG-13 rating with very minor edits.

Overall, Resident Evil: Apocalypse is a frustrating popcorn movie. I never thought I'd say this, but I think it could've been a lot better if Paul W.S. Anderson had directed it. I really wanted to give this movie a 4, but I must concede that despite my laundry list of criticisms, it's not that horrible. It does add a lot of shine to the 2002 Resident Evil movie though; it's a lot better of a film than my 1 star gap indicates. Unfortunately, in 2004 I helped contribute to this film earning $129M against its $45M budget. If somehow read through this needlessly long review, thank you.

Love this! (not the movie, the fact that you're going through the series)

I'm really not watching anything right now, it's great to kind of re-watch some of the stuff I'd really want to be watching (no matter how bad it is) through your comments.

 

[shadow1]

Love this! (not the movie, the fact that you're going through the series)

I'm really not watching anything right now, it's great to kind of re-watch some of the stuff I'd really want to be watching (no matter how bad it is) through your comments.

Same here, I've only watched four movies this year. It's been a long five month burn out and recovery from watching a zillion (29) movies last October.

And sometimes it's easier to dip a toe back in the water with some cheese, hence the Resident Evil series watch...

 

[Osprey]

Thanksgiving (2023) - 3/10

A killer in a Pilgrim mask stalks residents of modern day Plymouth, Massachusetts. This is a formulaic slasher about small town high school students versus a masked killer that feels like a Thanksgiving-themed Scream, but not as fun, despite leaning into dark comedy. The students are all rather uncharismatic and unlikable and the plot is predictable. I correctly deduced the killer very early on (not because I'm that clever, but it's just so obvious) and then had to put up with obvious red herrings for the rest of the movie. The worst part was a major logical issue where the killer appears with the mask on in one scene and then without it in the very next, even though the distance covered should've made it impossible (basically, the ol' "killer in two places at one time" problem). I'm convinced that it wasn't an editing mistake, though, and was actually deliberate in order to make us believe that the character couldn't be the killer... until, surprise, it actually is. I find that so insulting to the audience's intelligence and dropped my score an extra point just for that. If you turn off your brain, you might enjoy the movie, and it seems that most people are a lot more positive than I am, but I really didn't care for it.

 

[shadow1]

Resident Evil: Extinction (2007) - 5/10

During the zombie apocalypse, a group of survivors is hunted by the evil Umbrella Corporation.

Milla Jovovich returns as Alice, who has been wandering the zombie infested wastelands for the last five years looking for a safe haven where the virus hasn't spread to. Meanwhile, a convoy of survivors - led by Claire Redfield (Ali Larter) and featuring returning survivors Carlos Oliveira (Oded Fehr) and L.J. (Mike Epps) - is trying to hold out on the desolate roads of Nevada, scavenging fuel and supplies from small towns. Despite the worldwide infestation, the nefarious Umbrella Corporation is still operational, led by the evil Dr. Isaacs (Iain Gain) and Albert Wesker (Jason O'Mara). Isaacs is trying to domesticate the zombies, and to do so needs Alice's special blood...

Resident Evil: Extinction was written by Paul W.S. Anderson, and directed by Russell Mulcahy. Anderson stated he wanted to create a completely new story for cinemagoers who hadn't played the video games, while also including elements of the games to satisfy that segment of the audience. Does the movie succeed at walking that narrow line?

No, it does not. If you're a fan of the first two movies, Resident Evil: Extinction strays far from the narrative. It is explained in only the vaguest of detail how the T-Virus spread worldwide, as is the fact zombies can now run and jump around like acrobats. Characters that survived the previous film(s) are conspicuously missing, not even mentioned in passing. If you're a fan of the games, the film insults you by trying to cram in Claire Redfield and Albert Wesker in order to remind you that this is supposed to be a Resident Evil movie.

And I have to say, Resident Evil: Apocalypse has to be one of the most pointless movies I've ever seen. The convoy characters don't have an objective they're trying to achieve (aside from survival, of course). They're just looking for fuel and supplies, bouncing between random destinations with no end goal in mind. A subplot pops up towards the end of the movie about them traveling to Alaska, but it goes nowhere and is really just a throwaway scene. As a result, the movie is mostly a series of action sequences strung together, which blurs the lines between acts 1-2-3.

The main plot of the story revolves around Alice, and Isaacs trying to catch her. This narrative makes little sense, considering at the end of the last movie Isaacs let her go...but now he needs to catch her again? (Yeah, I realize in my last review I didn't mention the human antagonists. Trust me, it's better that way). For her part, Alice's personality has changed back closer to what it was in the 2002 film, but her character is completely in superhero form now. She literally has psychic abilities and can down hordes of zombies with knives. It removes any sense of tension or dread when the protagonist is indestructible.

There is also a cloning plot line, as well as a clear Day of the Dead (1985) rip-off plot line with zombies trying to learn how to use cell phones and digital cameras. But I need to emphasize that when I say "plot line", what I really mean is a scene here or a scene there spliced in the middle of the action. 90% of the "story" could've been removed without any significant impact to the overall product.

And that overall product is okay, assuming you're in the mood watch non-stop, mindless action with some gratuitous Jovovich nudity peppered in. The direction is far, far better than its frantic predecessor, and the film clearly has a big budget. There is once again very little gore, and a number of idiot plot moments (one of which is when someone gets bitten, hides it, and somehow survives for days), but that's par for the course in this series. If you want an empty calorie action movie, best watched on a lazy Saturday afternoon or while doing chores around the house, do I have the film for you!

Overall, Resident Evil: Extinction is mindless entertainment. For better or for worse, it is objectively the entry most responsible for steering the series towards action and away from horror. While it is personally not my cup of tea, audiences came out to see it, as it earned $147M against its $45M budget.

 

[shadow1]

Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010) - 5/10

During the zombie apocalypse, a group of survivors works to escape an overrun prison in search of a safe haven.

Milla Jovovich returns as Alice, who is in search of the group of survivors she parted with during the events of Resident Evil: Extinction (2007). Alice locates Claire Redfield (Ali Larter), but the rest of the group is missing and Claire is suffering from amnesia. The two begin tracking broadcasts for a safe haven called "Acadia", but instead land at a prison on the verge of being overrun. Chris Redfield (Wentworth Miller) is amongst the survivors, but his sister Claire can't remember him. As the survivors work to fortify the prison's defenses and escape to Acadia, the nefarious Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts) has a plan for them...

Resident Evil: Afterlife was written and directed by Paul W.S. Anderson. This is Anderson's first time returning to the director's chair since 2002's Resident Evil, and he also married star Milla Jovovich in 2009. After seeing Avatar, Anderson was inspired to film Resident Evil: Afterlife in 3D. How does it fare?

It's a mixed bag. Resident Evil: Afterlife definitely has more plot than predecessor Resident Evil: Extinction (2007), but it's also a movie with an identity crisis. The film opens with a cringy, over-the-top action sequence that lasts nearly 20 minutes and is largely pointless. After that, the film tries to dip its toe back into horror, but isn't successful. This movie tries to tone down Alice's abilities, but she is still invincible and jumping around like a ninja. In addition to that, all tension is lost due to the obvious plot armor she, Chris, and Claire have. The other characters were fitted for their toe tags before filming started.

As the series has gone along, I've found it harder and harder to find any connection with Alice. Her only character trait is being a badass, and her personality has been inconsistent between movies. Resident Evil: Afterlife tries to give Alice a little more depth by having her monologue her journey into a camcorder, but it's hokey at best. The other characters are just as shallow, with Claire's amnesia in particular being highly selective (i.e. she starts to remember recent events but can't remember her brother). I at least liked the recasting of Albert Wesker to Land of the Dead's Shawn Roberts. The portrayal of Wesker was not good in the previous film, and Roberts brings a lot of cheese to the character and gives a relatively game-accurate portrayal.

In addition to Chris Redfield joining the series and Wesker having a bigger role, Resident Evil: Afterlife also crams in elements from video games Resident Evil 4 (2005) and Resident Evil 5 (2009). Specifically, the zombies in this film seem to be infected with the plaga from RE4, for no rhyme or reason other than to tie a few more threads back the video game series these films are supposed to be about.

Add it all up, and the movie is actually a little boring. Its action isn't as good as Extinction (2007), and its story and horror are both downgrades from the first two movies. It's a very watchable film, but the opening and ending action sequences are probably the low points of the series thus far, due to their extreme crappiness and unintentional funniness.

Overall, Resident Evil: Afterlife is a mediocre movie in a series full of them. Even though I have less specific grips with it compared to some of the other sequels, the overall product is a bit worse in my opinion; it barely - barely - ekes out a 5 from me. But what do I know? Resident Evil: Afterlife was a big hit, earning $300M worldwide against its $60M budget.

 

[Winger98]

I don't think we'll ever get a good live action Resident Evil movie. The entire Jovovich series is so far removed from the games and the most recent Welcome to Raccoon City was plagued by trying to cram too much into one movie. Everyone seems to want to make the movies an action flick instead of a slow burning horror movie like it should be, and I'm not sure why. Perhaps the pace of the games is just too slow to re-create in movie form? I'd sign up for a 3 hour Resident Evil movie if it was done right but I'm sure the masses wouldn't.

Resident Evil is a beloved horror series, but when I think of the most popular Resident Evil game it's probably RE:4, which is quite a bit less of a slow horror game and more of a shoot'em up. If I had to guess, this isn't missed by movie studios. Also, action movies seem, in general, to more reliably haul in a ton of money than horror movies. This isn't to say horror movies can't make money, many clearly have, but I think movies that are more action oriented are seen as easier sells. Just my theory, though.

 

[PK Cronin]

Resident Evil is a beloved horror series, but when I think of the most popular Resident Evil game it's probably RE:4, which is quite a bit less of a slow horror game and more of a shoot'em up. If I had to guess, this isn't missed by movie studios. Also, action movies seem, in general, to more reliably haul in a ton of money than horror movies. This isn't to say horror movies can't make money, many clearly have, but I think movies that are more action oriented are seen as easier sells. Just my theory, though.

It's a good one, I just wish they'd start with that story then instead of ruining the original ones.

Also, I hate RE4 so I'm definitely an outlier on that front so I'd probably skip that action movie altogether.