Resident Evil: Extinction

[Bourne101]

http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/all_bets_are_off.jpg

Directed by Russell Mulcahy

Genre: Horror/Action

Tagline: A zombie needs only one thing....The Living

Plot Outline: Years after the Raccoon City disaster, Alice (MILLA JOVOVICH) is on her own knowing that she has become a liability and could endanger those around her is struggling to survive and bring down the Umbrella Corporation lead by the sinister Albert Wesker (JASON O'MARA) and head researcher Dr. Issacs (IAN GLEN). Meanwhile traveling through the Nevada Desert and through the ruins of Las Vegas Carlos Olivera, (ODED FEHR) L.J., (MIKE EPPS) and new survivors K-Mart, (SPENCER LOCKE) Claire Redfield,(ALI LARTER) and Nurse Betty (ASHANTI) must fight to survive extinction against hoards of zombies, killer crows and the most terrifying creatures created as a result of the deadly T-Virus that has killed millions.

Starring: Milla Jovovich, Oded Fehr, Ali Larter and Mike Epps

Rated R for strong horror violence throughout and some nudity.


This actually looks pretty damn entertaining. I enjoyed the first Resident Evil, thought Apocalypse was mediocre, but the trailers and TV spots have showed promise, and I am definitely looking forward to the crows and the return of the lazers! I will see this opening weekend. Might not be a great movie, but it should be good popcorn entertainment.

[KiKrusher99]

Looks as shitty as the previous two, and qute frankly i'vde had enough popcorn "entertainment". I'm ready to go see some grown up movies, so i'll be skipping this.

[fooknasty]

Thought the first one was suprisingly good (8/10) and Apocalypse was bland (5/10), but this looks decent. If this movie can find a happy median between 1 and 2, I will be happy.

[sarah1980]

i'll go see this one since i loved the other two films

kool to see the Highlander director back in action

[foX-]

Once they introduced super powers into the franchise...Jesus help us all...

Nuff said.

[ScaryFreak1827]

I'm actually really excited about this, having loved the 1st two and I can't wait to see Wesker and Claire.

[MidnightAngel]

Please let this be finally the last Resident Evil flick!:mad:

[Cliche Guevara]

At this point it looks like they're just trying to get as many characters from the games into the movies even if it doesn't make any sense.

[IronMonkey]

1st is a 7/10 at best
2nd is a big fat ZERO...TRIED watching it all the way thru for a THIRD time and even made sure I was in a giant cut it slack mode..and still a ZERO/TEN...I aint a genius, but that one seriously insults my popcorn intelligence level

[ilovemovies]

The first one was so-so. But I liked the second one. It worked as a kickass guilty pleasure action flick.

I'll see this movie but I'm still mad as hell that Sienna Guillory/Jill Valentine, who was the best thing about Apocalypse, is not back.

[TeeRay]

Might see it. That requires watching the first two, which I have not. Might have to get the two-pack.

[Superplasmatron]

I loved both, i will love this simple as that. The trailer looks fun.

[shoe1985]

I liked the first one, but the second one was dull.

This one looks interesting though. I usually don't like desert type movies for a setting, but it looks like this one could work.

[I Am Legend]

Looks somewhat interesting, but I think the series would have worked much better as serious zombie films, rather than the sci-fi, video-game-style movies that they are.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by I Am Legend
Looks somewhat interesting, but I think the series would have worked much better as serious zombie films, rather than the sci-fi, video-game-style movies that they are.

Well you are right, but at least the silent hill film was a horror. I watched both res evil films in huge multiplexes and they were amazing fun, but on dvd, unless you have a massive flat screen they not as fun.

[Danger^Cart]

Fuck. This. Ridiculous. Shit.

[psycheoutsteve]

Originally posted by Danger^Cart
Fuck. This. Ridiculous. Shit.

Indeed, the first one was mediocre, the 2nd was pure crap, the third doesn't look any better than the previous 2...But what I hate most is that Paul Anderson somehow got the 1st one to be rated R, but he couldn't do the same thing for Alien vs. Predator? So lame....

[dellamorte dellamore]

Seems as if they " corrected " the real and or perceived deficiencies of the first two and addressed some of the complaints the fans had .


1. Not enough gore - well i always wondered what the hell they were holding back for , with the rating they had , both films could have been pg 13 , they were tame with regards to the level of violence a certain rating affords . In light of what some other films pulled off with an R rating ( namely LOTD ) , it was time for the Res Evil franchise to get it's head out of it's bum in that area , and it certainly looks as if they have . The film is admittedly mildly cartoonish and over the top , but they haven't skimped on the gore aspects , it looks brutal , especially that little clip of some super zoms running rampant . They did their homework and look to have delivered the goods in style .


2 . No Wesker - people have been waiting for an appearance by this much hated ( more like infamous ) but intriguing character , well , he's finally here .


3 . No Tyrant class Mutants - Okay , is Nemesis Tyrant class , i forgot , but even if he is , people complained that he wasn't effective in part 2 , and because he was played by an actor in a bulky suit , he couldn't move like he did in the games , a big reason he was so formidable and intimidating . Looks like they have decided to go Cgi with the Tyrant in this film , and it looks amazing . By the way , i had no problem with the way Nemesis was handled in part 2 , i just wish he used the tentacles , a bit of cgi for that and the movement part could have made him a perfect representation .


4 . Not enough scenes in the Spencer mansion - i agree , the opening of part 1 was a teaser , because not soon after we see Milla awake from her slumber , does the action move to the Hive . Well , they took care of two probs in one , because there is some more mansion action ( flashback ? ) in this one , and it involves the aforementioned Tyrant . I'm hoping for a little surprise , the Hunters , but this is great enough as it is .


5 . No Claire - Another memorable and beloved character finally makes an appearance , although i do agree , i would have loved to have Jill come back for another spin , she was terrific in part 2 .


6. No crows - yessum , they played a minor role in the games , but damn if they weren't so creepy as to be unforgettable . Here they are , and there are a jillion of them . I love this also because i have a soft spot for Zombie 3 , a cheesefest masterpiece by Fulci / Mattei , i always wanted to see zom birds done right after that because they can be menacing if done properly . Here they are , and they look terrific . Yes , there were crows in part 1 , but they weren't of the mutant variety and were scared away in a somewhat throwaway scene that preceded Addison's apprehending of Alice .


7 . No menace to the zoms - Okay , there were brief moments in both films that made me think the zoms were an actual threat , and it's too bad they didn't expand on them . It wasn't just the fact that they were just about relegated to the background , overall , it's because they weren't utilized properly to create an undeniable air of menace . They fixed that problem also , because the zoms seem to have a prominent role in this chapter and they do look like a force to be reckoned with , not simply a mere annoyance . Yes , the utilities tunnel in part one was a brill set piece , and the claustrophobic nature of it lent itself to some thrilling , tense moments , but overall , you never really had the sense they were that much of a threat . This one looks to have got it right .


8 . Not enough of the Res Evil vidgame mythos - They did get some things right , but it seemed somewhat superficial and uninspired , simply bandying around characters names and locations in order to call it Res Evil . This one looks to hit all the right notes , and it doesn't seem artificial , but well thought out , this is a Res Evil universe through and through and doesn't insult the mythology .



I still love the first two films , for different reasons , they both add something to the Res Evil world , but i always felt there was something missing , the director of this latest installment seems to have taken the material seriously and researched all things Res Evil . I don't know if he's a fan of the games , but this sure looks like it was made with a genuine reverence for the Res Evil games and books . It's inherently cheesy , but it's no doubt inspired cheese , there's nothing wrong with that , and i can't wait for this thing , it's going to be a great way to usher in the fall / winter batch of horror films . I'm already anxiously awaiting the rumored 4th film , the one set in Japan .

[ilovemovies]

After watching the trailer now, I have to say it does actually look awesome.

But I'm still very letdown by the fact that Sienna Guillory/Jill Valentine didn't come back. I will miss her greatly. :(

[dellamorte dellamore]

I know no matter what , some people still won't be able to accept the Alice character , i think they have found a way to make her acceptable in this one , and to make her inclusion worthwhile and relevant for once .

[The Poonchy]

as much as the first two basically suck, i still want to see this. anything in a post-apocalypse setting grabs my attention and milla jovovich looks the hottest she ever has :O:O i'm there.

[X-Nightcrawler]

I worship this crappy franchise. Can't bloody wait till next week.

[Cronos]

I loved both Resident Evil flicks, and from the trailer this looks like it'll be just as much fun.

[adamjohnson]

Looks shitty AND they're rehashing gimmicks from the first one. (Laser room anyone?)

[daddiefatsacks]

i thought the first one was awesome and overlooked, but the 2nd one was absolutely shit

[MisterTwister]

I thought the first 2 movies were Fun Fucking Times and this looks the same. I'm seeing it Friday.

[dellamorte dellamore]

I can't see it until the second weekend :( , but i share your enthusiasm and sentiments , like you couldn't tell . For me , this is a terrific series of films , cheesy as hell ( mainly the second one ) , yes , but it's entertainment done the way i like it , and i think the narrative is a bit more complex than it gets credit for . There were some amazing , classic moments in both films , the ending of part one is profound , and i still get chills when i see the Umbrella satellite that ends part 2 , and i'm expecting more of the same from this latest installment . It's sort of becoming legendary , i felt that way once i saw Alice walking through the burning , abandoned streets in part 2 , wearing that hospital robe and carrying that gun . There are so many great moments in both films , fanboy horror geek moments , i love it , and part 3 should have a whole host of them . The clone Alices , the fight with a Tyrant in the mansion , her escape from the hospital with flying robot guards floating around ( phantasm reference ) , the super zom assault , the mutant crows , another showdown with the psycho doctor , man this thing is going to rule something fierce . I'm going to leave a mess in the seat .

I agree , overall , the series is uneven , because different directors were at the helm , but it's not a bad thing to get different creative takes on these films , this one looks like the best so far , this guy knows his horror and he didn't hold back .

[Mr.HyDe807]

I enjoyed the 1st, hated the 2nd, and on the fence for this one.

[Karyant]

When I saw the post I think Resident Evil find Mad Max

[dreamcurls]

never did get into the video game. i didn't like the game play/directionals.
i liked the first film
was not inpressed with the second
now after seeing the trailer for the third i'm interested. looks like it is going back to the same over-the-top action from the first one.
plus I'm a huge Mila Jovovich fan. Oded Fehr and Ali Larter are good too.
i'm there for this one.

[parsonz]

the first one was my favourite but i still like the second one, and with this one i cant see it beating the first one but i bet its still going to be good

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by fooknasty
Thought the first one was suprisingly good (8/10) and Apocalypse was bland (5/10), but this looks decent. If this movie can find a happy median between 1 and 2, I will be happy.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[jbar1026]

whats with the hate for RE2 i liked it more than the first one. someone please tell me why im supossed to hate it or moderately dislike it
RE1 7/10
RE2 7.5/10

i will be at the first showing friday for #3

just saw it and it was good. the best of the three.

RE3 8/10

the only downfall to this movie is its ending imo it lacks conclusion maybe there will be some good extras on the dvd

[Shockwave]

This is going to have to up its game ALOT over the first two shitty movies to get me interested.:(

Even tho im more of a RE fan, i thought the SILENT HILL movie kicked the shit out of the RE movie franchise to date.:)

[veddhead83]

Horse shit from start to finish. The trailer made this look better than the second, but it is just as bad. And yes, there is another Shit Monster!!!!
Someone kick Paul W.S. Anderson in the nuts for fucking this series up...And what is up with Alice being Neo/Jedi Master - it doesn't make any sense...
As bad as The Hills Have Eyes 2 for Worst Movie of 2007!!!

Resident Evil: Extinction - D

[Zissou111]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
I loved both, i will love this simple as that. The trailer looks fun.

And I love desert settings for movies, just something about it...

But I haven't seen the first two...the franchise/genre just doesn't appeal to me, but for some reason the trailer I saw for this one looked descent? I'm in no rush to see any of them though...if it's on satellite one day and i'm really bored...

[smok3h]

Originally posted by daddiefatsacks
i thought the first one was awesome and overlooked, but the 2nd one was absolutely shit

I agree.

I just hate what Paul Anderson has done to the RE universe. The only thing the 2nd one had going for it was that it kind of tied in with the 2nd and 3rd games, but now it seems he has said FUCK YOU to an awesome storyline and universe that you get in the games, and has decided to make up something completely different. And I still hate hate HATE Alice having super human powers. Fucking dumb.

I'm sure I would enjoy these movies more if I wasn't a huge fan of the games.. which seems dumb when you're adapting a movie based on a game.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

I was mostly indifferent with a cool fight or gore shot thrown in here and there, some good desert cinematography and Clouser's score elevate it.

Things I thought while watching this movie...

The female bad-ass fighting monsters was infinitely cooler when Juno did it in The Descent.
The deformed freaks ripping people apart in the dessert was alot cooler in The Hills Have Eyes.
Birds attacking people was alot cooler when Hitchock did it.
A squid-man monster was alot better when Pirates of the Carribean did it.
Grids killing people were cooler in The Cube.

[Country1969]

We are going to see it this weekend.

For the people who did not like the 1st or 2nd movie,you think you wont go and see the 3rd? It doesn't mean you wont like the 3rd one.

Oh yeah, just because you don't like the movie , it doesn't mean it sucks.
I bet there is alot of movies you see that we don't like,but we dont trash them.

[smok3h]

Originally posted by Country1969


Oh yeah, just because you don't like the movie , it doesn't mean it sucks.
I bet there is alot of movies you see that we don't like,but we dont trash them. [/B]
Well really it's all a matter of opinion. If I don't like movie A, and thought it was really bad, I will say it sucked, but that is just what I think. Obviously what I think has nothing to do with how good or bad the movie is or how it is percieved by you. So people are perfectly justified in saying a movie they don't like sucks.

Anyways, I will still see this movie.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Review 4/10 (spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Fuck. Just.....fuck. Now ive seen the previous two, and thought the 1st one was pretty good and the second one pretty much shit (as i stated bluntly in my previous post, nice job repeating yourself hyde). So i was serously debating whether to bother with this. So then, my friends found out there was a midnight showing and wanted to know if i wanted to go, so i decided to since its a thuisday i have no school tomorrow, and its a night out with friends. Also, hell, maybe this one will surprise me! Well, i was wrong, very wrong.

You know what i got? I got the 2nd one, only in a desert, with a few bells and whistles to go along with it. Sure, theres the bird scene, but if you saw it in the clip online already, you basically saw the whole thing, only missing some random shit that Alice does, which is basically what you see at the end of the trailer with the fire in the sky. I got little to no gore, only a few throat slits, blood everywhere but as if soemone took paint and threw it everyhwere and impalings. Jesus, it was almost as dry as the 2nd one! I got an angry zombie who went ape shit because he can use a camera, flip a cell phone, but cant put blocks in a hole (you'll wont beleive it till you see it, trust me). Oh, and revolving shots of the convoy driving and all the characters going to places alone with a gun and flashlight in almost every scene. Good times.....good times.

Oh, and almost all the characters, except probably claire, alice, and Carlos, had "trust me, im fucking dying" on their forehead, but that wasnt a surprise, so whatever. Also some characters (*cough* CJ *cough*) who were fuckign idiots when it came to certain points. Yeah, just dont bother that your bit, nothing bad's gonna happen. Fucking idiot, then at least maybe Carlos, underutilized but still a cool, could've made it. At least he got to go out with a bang (pun intended).

Yeah, and the last fight scene, was the empitamy of anti-climatic. Basically the nemesis fight, but with some cgi and Psychic powers (yeah, psychic powers). Damn, and it looked so fuckign cool in the trailer. Shit.

Now that im done pissing all over this movie, what did i like about it? Well, Seeing Albert Wesker was definitely a cool highlight for me, the action was alright, and the main baddie, although very underultized, was still pretty sweet.

However, although there was these cool quips, it couldnt overcome the shittiness i was seeing on the screen. So in conclusion, if you hated the 2nd one, dont see this. Trust me, its not worth the 10 bucks,the trialer and clips online basically show you almost the whole movie, and you'll probably be very disappointed, i know i was.

[Shockwave]

Bah.

Yet another script that felt like it was written over the course of breakfast.

5/10.

Its slightly better then the second one, but still not as good as the first, which was average at best.:( A few cool scenes save it from total trash.

Full 'review"(more like high-lights and dislikes) coming as soon as i get some sleep in.


I really wish Capcom would just "reboot" the franchise with part 4, same way they did with the games.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by adamjohnson
Looks shitty AND they're rehashing gimmicks from the first one. (Laser room anyone?)


Thats something fetured in the game at least.

[MidnightAngel]

Please let Resident Evil Extinction tank at he box office! :p

[dellamorte dellamore]

It seems like with the increased popularity of the film series comes increased expectations and animosity . That's not to say the criticisms are not valid , but for me , i know beforehand this series is dripping with cheese . The first one was taken seriously , and it had an appropriate , somber , nihilistic , rebellious tone . Then the second one took all that was delightfully silly in the first and ran with it with reckless cheap horror movie abandon , with better effects and more action , and i loved it for that .

I know what to expect , and i wasn't about to take anything too seriously , although i still feel a big corporation attempting to create a master race is a terrific and engaging subtext .


I just want some over the top mutant action in a pseudo resident evil universe . Give me zombies , cerberuses , tyrants , cliched characters who only exist to get killed , some cheesy dialogue , mad scientists , incompetent security soldiers , attractive women , and cliched slack jawed good guys with a bit of comic relief . Oh yes and plenty of action set pieces with a bit of the dangers of Dna manipulation thrown in for good measure .


I'm not expecting an expose on how to survive a zombie outbreak like Zombie Diaries , i'm not expecting a complex narrative , these films are immensely entertaining for me , i can enjoy a film such as this just as much as i can enjoy something intelligent such as Les Fils or some other art house film , you need to mix the cheese with the caviar , for a balanced cinematic diet .


The one thing that i require if you are going to go cheesy , is to show some enthusiasm for the material , it's what i previously called inspired cheese , they know they are creating cheese , and they don't apologize for it , they revel in it and have fun with it , that's all i ask , so i can't wait to see this thing on Sunday , thought i was going to have to wait until next week .


To me this film is critic and opinion proof , i'm going to see it regardless of the general consensus , and i know i'm going to love every minute of it .

[Mr.HyDe807]

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
It seems like with the increased popularity of the film series comes increased expectations and animosity . That's not to say the criticisms are not valid , but for me , i know beforehand this series is dripping with cheese . The first one was taken seriously , and it had an appropriate , somber , nihilistic , rebellious tone . Then the second one took all that was delightfully silly in the first and ran with it with reckless cheap horror movie abandon , with better effects and more action , and i loved it for that .

I know what to expect , and i wasn't about to take anything too seriously , although i still feel a big corporation attempting to create a master race is a terrific and engaging subtext .


I just want some over the top mutant action in a pseudo resident evil universe . Give me zombies , cerberuses , tyrants , cliched characters who only exist to get killed , some cheesy dialogue , mad scientists , incompetent security soldiers , attractive women , and cliched slack jawed good guys with a bit of comic relief . Oh yes and plenty of action set pieces with a bit of the dangers of Dna manipulation thrown in for good measure .


I'm not expecting an expose on how to survive a zombie outbreak like Zombie Diaries , i'm not expecting a complex narrative , these films are immensely entertaining for me , i can enjoy a film such as this just as much as i can enjoy something intelligent such as Les Fils or some other art house film , you need to mix the cheese with the caviar , for a balanced cinematic diet .


The one thing that i require if you are going to go cheesy , is to show some enthusiasm for the material , it's what i previously called inspired cheese , they know they are creating cheese , and they don't apologize for it , they revel in it and have fun with it , that's all i ask , so i can't wait to see this thing on Sunday , thought i was going to have to wait until next week .


To me this film is critic and opinion proof , i'm going to see it regardless of the general consensus , and i know i'm going to love every minute of it .

Alright man, i hope you find something to enjoy that i couldnt. :D

[IanLovesMovies]

Ok I must say that I almost "Really Liked It". The main problem is the ending for me. (Spoiler alert). The movies title is "Extinction". Kind of lead me to believe this is the final in the series, and I was expecting to see a wipe out of the "infection" and slaughtering of all the "Un-dead". We saw none of the above. Not as good as the original in my opinion, but how many sequels/trequels are?? Given it 4 outta 5 just cause I cant give it 3 1/2. I might buy it at the pawn shop one day.

[MisterTwister]

I'm unable to see the movie this weekend so I have to wait 'till next thrusday. Damn, I wanted to see it this weekend. Oh well.

[ilovemovies]

If people are saying that this is more like the second one than the first one then it sounds like I'm going to love this movie since I thought the first one was rather mediocre but I actually dug the second film.


For those that have seen it answer me this: Is Jill's absence explained? Or is it assumed that she's dead? Or is she completely ignored?

[Mr.HyDe807]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
If people are saying that this is more like the second one than the first one then it sounds like I'm going to love this movie since I thought the first one was rather mediocre but I actually dug the second film.


For those that have seen it answer me this: Is Jill's absence explained? Or is it assumed that she's dead? Or is she completely ignored?

For me, it looked like they completely ignore Jill's absence

[jbar1026]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
If people are saying that this is more like the second one than the first one then it sounds like I'm going to love this movie since I thought the first one was rather mediocre but I actually dug the second film.


For those that have seen it answer me this: Is Jill's absence explained? Or is it assumed that she's dead? Or is she completely ignored?

she is ignored! no mention of her at all. and this one is very much like the second one

resident evil 3 was the best of the trilogy 8/10

[visual_tension]

Originally posted by Mr.HyDe807
I got little to no gore, only a few throat slits, blood everywhere but as if soemone took paint and threw it everyhwere and impalings. Jesus, it was almost as dry as the 2nd one!

Huh? You sure you didn't miss the lengthy (and repetitive) fight with the zombies? There was gore and carnage throughout that entire section.


MINOR SPOILERS


As for my take on the film, I thought it was better than I was expecting. From the beginning, I was never a fan of having a Resident Evil movie taking place entirely in the desert. But that didn't end up being much of a problem since the film has some good qualities. Wesker's presence was just awesome. The inclusion of the Tyrant was also surprisingly decent and handled well.

Overall, there's nothing really special here. It's well-made and better than the second film, but not as good as the first for me.

7/10

[Mr.HyDe807]

Originally posted by visual_tension
Huh? You sure you didn't miss the lengthy (and repetitive) fight with the zombies? There was gore and carnage throughout that entire section.




No i didnt, and other than everyones throat getting slit, that was pretty much it.

[visual_tension]

Originally posted by Mr.HyDe807
No i didnt, and other than everyones throat getting slit, that was pretty much it.

There was far more than that.

[chinton]

Cheese is great unless it is boring sd Hell which is what the second one was.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by Mr.HyDe807
No i didnt, and other than everyones throat getting slit, that was pretty much it. The movie was far from being as dry as the second. It's by far the goriest and most violent of the trilogy.

Definitely a very enjoyable movie and a step from the second. I totally hated that there's no mention about Jill or Angela's absense (wtf!), and that the ending doesn't tell me anything about the fate of certain characters (which were fucking pivotal to the plot). Otherwise, I REALLY loved the end, even if that means part 4 is going to be even less like the game.

I also didn't like Alice turning too much into Susan Storm.

[ScaryFreak1827]

Wow I really enjoyed this! From beginning to end I couldn't take my eyes off the screen and, as a huge fan of the games, I LOVED the following additions: Wesker, Claire, Tyrant, crows, Crimson Heads, and also I liked how it alluded to the first film a number of times, bringing the story full circle. It seemed like there was a lot more gore than the second and a bit more plot. I did miss Jill, however, and would've loved mention of Chris but... if there's a fourth maybe they'll show up... All in all a really entertaining film with plenty of action and gore.


9/10

[anakinsrise]

Not as much fun as the first film,but not as bad as the second.
I always love watching Mila Jovovich kick ass and staring into those lovely eyes.Cool action sequences the standout being the zombie crows.It's dissapointing when you see an actor hype up their role in a film on the talk shows and then they barely have 5 lines in the film.
scale of 1-10 a 7

[franky4fingerz]

a piece of shit. the worst in the series. for those of you who have seen it, I have a question. How the fuck did they fit like 200 zombies in the box? Anyfuckingways.
2/10

[jaw2929]

This movie was a steaming, heaping fucking pile of gaddamned shit. Unbelievable how bad it was, so bad in fact, I walked out 45 minutes in.

I just couldn't take it.... The dialogue was some of the worst I've heard in awhile, it was cringe-inducing.... Nearly unbearable to hear.... Plus the "actors" delivery of said shit dialogue made it all the more worse.

I wasn't even trying to make sense of the plot, cuz it was all bullshit.... I was just waiting for some cool "action" scenes, but I was let down.... I think the BEST thing I say about this fucking piece of shit, was that the zombies had good makeup, they looked good.

I guess I was SO let down too, because this movie was like DTV material.... Especially after the last Zombie/Infected movie I watched, which was the fucking PHENOMENAL 28 Weeks Later.... It just doesn't even REMOTELY compare (and nor should they!)

I loved the first and second RE installments, but this was a fucking abortion! I think the 2nd movie's the best in the series, and you might say "well this one was just like the 2nd one, only in a desert" but I disagree, I knew the 2nd one was a bit lame overall to most... And definitely in comparison to the 1st.... But I was the most entertained by it, I thought it kicked ass :p

So fuck RE: Extinction, it's one zombie sequel that will NOT end up being in my DVD library.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Originally posted by visual_tension
There was far more than that.

Alright, if you say so. But, from what i saw, it was dry as fuck. Every violent part had no gory payoff, just red splat everywhere. I think the only gory part was when......

:SPOILER:


The main baddie shot the tenticles through that dude's head.


:END SPOILER:

Even if it was gorier than what i thought it was, it still doesnt change that fact that i thought the movie sucked big time.

[jbar1026]

Originally posted by franky4fingerz
a piece of shit. the worst in the series. for those of you who have seen it, I have a question. How the fuck did they fit like 200 zombies in the box? Anyfuckingways.
2/10 if the box was a 53 feet long and 8 feet wide which is a standard size semi trialer you could easily fit 100 zombies and since they established that there were less than 35 people in the convoy thats almost 3 zombies for every 1 person which would make it seem like there were 200. :) but seriously thats not the reason it got a 2/10 from you is it? what did you rate parts 1 + 2

Originally posted by Trail_Blazer
This movie was a steaming, heaping fucking pile of gaddamned shit. Unbelievable how bad it was, so bad in fact, I walked out 45 minutes in.

I just couldn't take it.... The dialogue was some of the worst I've heard in awhile, it was cringe-inducing.... Nearly unbearable to hear.... Plus the "actors" delivery of said shit dialogue made it all the more worse.

I wasn't even trying to make sense of the plot, cuz it was all bullshit.... I was just waiting for some cool "action" scenes, but I was let down.... I think the BEST thing I say about this fucking piece of shit, was that the zombies had good makeup, they looked good.

I guess I was SO let down too, because this movie was like DTV material.... Especially after the last Zombie/Infected movie I watched, which was the fucking PHENOMENAL 28 Weeks Later.... It just doesn't even REMOTELY compare (and nor should they!)

I loved the first and second RE installments, but this was a fucking abortion! I think the 2nd movie's the best in the series, and you might say "well this one was just like the 2nd one, only in a desert" but I disagree, I knew the 2nd one was a bit lame overall to most... And definitely in comparison to the 1st.... But I was the most entertained by it, I thought it kicked ass

So fuck RE: Extinction, it's one zombie sequel that will NOT end up being in my DVD library.

that was harsh!! im not sure i understand why you disliked this movie i didnt notice any overly bad dialogue or acting. since you said you liked the secound one the best and all the major roles where the same cast in #2 i would think you would have disliked it for the same reasons. and 45 min in has got to be near were the bird attack was the movie imo was just picking up speed.

[Mugroar]

I seriously disliked the movie also. I hesitate to use the word "hate" because I went into the theater with the knowledge that it was going to suck.This wasn't what I was thinking when I went to see RE:2 and discovered what a fucking piece of shit that movie was. Completely a different movie from the first RE movie, which was great because it actually did something with the RE story that added a new spin on it....but it worked.

RE:2 was just a stupid-ass action movie that was...well, stupid. Also pulled us further away from it taking place in the "Resident Evil Universe." All it left intact was Umbrella.

And now we have RE:3, which, while it wasn't the piece of utter shit RE:2 was, it was still really......really......bland.

I'm sorry, but the desert doesn't equal interesting visuals. Unfortunately, about 2/3 of the movie took place in it or in small buildings in the desert, so we're treated to lots and lots of sand. Not good to look at. Then we have our characters - Alice, who is officially a freakin' female Neo by the end of this movie, and the convoy of survivors whose ultimate purpose is to get picked off and literally disappear before the movie's climax. Not that I gave much of a crap, but - what happened to them? Once they're off screen, the movie entirely forgets about them.

The action scenes themselves were either too shaky to see anything (especially the first scene with dogs) or the gore just isn't there. Blood spatters from gun-blasts and slicings are about it. We rarely see any real dismemberment or anything.

And the end - had to be the single most out-of-this-world way to set up the next sequel (and hopefully, the last) for a final showdown. The next movie can't even be called Resident Evil anymore after that end.

Oh yes, and this is the single most PREDICTABLE movie I have ever witnessed in terms of "boo!" scares. 10 minutes in, you'll know exactly when to expect them because the movie sets them up in the same way every single time. Dumbass walks alone into some room or building - music swells up or music stops, and two seconds later - AHH! EVERY TIME.

Overall, the movie was just bland all the way through. Boring desert scenes, unfulfilling action pieces, we are treated to a bunch of characters who either die off quickly or just disappear, and a completely aimless PURPOSE of this movie (so....people are still trying to survive....and Alice is still trying to like, take down Umbrella? Or something? Really riveting. . . .) All in all, it was just really really blah.

[Bourne101]

Going to see it this afternoon. Can't wait for some rip-roaring zombie action!

[franky4fingerz]

re1-6/10
re2-7/10
re3-2/10

[jaw2929]

Originally posted by jbar1026
that was harsh!! im not sure i understand why you disliked this movie i didnt notice any overly bad dialogue or acting. since you said you liked the secound one the best and all the major roles where the same cast in #2 i would think you would have disliked it for the same reasons. and 45 min in has got to be near were the bird attack was the movie imo was just picking up speed.

In the beginning of the movie where the survivors are driving their big rigs/trucks or whatever, and Claire asks Carlos if he's got any smokes and he says something like no "But would I ever let you down Claire?" or something to that effect.... Just the lame delivery and writing was fucking atrocious! It sounded like they were just spewing out their lines from memory, and those lines were so badly written, it just didn't seem like they were humans talking with one another....

Again, I know that the 2nd one had most of the same people, and that it was a complete popcorn action movie (straying completely away from the feel of the 1st movie) but the 2nd one entertained the hell outta me, and it was FUN!

This one was just boring as fucking hell, I didn't give a fuck about anyone in it, or anything that was going on. The setting was extremely shitty, and the "boo scares" were predictable and lame. The cut-away "action" and the blood splatters were fucking horrible, where's the REAL fucking GORE here director? Was this rated PG-13?

I just hated it, and I'm not sorry I walked out.... I doubt I would've liked much of the rest of the flick, sounds like I didn't miss much at all....

[dellamorte dellamore]

I don't know , seems as if , depending on your threshold for on screen violence and gore , you are either going to say there wasn't enough gore or just the right amount . I'm not expecting Land of the Dead levels of the grue , but i would expect , from what i have seen and read , that there is more than the first two films , those could have been pg 13 , and they would have if it wasn't for naked Milla , but the gore was just about non existent in both films .

It seemed as if they took care of that problem in this film , but now some people are saying they haven't , and that the violence is tame . I don't know , that super zombie sequence looked pretty good to me . I know there will be some people who rip the film regardless . I was never expecting a gorefest , it doesn't need it and that's not what these films are about , but i am expecting more gore than the first two .

[Shockwave]

I really hope they just fuck this series completely at this point and reboot it like they did with the games in RE4.

Anderson needs to never write aniother script again. Hes not a bad director, but jeebus, he CANNOT write worth a shit! Give it up already!

This franchise deserves better then this. Hell, horror movies deserve better then this.:(

[Mr.HyDe807]

Originally posted by Shockwave
I really hope they just fuck this series completely at this point and reboot it like they did with the games in RE4.

Anderson needs to never write aniother script again. Hes not a bad director, but jeebus, he CANNOT write worth a shit! Give it up already!

This franchise deserves better then this. Hell, horror movies deserve better then this.:(

Definitely agree

[NuclearMisfit]

Originally posted by Shockwave
I really hope they just fuck this series completely at this point and reboot it like they did with the games in RE4.

Anderson needs to never write aniother script again. Hes not a bad director, but jeebus, he CANNOT write worth a shit! Give it up already!

This franchise deserves better then this. Hell, horror movies deserve better then this.:(

I agree.

Heres what they should do

Never mention Alice ever again

Flesh out the characters and make them more like their video game counterparts

Give someone who can write a fair not quite like the video game but close enough a chance to write and direct

Dont clusterfuck an entire series worth of characters into one movie and dont do them any justice.

[Superplasmatron]

your discussing them like they are proper serious films, there not here just abit of mindless fun, jeez lighten up!

[Nomein]

dellamorte dellamore said everything better than I ever could.

[movieme07]

Pretty good. The Umbrella/Dr. Issacs stuff is a blatant rip-off of Day of the Dead (forget the 28 Days Later haters, this is a fuckin rip-off) but the Tyrant was well done. The convoy stuff was all great and holy shit Ali Larter is brilliant as Claire. The super powers are toned down to the point where I can enjoy them. Not the first one, but definitely not the second one.

7/10

[ilovemovies]

SPOILERS!





Not great, there really isn't much of a plot but fairly enjoyable although I definitely liked RE2 more. In that movie they gave more time for Carlos and LJ and Jill. Here, the only one who gets anything to do is Jovovich. Everyone else, including Ali Larter as Claire, is extremely underused. At least they gave Carlos a sad but cool and somewhat heroic death. But I still really wish he hadn't died. All well. It's a decent, fun popcorn ride. Nothing more, nothing less.

7/10

[Nomein]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
your discussing them like they are proper serious films, there not here just abit of mindless fun, jeez lighten up!

amen.

[Cronos]

SPOILERS

I really liked the first two Resident Evil films (despite Apocalypse's numerous flaws it was very enjoyable) but this just sucked, the acting was mostly shit aside from Ali Larter who sadly didn't get much screen time (Claire was the only decent character to boot). The script had me laughing at its stupidity and things that happened with the plot and what characters did just left me going WHAT THE FUCK, especially during the zombie bird attack. It also left me going what the hell in regards to Alice and the ridiculous powers she seemed to develop between films, is she a fucking cyborg or something, I couldn't tell when they started looking through her eyes then had a satelite "shut her down" followed by her short circuiting it.

Fucking hell this was dumb.

4/10

[dellamorte dellamore]

Uh , thanks for the spoiler warning man . :(

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
Uh , thanks for the spoiler warning man . :(

To be fair, the movies review thread probably isnt the place to keep checking out if your avoiding spoilers D.:)

I really think that the series needs to be get in gear and stop fucking around.

After seeing what can be done with zombies in the DAWN remake, and 28 Days/Weeks Later, Shawn of the Dead, and even the "okay but not great" Land of the Dead, zombie movies have upped the game on this series to a great extent.

Hell, the RE video game series has upped its game to a great extent. (RE 4 rocked hard, and RE 5 looks to continue the ass-kickery!)

This series needs to follow suit. It needs to evolve into something where the best defense someone can muster for it is NOT "awww cmon! Give it a break! Its just a video game movie!":(

[Cronos]

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
Uh , thanks for the spoiler warning man . :(
Fuck, I'm really sorry about that, I copied it from another thread and thought it still had the spoiler tags on there. Didn't mean to spoil anything for anybody, I generally make sure my posts have warnings if there are any spoilers in them :(.

[KcMsterpce]

I give it a 4.5, not quite a 5/10.
Simply because I knew it was stupid, yeah... I knew what to expect going in, of course...

It was better than the second one. Bonus. But it was still pretty terrible.
I haven't written a review yet, though. I will tomorrow or tonight probably.

But if you liked the second one, then this will probably be really fun for those fans. I give the second one a 2/10.

[Bourne101]

Resident Evil: Extinction - 7/10

Resident Evil: Extinction is not a great movie by any means, the plot has gaping holes the size of Pamela Anderson's vagina and the dialouge is pretty damn cheesy, but this movie is one hell of a good time. It isn't quite as good as Resident Evil, but it is much better than Resident Evil: Apocalypse. The intensity is pretty much non-stop, and when the action hits, it hits hard. The Vegas action sequences were fucking insanely crazy and violent. Milla Jovovich is pretty damn badass in this, and she really knows how to whoop some zombie ass. I also have to comment on the jump scares. I usually hate jump scares, because they are usually extremely predictable, annoying and pointless, but I have to admit the jump scares in this movie aren't as predictable as most movies and they actually made me jump. Overall, good, violent, action packed popcorn fun that is enjoyable from start to finish... although the ending was kind of like WTF?

[Duke Nukem]

SPOILERS...SPOILERS...

To those who hated both the first and second "Resident Evil" movies . . . whatever. If you couldn't appreciate at least the first movie, then chances are you won't like this one either. I don't even know why you touched this one.

To those liked the first "Resident Evil" and hated the second one . . . come on. This movie is considerably better than the second one and *almost* right up there with the first. You have to give it some credit.

To those who felt they shook up too much of the foundation of the video games starting with the first movie . . . deal with it. No video game or novel has ever been 100% translated into film. I may be wrong about that, and if so, then maybe only a *few* such sources have been translated successfully. But either way, we do not live in a perfect world. Personally, I never played the video game, and I don't care what they apparently shook up to make these movies possible.

And the third "Resident Evil" itself . . . I thought it made it up for the second one in a number of ways. It felt dark like the first one, and not campy like the second one.

First of all, this movie took its time in the beginning, which I appreciated. After how the second one rushed its way past any plot point and rushed to the next big action scene (only to be shot by a dying child with ADD), it was nice that the filmmakers took the overall story a *little* more seriously. Just like the first one. And thank the heavens that Russell Malcuhy knew how to hold a camera still! After too many movies being infected by ADD directors, this movie was a breath of fresh air.

I liked the way they were going with the cloning of Alice and the re-setup of the mansion, lazer room, etc. What they did with those old settings worked wonders.

For the most part, the desert setting worked for me. Mostly. It feels like they may have blocked themselves into a corner by playing it out in the desert where not too much can happen. There may have been a *little* too much downtime and action. I said before that they took their time in the beginning. Well, they didn't have to take as much time as they did in the middle. They could have fit in another zombie attack.

I will say that the characters came off around one-and-half/two-dimensional. Which is saying *something* with these kinds of movies. The characters didn't have too much to say, but you could kinda see in their performances how they were dealing with the end of the world. After all, there was a good amount of downtime. I will also say that those picking on the script and dialogue are pushing it. It wasn't that bad. Not this time.

What really got my attention was Milla Jovovich. My God, I'm jealous of Paul R.S. Anderson right now (Yeah, I know, such a statement is unheard of...). She is a goddess. I found her perfomance in the first one good and she was good here too (she was obviously annoyed with the direction the second took). But her consistency with all three movies is that she is so gorgeous. Yes, she is pretty and CAN act too! It's amazing how clear her beautiful face sticks out in the dirty old desert when the others look so dirty. I would even say that it appeared that they digitally touched up her face up at times. Not that she would need it. But it was if the special effects guys gave her special treatment. If not, she really must be a goddess.

One thing I really didn't like was L.J. getting infected and not tell anyone. All it led to was Carlos (was his name Carlos?) getting infected later on and sacrificing himself to break the others free. One, it could have went in a better direction if L.J. sacrified himself in the bus during the crow attack scene instead of the woman sacrificing herself. Two, they could have found another way to get whats-his-face/Carlos infected. Better yet, L.J. could have avoided getting infected altogeter and contributed more to the action later on.

Just when the movie felt like it was getting redundant in the desert, the finale at outer lab and climax in the lab saved it. The fight between Alice and mutated bad guy was great. It doesn't bother me now that they made Alice superhuman at the end of the second one. At least I didn't find her powers in here so over-the-top like others did. I liked where they went with that. And I like where they may go in the next movie. I haven't felt this anticipated from cliff-hanger ending in a long time. Not since the first "Resident Evil." They just better not screw it up again.

[joeyzz]

Definitely better than the first two movies. I'm a fan of the video game series, so for me, this one really hit home. This is just what we want in an action/sci-fi/horror flick, and Ms. Jovavich kicked ass! Great direction and lighting. Would've liked to see a bit more of post-apocalyptic Vegas, perhaps inside the casinos. However, for my money, this movie was great!

[veddhead83]

It is as bad as "The Hills Have Eyes 2," which just so happens to be the worst film this year IMO.

[ScaryFreak1827]

It is as bad as "The Hills Have Eyes 2," which just so happens to be the worst film this year IMO.

Definetly not.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Warning , Hyperbole fest . Amazing , thrilling , terrific , unreal , exciting , goose pimple inducing , invigorating , beyond great , epic as hell .


Spoilers




Allright , i got most of that out of the way . This is it shmoes , this is why i go to the movies , i was not let down one bit , in fact this film exceeded my expectations . No joke , i was hooked from the opening frame . Once i heard that remixed theme from the first film , that was it , i was in the world of Res Evil again , and loving every second of it . When you are a fan boy of horror , you constantly imagine what you would love to see in a horror film , with Re 3 i kept on seeing things that , i not only wished were always done , but some things i never imagined . Admittedly , the film is derivative , so what , this is derivativeness as high art . I didn't mind when they referenced Day of the Dead , because i felt it worked to perfection and was consistent with the ongoing narrative of the series . Hell , i even felt sympathy for the " smart " zombie , it worked . Who cares about the homage to the birds , tell me with a straight face that entire sequence wasn't a horror geek wet dream , birds have never been more menacing in a film . And wowzer , the Tyrant , perfection , they have finally brought this badass to the screen the way i always imagined him , it was truly un freakin believable , i felt like the game came to life when he started kicking some ass . Reminds me of Dr Birkin from RE 2 and the whole G virus thing .



Allright , i'll go into more detail later , but i just wanted to throw some stuff out there for now , because i was honestly blown away something fierce by this film . Yes there are some lulls in the action , but it doesn't slow the film down , and these lulls don't deter from the overall entertainment value .



See this thing on the big screen . 28 Weeks , now this a couple months after that one , this zombie / horror loving geek is getting spoiled . Oh yes , that ending , just as good as the first film , i love it . Hmm , this whole Alice character just may be proving her worth after all , because she was one of the best things about this film , so is Dr Isaacs , thwas one of the best things about this film , so is Dr Isaacs , the perfect villian , subtle , but cunning and soulless .

[dellamorte dellamore]

Duke i agree about the cliffhanger , but i'll take it one step further , i was looking forward to the 4th installment , about 5 minutes into this one , and that's not because i was bored , but because i was exhilirated and excited to see where this is going and what Mulcahy had done . This guy took it by the balls and gleefully ran with this cheese , but yes , they took it serious , and that somber tone worked amazingly well . This was an unsettling , depressing , dangerous world , and you felt it .


Oh yeah , whoever played Wesker is profound , that was The live action representation of this character from the games . I don't see how anyone can complain , we got another great zom movie , this thing delivered all kinds of geekgasms , i can't wait to see it again .

[jbar1026]

Warning , Hyperbole fest . Amazing , thrilling , terrific , unreal , exciting , goose pimple inducing , invigorating , beyond great , epic as hell .


Spoilers




Allright , i got most of that out of the way . This is it shmoes , this is why i go to the movies , i was not let down one bit , in fact this film exceeded my expectations . No joke , i was hooked from the opening frame . Once i heard that remixed theme from the first film , that was it , i was in the world of Res Evil again , and loving every second of it . When you are a fan boy of horror , you constantly imagine what you would love to see in a horror film , with Re 3 i kept on seeing things that , i not only wished were always done , but some things i never imagined . Admittedly , the film is derivative , so what , this is derivativeness as high art . I didn't mind when they referenced Day of the Dead , because i felt it worked to perfection and was consistent with the ongoing narrative of the series . Hell , i even felt sympathy for the " smart " zombie , it worked . Who cares about the homage to the birds , tell me with a straight face that entire sequence wasn't a horror geek wet dream , birds have never been more menacing in a film . And wowzer , the Tyrant , perfection , they have finally brought this badass to the screen the way i always imagined him , it was truly un freakin believable , i felt like the game came to life when he started kicking some ass . Reminds me of Dr Birkin from RE 2 and the whole G virus thing .



Allright , i'll go into more detail later , but i just wanted to throw some stuff out there for now , because i was honestly blown away something fierce by this film . Yes there are some lulls in the action , but it doesn't slow the film down , and these lulls don't deter from the overall entertainment value .



See this thing on the big screen . 28 Weeks , now this a couple months after that one , this zombie / horror loving geek is getting spoiled . Oh yes , that ending , just as good as the first film , i love it . Hmm , this whole Alice character just may be proving her worth after all , because she was one of the best things about this film , so is Dr Isaacs , thwas one of the best things about this film , so is Dr Isaacs , the perfect villian , subtle , but cunning and soulless .
you didnt feel like the movie forgot something at the end? i did. and im not talking about the convoy you are just suposed to assume they went to alaska. it just seemed off some how if you know what i mean

[paraue]

Looks cool, I haven't seen it yet but I've heard good and bad about it. Still looking foward to it.

[Nomein]

Duke i agree about the cliffhanger , but i'll take it one step further , i was looking forward to the 4th installment , about 5 minutes into this one , and that's not because i was bored , but because i was exhilirated and excited to see where this is going and what Mulcahy had done . This guy took it by the balls and gleefully ran with this cheese , but yes , they took it serious , and that somber tone worked amazingly well . This was an unsettling , depressing , dangerous world , and you felt it .


Oh yeah , whoever played Wesker is profound , that was The live action representation of this character from the games . I don't see how anyone can complain , we got another great zom movie , this thing delivered all kinds of geekgasms , i can't wait to see it again .


uhm, I like you delamorte, but I disagree with you on Wesker... I think he was probably the worst part of a pretty entertaining film.

[dellamorte dellamore]

I thought he was just as cold and cunning as i imagined him from the games and books , it worked for me , and i really have no complaints about his portrayal . If anything , he was even more effective in a live action setting than he was in the games or cutscenes from the games . As was the " Birkin " tyrant , he was even more menacing than i thought he was going to be . That really was the g virus tyrant from part 2 , in all it's cinematic glory . JV

[Shockwave]

I thought Wesker was kinda lame myself. Most bad-ass dude in the RE universe and they put him in a suit and sit him behind a desk as a chairman.

I mean, he really didnt do anything, good or bad. Same with Claire and Jill from the games. Their only purpose was to stand around and get saved by Alice. Whoopie. Great use.


This series does its best when it stays AWAY from the video game characters since the first movie was pretty much made to stay away from the games anyway. Why use only snippets and names at random?

I dunno, maybe its just the thing i liked about the games was that normal people combat the virus and beat back umbrella, while in the movies everyones zombie food except for super powerd Alice.

For a positive note= The gore wasnt just well done, i thought the make up on the zombies was a giant leap forward for the series. I really dug the the way most of the undead looked. (...except those lame super zombies with the same jump-suits on all of them. Hated those guys!)

[syxxpac]

Oh yeah , whoever played Wesker is profound , that was The live action representation of this character from the games . I don't see how anyone can complain , we got another great zom movie , this thing delivered all kinds of geekgasms , i can't wait to see it again .

I can agree with the tonal success of this movie, being darker and more RE-inclined than ever before ('bout fuckin' time...), but Wesker? Did you see the same dude as me? The cold, clinical dialogue was Weskerian, certainly, but that was about all, and you could attribute it to pretty much every other Umbrella character, too. Isaacs was more of a Wesker-archetype to me than Wesker himself. And I must admit, Iain Glen made the movie work a lot better for me, he's a better actor than this movie deserved.

Anyway, the characters Paul references in these movies AREN'T the characters from the games. He creates hollow "shells" and gives them RE characters' names and looks, but they have no context in this series and are painfully out of place. They're beyond useless, and they just distract me and piss me off, except Carlos. You can call him Wesker, but the Wesker character for me doesn't exist without his mansion exploits, his beating the shit out of Chris, and being the baddest motherfucker with a pair of shades. The movie "Wesker" was a suit. That's it. RE4 Wesker was a suit too, sure, but he had that history I just mentioned behind him.

I'm with Shockwave. This series, after looking at the entire trilogy from start to finish, would've been better served perhaps as a "distant future" take on the RE universe as it exists, instead of trying to rewrite it and mingle its characters. I might have even went along with the entire arc, which conceivably is a good one (an outbreak that they DON'T stop in time that leads to a global outbreak), if it took place about ten or twenty years after the events of RE4, etc. That way, the new Umbrella headed by Wesker (alluded to in RE4) could've dovetailed quite nicely with the role they play in Extinction, with Wesker being a General and the head of the entire thing, it seems. All the other technological stuff (laser corridors, AIs, etc.) would've been better suited to a "2020-ish" setting as well. And Oded WOULD be the right age of Carlos at such a time, if it wanted to follow the game's lead, since he's 21 in RE3. It fits, I don't know why Anderson didn't just do that, I'd have much less ground to complain.

Either way, hindsight is 20/20, and right now it's clear Paul fucked it up, and we need Sony to go back to the game's roots with any further instalments and start from scratch. Batman Begins has gone that route, and RE needs it desperately too. Seriously, enough fucking around with the Night Of The Living Cube Clone Wars ridiculousness - bring in Jill, Chris, the Hunters, Tyrant, Wesker, Barry, Becca and even that big fuckin' snake. Bring back the horror and film it like the NOTLD remake, gritty and realistic, dark and gory with the primary focus on the CHARACTERS instead of the polished "cool" style and action sequences... ... and while I'm at it, get rid of the Kung Fu and Matrix slo-mo crap. It belongs in another movie, not RE.

Now that I think of it, a lot of the above goes to Capcom too when it comes to RE5. Stop turning the series into an action franchise. Anderson isn't the only one guilty with mishandling RE in recent years... But that's a debate for another forum and thread entirely :D

In Loving Memory
Resident Evil
RIP 1996-2002
Gone, But Not Forgotten

[Superplasmatron]

i liked it i dont care about the bastardisation of the games, the games are just as silly as the films in there own way, imagine if they had done it like in the game, everytime mila wanted to leave a buliding she'd have to find a jeweled chess peice or sommin.

[syxxpac]

i liked it i dont care about the bastardisation of the games, the games are just as silly as the films in there own way, imagine if they had done it like in the game, everytime mila wanted to leave a buliding she'd have to find a jeweled chess peice or sommin.

Unfortunately for your (in theory) cleverly conceived parody, I was referring to adapting the story and characters - ya know, those things that actually matter in a movie no matter how many nipples and slo mo shots there are - not the GAME. That would be asinine.

[Nomein]

As an artist, Ill admit that if I want to draw or write something based on something else, my artistic instincts tell me that I would like it more if I changed it and made it my own. In a way I can understand why Anderson wanted to express his ideas too.

Either way, bitching and whining when were on the 3rd financially successful film is kind of dumb.

[syxxpac]

As an artist, Ill admit that if I want to draw or write something based on something else, my artistic instincts tell me that I would like it more if I changed it and made it my own. In a way I can understand why Anderson wanted to express his ideas too.

That's all well and good for someone with ARTISTIC aspirations... but how do you explain Paul Anderson?

Anyway, if one really cared about the source material, they could still be creative and stick to the story that got the series to the dance. Throwing EVERYTHING out the window except superficial elements is the mark of a pure asshole who thinks they're better than they are, and if that's all they wanted to do, then they should've handed the reins to someone else who wanted to see a, ya know, ACTUAL Resident Evil movie.

Either way, bitching and whining when were on the 3rd financially successful film is kind of dumb.

Good thing I don't give a shit about financial success, just creative. And hey, the bitching worked to bring Batman back to his dark roots, hopefully RE can do the same.

[Shockwave]

As an artist, Ill admit that if I want to draw or write something based on something else, my artistic instincts tell me that I would like it more if I changed it and made it my own. In a way I can understand why Anderson wanted to express his ideas too.


Just because u can doesnt mean u should.

In a survival Horror movie thats based on video games where u play a NORMAL PERSON trying to survive, making the main girl super powerd killing machine kinda takes ALL the fright out of things. WHO CARES how many zillllions of zombies she can kill?

Whoopie. Probably why the first DID work the best out of the 3. (..there. I said something nice about it!)

Andersons biggest problem is his use of the video games to keep things afloat. Hell bring in shit like Wesker, Jill, or Claire, or Carlos, and these characters wont do SHIT except stand around and wait to get saved by Alice. (..or in Weskers case, sit in a room.)

Why bother?

His last few scripts have been 1 notch above Uwe Boll territory. AVP is one of the worst movies ive ever seen in my life, and the RE series has struggled to become anything more then average. Most times, not even that. its all just feels like its going thru the motions for a pay-check, but nothing more.

[gspawn]

Just have to mention- somebody noted "no videogame OR novel has ever been perfectly translated". I'd have to disagree with the novel part on account of Shawshank, IMHO. But that's a whole seperate argument.

And also, that sort of misses the point- it's not that videogame movies "loosely interpret" scripts- look at DOOM. All they got right was having people shoot things on Mars- other than that, they screwed up every single other aspect of the story entirely. Similarly, the only place where Resident Evil really relates to the games is that the Umbrella Corp is involved with making zombies... and that's about it. Yeah, there are some omages here and there and sometimes even some straight pulls from the source- but they're generally replaced in spots where they make absolutely no sense or serve no other purpose than to throw in technobabble.

Point is- if they "made some changes" for the sake of the movie, that'd be fine. It's when they rewrite the entire premise (which has been pretty much every single one of them thus far) that a problem arises.

On to RE: Don't plan on seeing it, and there are only two aspects of the film I've cared about at all thus far:
-The preview that ends on the shot of Jovovich's supernipples. :eek:
-Emigrate's movie/music video "My World", from the former guitarist of Rammstein. Very cool vid for a great song.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Was there even a clear and concise narrative in the Res Evil games . Maybe in each individual game , yes , but the narrative threads that connected each one was pretty slim , sort of like they made the first one not knowing how succesful it was going to be , then started to make things up for each successive game to justify a sequel . Personally , following the novels would have made more sense , those went into much more detail and fleshed out the characters more effectively than the cheesy cut scenes from the game did . By the way , one of the novels was entirely about an underground lab in the desert , although the apocalypse hadn't taken shape as of yet , it was about a raid on that lab , and how some Stars team members were trying to escape from it . They had to go through numerous training rooms filled with all manner of mutants such as giant scorpions . I read it awhile ago , so i don't remember who was actually part of the story , i think Leon and Claire , maybe , or even C Redfield . So , on the surface it may have seemed that they went in a whole other direction with the 3rd film , but if anything they were referencing one of the books .



My point is that , yes , maybe they didn't follow the games as closely as some people would have liked , but they no doubt referenced the novels , which had a more effective narrative that you could follow .



I do agree , the Alice character has run her course now , no matter how great she has been , she takes away the tension of having a regular person in danger , although damn if that Tyrant fight wasn't one of the coolest " boss " battles i have ever seen . It's even better than i could have imagined it , that Was the Tyrant come to live , as i have mentioned before , i was stunned and mesmerized when i saw that G Virus Birkin come to life . It was like seeing Alexia , Nemesis , Mr X , and Birkin combined into one take no prisoners Tyrant class mutant , kicking all kinds of ass . For once , a monster seemed like an actual threat , it was surreal , i wanted the thing to go on another 30 minutes . Too bad they couldn't have done something like that in part 2 , wow , that would have been bonkers for sure , even though i did like what they did with the no cgi creation , they pretty much perfected Tyrant in part 3 .



Okay , i digress , i'm more than happy with this series , each one seemed to get better , and worse , in some ways , and maybe Anderson didn't do it the way you wanted , but i have a hard time believing that he didn't do a great job overall bringing the Res Evil world to life , because he did , with the help of two other directors . I guess some people wanted slow and plodding walks through the mansion , giant plants , hunters ( yes i wanted those ) , people wandering around looking for random items to open doors , cheesy cutscenes filled with exposition . Sorry , we didn't get that , the majority of the games is about wandering around aimlessly and backtracking until you find out what to do . Anderson condensed all that and focused mainly on the action elements .



Yes , he could have done more , and in some cases less , but this is Res Evil , no matter what anyone says , and i can't wait for part 4 , i got all giddy when i saw the last few images of part 3 , but yes , it's time for Alice to take a big long break and let the " humans " take over , although even that's in keeping with the wacky world of Res Evil , because didn't Wesker have super powers because of a variation of the virus ? The Hunters also have to make an appearance , that's a must .


With all the nonsense that's out there , all i want is to watch some great horror when i get the chance . I could give a fekk about all these derivative comedies , sappy love stories , self important action films , overblown blockbusters ( save for Pirates :) ) , and all the other garbage that's spewed out every year from the bowels of H wood . Res Evil 3 is a prime example of why i go to the movies , and it delivered big time . I don't go to the movies that often , i wait for specific films , and it was well worth the wait . I won't miss anything if i don't see all the other mainstream offerings , but i would have missed something if i didn't see RE 3 , one of the best horror films of 2007 , right up there with 28 Weeks Later . If you are even remotely interested in this film , go see it before it's out of the theater , you have to see it on the big screen , it's terrific .

[syxxpac]

Was there even a clear and concise narrative in the Res Evil games .

Zero is the only one that didn't fit. It was retconning at its best and worst, depending how you look at it or feel about (I think it's one of the weakest, storywise, along with C:V).

But here's a breakdown - Infection at the mansion. S.T.A.R.S. investigate. They escape and the lab blows, destroying the evidence. They're ridiculed by the media and go underground to investigate, alienated from their peers. Jill stays in town to investigate Birkin's lab while the rest travel to Europe to case the main HQ. Umbrella has enough with Birkin's secrecy and sends goons to snuff him out. They fail, he spills the T-Virus in the battle, and the city is infected in a week. Jill is trapped in the city and has to fight her way out when Umbrella sends a big bad mammajamma called Nemesis after her. Leon and Claire arrive in town. Mr. X is jettisoned to get the G-Virus sample that Umbrella's salvage team didn't get from Birkin. Leon and Claire escape the underground lab after killing the mutated Birkin. Jill escapes with Carlos of Umbrella's mercenary squad and the city is firebombed from above (Outbreak; nuked in RE3... I'll go with firebombing).

THE END. How can someone NOT make a good trilogy from that material?

I guess some people wanted slow and plodding walks through the mansion , giant plants , hunters ( yes i wanted those ) , people wandering around looking for random items to open doors , cheesy cutscenes filled with exposition . Sorry , we didn't get that , the majority of the games is about wandering around aimlessly and backtracking until you find out what to do . Anderson condensed all that and focused mainly on the action elements .

Before I go on, check this out and tell me what you think, because I think it'll answer any questions about my comments I'll detail below, better than I ever could in here:

Click me, I'm a screenplay, I want to be reeeeeeead! (http://www.geocities.com/albertwesker4prez/Biohazard1.doc)

Anyway... *sigh* Needless to say, I really, REALLY hate the above argument at this point, because after doing some experimenting of my own, it holds absolutely no water anymore. My argument has never BEEN to adapt the "games" ie. have the movie be about puzzles and running around back and forth for an hour straight. I've said it before, I'll say it again - that's asinine. It's obviously not cinematic. Just take the STORY (I can't stress this part enough, it seems), condense it, and add character and plot to serve a filmic vision, where appropriate. That's it. Adapting the story means you adapt the STORY, and if someone can't do that, then they shouldn't be on the job. If Paul loved the series so much, it shouldn't have pained him so much to adapt it as is, and develop the characters he "loved" as human beings and the take the story beyond what the games ever offered.

But then, I forgot, all he cares about is having the freedom to KILL characters, not develop them. You ever notice how body count seems to be the only thing he's concerned with? He was always gushing about AVP casting unknowns because "I can kill any one of them at any time, OMG!". Well, guess what? It doesn't lend his movies any suspense, and being a shallow body count whore just took away any chance of identifying with characters to care about. It cheapens the whole experience to hinge your story on "unpredictability" and boo scares, since we can TELL who's gonna bite it well before it happens anyway, if not exactly the when. The when is the only thing a creative horror filmmaker can use to elicit real surprise, and even in cases where unpredictability works (28 Weeks Later, The Descent), we can still pinpoint in those movies who's PROBABLY gonna die or who's gonna make it to the end of the movie, at least, so again, it's not the what, it's the when. The "When" is just blurred even more, since the characters in those movies are more vested in emotionally than Anderson would ever care to with his own creations... except for Carlos. Good chap, him. Then again, it was Oded's work that got me on his side, hardly the character on paper.

The nature of a survival horror movie automatically means people are gonna die, so trying to keep it a "surprise" is really quite stupid, and insulting to my intelligence, since I've seen all the archetypes in these movies, I KNOW who has the best and worst chances. It doesn't matter to me. Anderson doesn't understand this. That's why I say it doesn't MATTER if the games are adapted and we know Jill and Chris are gonna survive. Big deal. We know the main virginal heroine is gonna survive and most supporting characters are gonna be stabbed to death in the average slasher, does that take away any "surprise" as to how things turn out? No. Not if the filmmaker is doing their job. The story is what matters, not body count. The sooner he learns this and stops building his stories around the death scenes instead of the other way around, I might give him respect.

The man is the antithesis of Hitchcock's suspense theory, opting for momentary "SURPRISE OMG!" to "suspense". I don't even think he knows what it really is. Oh well.

because didn't Wesker have super powers because of a variation of the virus ?

Yeah, but he wasn't the hero. He was the VILLAIN. Dr. Isaacs was the much more appropriate idea of this scenario from the films, I'll admit, but Alice was still boring as fuck. Then again, they haven't explained what the hell is up with Wesker, but we'll have a better idea once Umbrella Chronicles comes out.

[Lost in Space]

The story is what matters, not body count. The sooner he learns this and stops building his stories around the death scenes instead of the other way around, I might give him respect.

I could not agree more amigo.

[Shockwave]

Well said syyxpac. Great post.

[X-Nightcrawler]

But here's a breakdown - Infection at the mansion. S.T.A.R.S. investigate. They escape and the lab blows, destroying the evidence. They're ridiculed by the media and go underground to investigate, alienated from their peers. Jill stays in town to investigate Birkin's lab while the rest travel to Europe to case the main HQ. Umbrella has enough with Birkin's secrecy and sends goons to snuff him out. They fail, he spills the T-Virus in the battle, and the city is infected in a week. Jill is trapped in the city and has to fight her way out when Umbrella sends a big bad mammajamma called Nemesis after her. Leon and Claire arrive in town. Mr. X is jettisoned to get the G-Virus sample that Umbrella's salvage team didn't get from Birkin. Leon and Claire escape the underground lab after killing the mutated Birkin. Jill escapes with Carlos of Umbrella's mercenary squad and the city is firebombed from above (Outbreak; nuked in RE3... I'll go with firebombing).
Ah.

Awesome. I need to get that story straight again.

[Tagia_Romero]

Then again, they haven't explained what the hell is up with Wesker, but we'll have a better idea once Umbrella Chronicles comes out.

Methinks he was simply put there for fanservice much like Pyramid Head in 'Silent Hill' was, just so the fans can jump up and down and squeal "ZOMG! Wesker! h00rj!".

[Shockwave]

Methinks he was simply put there for fanservice much like Pyramid Head in 'Silent Hill' was, just so the fans can jump up and down and squeal "ZOMG! Wesker! h00rj!".


Yeah, but at least Pyamid Head kicked some hippy ass in the SILENT HILL movie(..the church step scene was one of the coolest parts of that movie!), we didnt get shit from Wesker in the RE movie.:D

[Tagia_Romero]

Yeah, but at least Pyamid Head kicked some hippy ass in the SILENT HILL movie(..the church step scene was one of the coolest parts of that movie!), we didnt get shit from Wesker in the RE movie.:D

You got it. Because Anderson figured a man with blonde hair and shades would cut it. Did it?

No. :p

[FatSakHead]

I never thought they'd be able to outdo the crappiness that is the 2nd movie, but by God I was proven wrong. This movie is a fucking turd.

Resident Evil 7/10
Resident Evil Apocalypse 4/10
Resident Evil Extinction 3/10

[Badbird]

You people are acting like the Resident Evil games are freaking Shakespeare.

Anyway. You know why the first movie worked so well? Because it kept everything simple. The second and third got way too big and epic and way too bizarro sci-fi.

This was easily better than part 2, but nowhere near as good as part one. I was a little surprised by how many people got killed off. And the score was excellent. I hope it gets released.

[FatSakHead]

You people are acting like the Resident Evil games are freaking Shakespeare.

Anyway. You know why the first movie worked so well? Because it kept everything simple. The second and third got way too big and epic and way too bizarro sci-fi.

This was easily better than part 2, but nowhere near as good as part one. I was a little surprised by how many people got killed off. And the score was excellent. I hope it gets released.

Ugh, not the damn "It's not supposed to be Citizin Kane/Godfather/Shakespeare" argument again.

Nobody here is shitting on the movie because it isn't highbrow Oscar material. People are shitting on it because it's really just bad.

And IMO the score was annoying and repetitive.

[Superplasmatron]

At least it wasn't the bullshit yawn fest that was tranformers.

[Superplasmatron]

the new games set in the desert like this one. I hope if the make res 4 film the merchants in it

[Shockwave]

the new games set in the desert like this one. I hope if the make res 4 film the merchants in it


Those merchants are the most bad-ass character in video game history.


I dont think the new game is set in the desert however. If im not mistaken, i think its in Africa?

[X-Nightcrawler]

Those merchants are the most bad-ass character in video game history.


I dont think the new game is set in the desert however. If im not mistaken, i think its in Africa?

I think they revealed it's Haiti.

[X-Nightcrawler]

You got it. Because Anderson figured a man with blonde hair and shades would cut it. Did it?

No. :p
He wears shades in the dark indoors. teh wtf lmao

At least Pyramid Head did do some pwnzdage.

[JackassFan]

5/10

Entertaining at times, but with little in the way of plot and story it was never really going to be anything special.

[Badbird]

Ugh, not the damn "It's not supposed to be Citizin Kane/Godfather/Shakespeare" argument again.

Nobody here is shitting on the movie because it isn't highbrow Oscar material. People are shitting on it because it's really just bad.

That's not the argument I'm making. I'm saying the source material is weak. It's one thing if a well regarded and beloved work of fiction was adapted beyond recognition, like Tom Sawyer or some shit. But this is Resident Evil. You fight zombies. That's it.

[syxxpac]

That's not the argument I'm making. I'm saying the source material is weak. It's one thing if a well regarded and beloved work of fiction was adapted beyond recognition, like Tom Sawyer or some shit. But this is Resident Evil. You fight zombies. That's it.

Yeah, and you can say that about all of Romero's movies as well, and DOTD '04, and the 28 Days Later movies, and Shaun Of The Dead... but it wouldn't be the whole truth, would it? I suppose if you want to overlook everything else they have to offer in condemnation of the zombie genre, but I choose not to.

Anyway, the games in their cheesy execution OF the story is weak? Sure. I'll be the first to say it needs a lot of work. But it doesn't really matter, Perry's books do a much better job of defining characters and giving depth to an interesting, layered mythology than the games ever did, and even though the books themselves need a lot of work as well to weed out the superfluous crap (continuity is a BIG problem in the novels), the material is out there to build upon without having to change everything like an overzealous ass. But that goes back to what I illustrated before - basing the idea of a movie on the notion that one HAS to consider the cheesy dialogue and the laborious puzzles as part of the filmmaking process is downright, well, stupid, IMO. The prospect is making a MOVIE - you take out the mindless shit and you concentrate on characters and story, not a big screen video game, which is the huge mistake people except Chris Gans it seems keep making, and why "video game movies" will never move forward creatively. Nobody has any vision beyond "more guns, more gore and more tits, dude!", and I guess my bitterness when it comes to RE isn't necessarily all because the movies were mediocre, but that RE was the film world's chance to set a standard for video games as serious sources to adapt, instead of basically giving in to all the expectations that snobby film critics expected - cardboard characters, mindless arcade action with accompanying "cool" rock score, a "level 1-level 2-level 3" plot, etc., when RE had the potential to prove everybody wrong. The fact the critics were proved RIGHT chaps my ass more than any shitty movie could, in this case.

And even if one disagrees with the above argument, the simple fact is with the first three games at least, when RE was still horror-oriented, there's no double-fisted John Woo gun-blazing, cartoonish villains with aspirations of world domination, Kung Fu, rock music blaring in the background, and any number of bullshit non-RE elements we've been "treated to" by Paul Anderson since '02. As it stands, I think the only movie out there that looks, feels, sounds and moves like an authentic Resident Evil movie in every way except the premise of Umbrella and a T-Virus... is the Night Of The Living Dead 1990 remake. That's about it. So whatever you think of THAT movie, is essentially what you really think of a Resident Evil movie, the way I see it. I personally love the movie, though I know a lot don't. What say everyone else?

Oh, and don't think I'm letting Capcom off the hook, like they're innocent angels here. They started losing their shit in 2000 before Anderson even GOT to the series. C:V was Fucked. Up. Capital F. You can pretty much pinpoint RE losing its horror identity with that game and feeding the Anderson Fire, but I digress.

*sigh* I'm an angry man. Can you tell? :p

[Shockwave]

..any else like how 50000 zombies couldnt get past the shitty chain link fence gaurding the Umbrella base in this one?:D

[Superplasmatron]

I like the film, its good harmless fun, the games stories are very very silly, especially code veronnica and res 4, would you like a squeky voiced aristrocrat in a res film?

[dellamorte dellamore]

I don't think you get where i'm coming from , i agree , this series could have went in a different direction , and it could have utilized the premise of the games to greater effect , and that the Alice character was a mistake , well , once she became superhuman . I agrre with you that the suspense level is fairly nonexistent ( there was suspense in part 1 , but after that , nothing at all really ) .

With all that in mind , what i'm trying to say is , so what , change the name of these films , and you no doubt wouldn't be so harsh on them . Yes , it wasn't how you wanted them to be , but to me these films are cheese infested , silly , over the top classics of the horror / sci fi genre . I don't care if the references to the games are most times superficial , it's not like the games had this deep subtext to begin with .


I was surprised by the first film , it took the mythos in directions i never expected , and it's still an excellent film . In my opinion , with part one , Anderson created his own little Re world , and expanded on the universe we know from the games . I look at it as an alternative Re world , a compliment to the games , not some literal adaptation . Sure he could have adhered to the spirit and essence of the games more closely , but what's wrong with some creative freedom .


I also think there are more references to the games than you give the films credit for , and they aren't all superficial . The focus was on the Umbrella corp from part one , they were always the main nemesis pulling the strings in the background , trying to manipulate everything , trying to preserve their position of power . Yes , the zombies were a thrill , especially dispatching them with a colt revolver or shotgun , but that's shortsighted , they were always just pawns in a grander scheme . I love what Anderson did , he put the Umbrella corp front and center as the main villain , because they are / were until CV .


To me , that was a gutsy move ( focusing on the Umb. corp as the villian ) , and because of that , the Re films are not just another zom film , the zombies are a residual effect of the experiments being conducted by Umbrella scientists , not the main focus . It's tragic , the zombies were essentially victims , not some mindless , shambling corpses like they are in the games . Anderson gave them a personality and never let us forget , they weren't exactly monsters who are just used for target practice like they are in the games , they were once people who befell tragic circumstances because of an all powerful corporation who will do anything to attain and maintain power .


There is subtext there , and it's refreshing that the movies have a human side that the games barely conveyed . When you play the games , and you are surrounded by zombies or mutants , you just blow everything away or run , in the films , because of the premise that has been established , it's not simply an adrenaline rush , or mindless use of firepower , for the most part . The people have to survive , no doubt , but i was always thinking , both the living and the living dead are both victims , the only difference is , the living dead are victimized twice because of the machinations of the corporation .



Sure , this is cheese , but to me it's inspired cheese that is more complex and thought provoking than people give it credit for . In between all the flash is a narrative thread that deals with the issues of isolation , innocence , loss of innocence , megalomania , the dangers of dna manipulation , trust , scientific arrogance , all powerful conglomerates , loss , and maybe even immortality .



I love these films , if you can look slightly below the surface , you'll be rewarded , these films are relevant to our times , and even though they could have done something different , i still think these films are terrific . I know , they are derivative , but they also can stand on their two feet , and all three have added something to the zombie genre . It's definitely time for number 4 , although they should def kill off Alice in the beginning :) .

[syxxpac]

With all that in mind , what i'm trying to say is , so what , change the name of these films , and you no doubt wouldn't be so harsh on them . Yes , it wasn't how you wanted them to be , but to me these films are cheese infested , silly , over the top classics of the horror / sci fi genre . I don't care if the references to the games are most times superficial , it's not like the games had this deep subtext to begin with .

You're right on that, I would've liked it better. As for subtext... Scientists playing God, and it happened to be in small town America, which is part of the games' atmosphere. You didn't get that? It's the same in the movies conceptually, but I found everything way too futuristic and sci-fi that took away from the gritty realism and restraint shown in the way the games set the horror. It was darker and a harsher environment, it didn't feel polished. The laser chamber, the talking AI, all the holographics and CG maps and shit, it just rubbed me the wrong way. Hell, the games have fucking TYPEWRITERS, and while I don't ask for anything that ancient in a movie to get the point across, there ya go :p

I was surprised by the first film , it took the mythos in directions i never expected , and it's still an excellent film . In my opinion , with part one , Anderson created his own little Re world , and expanded on the universe we know from the games . I look at it as an alternative Re world , a compliment to the games , not some literal adaptation . Sure he could have adhered to the spirit and essence of the games more closely , but what's wrong with some creative freedom .

Theoretically, creative freedom can be a good thing, I just think the douchebag squandered it, by the simple fact he ISN'T creative.

But as a compromise, do you agree it would've been better for everybody had the films taken place about ten or fifteen years into the future beyond C:V or RE4, when Wesker's Umbrella Corporation is controlling everything (coinciding with his role in Extinction)? I would've been cool with that, no matter how the movies turned out, at least it's in the same universe and not touching the original games. The arc itself isn't bad - underground infection, city infection, then global infection - but it's the idiotic, superficial tie-ins to the games as they are (Jill, Carlos and Wesker were mannequins to say robotic dialogue and/or get saved by Alice, yaaaaaay), like they're actually part of THAT story is just insulting.

I also think there are more references to the games than you give the films credit for , and they aren't all superficial . The focus was on the Umbrella corp from part one , they were always the main nemesis pulling the strings in the background , trying to manipulate everything , trying to preserve their position of power . Yes , the zombies were a thrill , especially dispatching them with a colt revolver or shotgun , but that's shortsighted , they were always just pawns in a grander scheme . I love what Anderson did , he put the Umbrella corp front and center as the main villain , because they are / were until CV .

I prefer the Umbrella representatives (Nicholai, Wesker, Irons, etc.) to including the entire machinations of Umbrella itself on the inside. C:V started doing this with Alfred, and like Roy just pointed out, he was a giggling idiot, it destroyed that scary, all-encompassing, shadowy faceless facade that Umbrella I just prefer to remain. It makes the story more personal to deal with the agents instead of the company itself, like Wesker holding Barry's family "hostage", manipulating him to betray his friends, etc., or Nicholai serial killing the other supervisors messing up the works for Jill and Carlos... Irons going crazy and threatening to rape and skin Claire alive in his little torture chamber... all of that stuff is a lot more conducive to a horror movie to me than Pinky & The Brain Inc. of the movies.

"What are we gonna do tomorrow night, General Wesker!"
"Same thing we do every night, Pinky... try and take over the WORLD!"

To me , that was a gutsy move ( focusing on the Umb. corp as the villian ) , and because of that , the Re films are not just another zom film , the zombies are a residual effect of the experiments being conducted by Umbrella scientists , not the main focus . It's tragic , the zombies were essentially victims , not some mindless , shambling corpses like they are in the games . Anderson gave them a personality and never let us forget , they weren't exactly monsters who are just used for target practice like they are in the games , they were once people who befell tragic circumstances because of an all powerful corporation who will do anything to attain and maintain power .

While the zombies were a focus in the games, that was mostly in the gameplay department. In the story, it was always about the experimentation rather than ONE single monster. Birkin wasn't just a boss, he was a tragic, obsessive sociopath who decided to mete out justice with his creation instead of laying down to die. The mutants in the games that the movies didn't bother translating are another facet to that, not just mutated with the virus, but cross-breeded as well, which makes the whole a little more horrific than mere "infection" the movies opted for, I think. I mean... what the fuck ARE the Hunters, right? They're like... men... and... iguanas, and... FROGS? :p

There is subtext there , and it's refreshing that the movies have a human side that the games barely conveyed . When you play the games , and you are surrounded by zombies or mutants , you just blow everything away or run , in the films , because of the premise that has been established , it's not simply an adrenaline rush , or mindless use of firepower , for the most part . The people have to survive , no doubt , but i was always thinking , both the living and the living dead are both victims , the only difference is , the living dead are victimized twice because of the machinations of the corporation .

As for the former, it may be partially true for the games, which are about the atmosphere and immersion for a player by themselves, not the story and characters front and centre, so they do tend to suffer. But the cutscenes help, and the novels deliver more humanity than the movies ever did when they actually explored characters' tics, motivations, etc. and at least explored them a little bit beyond the "main character". I just don't think we're meant to give a real shit about anyone other than Alice in the movies, and I don't even have that.

And like I've said before, the games/books are not high art character-driven masterpieces, but there's no Kung Fu, rock music, overly futuristic elements or over the top stunts, and the characters are developed and infused with enough humanity to match at least your average Romero zombie pic, so I guess I'll always prefer the games/novels (despite being separate canon, I've come to consider them almost one in the same, at least when it comes to the characters).

Sure , this is cheese , but to me it's inspired cheese that is more complex and thought provoking than people give it credit for . In between all the flash is a narrative thread that deals with the issues of isolation , innocence , loss of innocence , megalomania , the dangers of dna manipulation , trust , scientific arrogance , all powerful conglomerates , loss , and maybe even immortality .

And how was any of that lacking in the material to begin with? I don't get it. It was all there, it just didn't turn the whole thing into a Schwarzenegger pic on the side.

We didn't need a whole new scenario to get all that stuff across, which is all perfectly sound. The novels just did it better.

I love these films , if you can look slightly below the surface , you'll be rewarded , these films are relevant to our times , and even though they could have done something different , i still think these films are terrific . I know , they are derivative , but they also can stand on their two feet , and all three have added something to the zombie genre . It's definitely time for number 4 , although they should def kill off Alice in the beginning :) .

Well, the movies are about going to the ones you enjoy, and kicking back and having a great time, and since you did, there's nothing wrong with that, it's what we're all here for.

I just gave my two cents, hopefully I didn't come across as attacking anybody in any way... ... except Paul Anderson. That was of the purest intention, but even that was all in good fun...

...

Whaaaaaat? It was!

Anyway, I just prefer Batman Begins to Batman & Robin, as it were, and hopefully RE can be remade in much the same way in the near future.

[Shockwave]

######################SPOILERS!###################








The way the story is going, I think itd be a cool to focus instead on a normal Alice clone in the next movie, rather then the super powerd queen herself.

..or make the original die early on. (..even better!) This way they can still have the same actress, but the series can maybe regain its "survival horror" roots.

In a survival horror movie, it sucks all sense of fear away when the main character is the strongest thing on the planet.:)

[dellamorte dellamore]

I never thought you were attacking me , i know you're just frustrated at the way the series was handled . All i'm saying is , it's done , no reason to get so worked up over it , and if you can forget about the things you felt they did wrong , even just for a moment , you just may enjoy yourself with these films , even on accident . Okay , that's not happening , but you get the point . I don't think even Romero himself would have fleshed out the characters anymore , but he would stayed closer to the original game . Even he , though , according to his script , wanted to focus on the evils of the Umbrella corp , and not just make it another zombie movie .


Yeah, alright , they could have used a bit more detail with regards to the mutants and how they were not only infected , but in some cases had mixed Dna from different species , but to me , that's a minor fault . Then again , if i remember correctly , it was established in the first one , that the licker would mutate after ingesting someone else's dna , so they did touch on that aspect of the experiments they were conducting .


About the futuristic tone . Okay , you seem to feel it's not as creepy or unsettling as a modern day , down and dirty environment . For me , it worked , and was even more effective than if they set this world in the present day . Why , because i thought it was an effective contrast . The sterile , formal , cold , distant , futuristic environment and the experiments they were doing on Dna which is an ancient element of all life . The primal meets the future and fuse into one big cluster freak . Those controlled environments where they would conduct their experiments , and the personality of the people working for the umbrella corp , for me , was unsettling . No , not in a haunted mansion type of way , well , yes , in a futuristic haunted mansion type of way . Not your usual creeky door , cobweb version , but in an basically all white , seemingly sterile and peaceful environment . But there was horror to be found in those labs and compounds , although they seemed , on the surface , to be safe and controlled , it was an illusion , and that's what was so scary about it . I'll never forget that enduring image towards the end of the first film . Alice waking up in a white room , where they were experimenting on her . To me , it's like a character waking up in a dingy basement , the isolation , the fear of the unknown , it was all the more effective because of the setting .



About Alice though , yes , it's time for her to say her farewell . She served her purpose , and i'm not complaining , but it's time to get some real people in there lol .


ps - I loved CV , even if i agree they went over the top with that version , for my money , the first 3 are still the best . You can even put the remake for the gamecube on that list also . The series was never the same after part 3 . The best is part 2 though , that really captured the magic of the games . Who can forget that amazing intro cutscene of Leon Kennedy confronting the zombie threat for the first time ?

[Superplasmatron]

I never thought you were attacking me , i know you're just frustrated at the way the series was handled . All i'm saying is , it's done , no reason to get so worked up over it , and if you can forget about the things you felt they did wrong , even just for a moment , you just may enjoy yourself with these films , even on accident . Okay , that's not happening , but you get the point . I don't think even Romero himself would have fleshed out the characters anymore , but he would stayed closer to the original game . Even he , though , according to his script , wanted to focus on the evils of the Umbrella corp , and not just make it another zombie movie .


Yeah, alright , they could have used a bit more detail with regards to the mutants and how they were not only infected , but in some cases had mixed Dna from different species , but to me , that's a minor fault . Then again , if i remember correctly , it was established in the first one , that the licker would mutate after ingesting someone else's dna , so they did touch on that aspect of the experiments they were conducting .


About the futuristic tone . Okay , you seem to feel it's not as creepy or unsettling as a modern day , down and dirty environment . For me , it worked , and was even more effective than if they set this world in the present day . Why , because i thought it was an effective contrast . The sterile , formal , cold , distant , futuristic environment and the experiments they were doing on Dna which is an ancient element of all life . The primal meets the future and fuse into one big cluster freak . Those controlled environments where they would conduct their experiments , and the personality of the people working for the umbrella corp , for me , was unsettling . No , not in a haunted mansion type of way , well , yes , in a futuristic haunted mansion type of way . Not your usual creeky door , cobweb version , but in an basically all white , seemingly sterile and peaceful environment . But there was horror to be found in those labs and compounds , although they seemed , on the surface , to be safe and controlled , it was an illusion , and that's what was so scary about it . I'll never forget that enduring image towards the end of the first film . Alice waking up in a white room , where they were experimenting on her . To me , it's like a character waking up in a dingy basement , the isolation , the fear of the unknown , it was all the more effective because of the setting .



About Alice though , yes , it's time for her to say her farewell . She served her purpose , and i'm not complaining , but it's time to get some real people in there lol .


ps - I loved CV , even if i agree they went over the top with that version , for my money , the first 3 are still the best . You can even put the remake for the gamecube on that list also . The series was never the same after part 3 . The best is part 2 though , that really captured the magic of the games . Who can forget that amazing intro cutscene of Leon Kennedy confronting the zombie threat for the first time ?

code veronica is my favorite, I think the films are fun, and there is no way that a film could be like the game, I also think the story's of the games are very silly and no way they could make good films. Res evils are great games but no way are they a sacred cow. Also why the hell would you want a film that was the same as the game we have the games for that.

[Shockwave]

Also why the hell would you want a film that was the same as the game we have the games for that.

For me, its the same reason i want a book to be adapted faithfully.

Also, as been stated, change is FINE, if not preferred, its that the changes made have sucked BAD so far.:(

[syxxpac]

Yeah, I pretty much covered all the reasons from my personal belief in my previous posts, I'm too lazy to reiterate. But one thing I didn't really touch on, that I think bears mention, is the fact that in the first three games, if one recalls, since the story IS based around the player's interactivity and not telling a singularly focused story, it tends to leave a lot open to interpretation and the storyline isn't what I'd call "set in stone". In RE1 alone, there are scenarios where, if you don't act quickly, Rebecca gets killed by a Hunter, or Richard will die without the serum for the poison, but if you do give it to him on time, he'll come back to save your ass in the fight with the giant snake. There are a lot of other examples, and then there's RE2, which offers four separate storyline possibilities, Ada surviving/dying, etc. etc. the list goes on.

That kind of flexibility ought to lend itself well to someone who wants to adapt the series and do their own thing at the same time, since people don't seem to realize that aside from the books, there IS no set story in stone for how things will play out. When I wrote my own RE trilogy, while I followed the general layout of the novels as a blueprint, I added enough new stuff that I didn't feel restricted in what I could do, even though I was really timid at first with it, as anybody who read the first, primitive versions a couple years ago can certainly attest. I stuck TOO close to the games, and sometimes adapted elements that just didn't work. But anyway, back to my point, I don't even get to the mansion in the story until about page 45. Up till then, I had fun developing the characters beyond what was offered in the games or books, since I WAS writing a movie, not writing a thin video game premise.

Also, I hear about this issue of predictability in how characters survive or die, etc. and while that holds water for most characters, certainly, in my RE1 script, for example, Wesker dies. That's it. Since I stop after RE3, there IS no return for him, he's dead and buried, which IS a change, but it's in line with the games. See what I mean? Ada, too, dies in my RE2 script, for certain. She doesn't show up at the end like she does in the game, so there's another change, and might come as a surprise to those RE fans who anticipate her survival to show up for RE4. Nicholai as well gets ripped in half by Nemesis and that's that, he doesn't live to tell his tale in that RE: Gun Survivor file that suggests he survived the destruction of Raccoon... Then again, it doesn't really matter to me personally if I know someone's gonna die, like I've mentioned before. I pretty much peg most characters as "Dead Person Walking" or "Survivor" right off the bat, so that's not a big concern of mine as a viewer. Maybe that's where the disconnect is with me and people not quite that cynical yet :p

Just thought I'd mention. I don't think following the games necessarily cuts off creative freedom, to tell the truth. I had plenty of fun with it, the multiple branching stories gives plenty of opportunity for creativity.

[Superplasmatron]

For me, its the same reason i want a book to be adapted faithfully.

Also, as been stated, change is FINE, if not preferred, its that the changes made have sucked BAD so far.:(


Well I don't think games are comparable to novels, I also think the scripts of res evil especially 1 and 2 were very silly and also very badly acted, But I do not love them any less. But thats just me huh?

[Shockwave]

Well I don't think games are comparable to novels, I also think the scripts of res evil especially 1 and 2 were very silly and also very badly acted, But I do not love them any less. But thats just me huh?

Fair enough. I love alot of "stupid fun" movies as well.:D

That being said, i just wish this series wasnt made into "so bad its good" movies. There really is so much rich history with the series to make something good out of.(..many things in fact..)

To me, there has yet to be a true RE movie anyway. These movies borrow random bits and characters from the games, but thats about it. Its just random barrowing with other shit thrown in.

[Superplasmatron]

I would love a film that was based closely to the games, it would be very surreal, have many strange aristocrat's, amazing old mansions getting the shit blown out of them, lots of underground labs and giant mutant reptiles and and insects, but what's most lacking from the films is the horror, the films are not even horror films, Alice is an indestructible mutant too, why? But after the first one I gave up on them being anywhere near a true reflection of the games, and I can't help but like the films, despite myself.

[KCJ506]

For me being a game fan and also enjoying the movies I'm able to spilt them into this simple idea. {The movies are not the games}. For me (some might agree and others might not) the idea of making a movie based of a video game and making it "JUST LIKE THE GAMES" destroys the fun of the games. Why do I as a gamer want to see something I already know is gonna happen. Give me something fresh that can fit in the context of the original source media. The funny thing is that most people that I have read posts on claim that MK was a better game to movie because it had the game characters in it. Well that is a nice theory but look at the 2 games. MK was nothing more than a fighting game, rather difficult to not have the game characters in it yes? Now look at RE where if anyone has played them knows that often there are other survivors running around or there are people that we DON'T know about and can maybe get some kind of exposure into their world as they see it instead of adding in Chris and the gang into the mix and possible screwing with the canon of the original media. Much like RE 2 had done.

Imagine that the RE movie a axact adaptation of RE1, no surprise! All they can do is change the style of action. Even if they managed to throw in new characters it's obvious their deaths will be iminent. Barry, Chris, Jill, Rebecca, Wesker and Brad live, the end...

Now if the first RE movie was a side story or took place during or before RE1, it could be a side story about Alice battling Umbrella laced with interactions with the RE game characters and doesn't have to take place exactly when the games did, but in between or something. We all know that the RE heroes have faced the undead more than in some kind of form since RE1 even though we only see so in the games.

Besides if a Resident Evil movie was made from the correct source material and faithful to the games, I'm sure people would still have a lot to complain about no matter what. People will still hate the movie. There's no way to stop it.

[FatSakHead]

Paul Anderson's "You'll know what will happen if I make a loyal adaptation!!" is an idiotic defense. Maybe Peter Jackson should have given Frodo a completely different name and made him a kick flipping martial arts export and made Saruman an evil computer generated hologram when adapting Lord of the Rings. That would have sat real well with LOTR fans. Maybe Sam Raimi should have given Peter Parker a different name and the Spiderman suit should have been silver, and completely came up with his own villains.

This argument doesn't work, because some of the best movies ever made were adapted from books where the readers would know everything that was going to happen. I mean, sure you can argue that in every adaptation some things are changed here and there but most of the time a successful adaptation stays mostly close to the source material. If the original story isn't good enough for your holier-than-thou tastes, why the fuck is the point in you trying to take it to the big screen?

Paul Anderson is a shitty director and a worse screenwriter. His last decent movie was Mortal Kombat and even that suffers with age.

[Derek237]

I saw this yesterday. I hadn't seen Resident Evil: Apocalypse, so I was a little lost...but then again, I guess it doesn't really matter. With a title like "Exctinction," I expected this to be some kind of post-apocalyptic (naturally), epic climax, but what it turns out to be is merely just another silly chapter in a silly series. Yeah, some of the action scenes where cool, and personally, I do think that Milla Jovovich makes for an awesome action star, but this movie just doesn't have much to offer at all. It goes no where and leaves you with that stupid "there will be more" feeling. It might as well be a TV series.

[syxxpac]

For me (some might agree and others might not) the idea of making a movie based of a video game and making it "JUST LIKE THE GAMES" destroys the fun of the games. Why do I as a gamer want to see something I already know is gonna happen.

Just like the adaptations of Dracula destroyed the fun of the book? Yeah, totally. What an INSULT to me as a reader, I'm tellin' ya.

Give me something fresh that can fit in the context of the original source media.

Yeah, I wish the movies did, but they don't. So it's irrelevant. Plus, Anderson is such a ripoff artist and an underwriter of his characters, so it doesn't really matter if it's fresh, because it's still ultimately stale in OTHER, more important ways... ... like as a MOVIE.

Now look at RE where if anyone has played them knows that often there are other survivors running around or there are people that we DON'T know about and can maybe get some kind of exposure into their world as they see it instead of adding in Chris and the gang into the mix and possible screwing with the canon of the original media. Much like RE 2 had done.

So basically, Apocalypse renders your entire argument here moot. Anderson shot himself in the foot by backtracking when it was already too late.

Imagine that the RE movie a axact adaptation of RE1, no surprise! All they can do is change the style of action. Even if they managed to throw in new characters it's obvious their deaths will be iminent. Barry, Chris, Jill, Rebecca, Wesker and Brad live, the end...

Like that's any different to the imminent deaths of all the new characters in the movies who all but have "Kill Me, I'm Stock" written on their foreheads? Again, if it comes to developing familiar characters beyond what they showed in the games/novels and delivering "fresh" victims who are defined solely by their mini-skirts, bad accents and stone cold stares... again, I'll take the former.

Besides, like I illustrated before, "surprise" is overrated. Give me "suspense" any day of the week. If it comes down to me seeing Jill, whom I know survives, evading a Hunter in a dank underground tunnel like the game in an extended, nailbiting stalk sequence where you don't know WHEN the creature is gonna pop out at you, to the end of Extinction with its Clone War bullshit that I admittedly didn't see coming... I'll take the Hunter every time.

Besides if a Resident Evil movie was made from the correct source material and faithful to the games, I'm sure people would still have a lot to complain about no matter what. People will still hate the movie. There's no way to stop it.

Yeah there is - get a writer who isn't a complete cocker. A good director wouldn't hurt, but I do dig Anderson's style when he's on his game, so to speak (I still love MK, Event Horizon, and can appreciate RE1 for what it is), and Mulcahy did a good job with what he was given to work with. But the writer is important, first and foremost.

[Shockwave]

I havent minded any of the directing in RE 1,2, or 3. its the writing thats killing.

I even think Anderson is a pretty good director when he isnt writing the movies. He sucks balls at writing and has to know it by know.:confused:

Event Horizen and Mortal Kombat are the only two movies Anderson has been involved in that i dig, in no small part due to the fact that he didnt write them.

They need to ditch the Alice character and make it about NORMAL HUMANS TRYING TO SURVIVE A SUPER HUMAN THREAT.(..and the people dont completely suck ass like in the RE movies so far.

Give me the bad-ass Jill from the games. The one that defeated Nemisis without having super-powers and relying on Alice to do EVERYTHING.)

[KCJ506]

Yeah there is - get a writer who isn't a complete cocker. A good director wouldn't hurt, but I do dig Anderson's style when he's on his game, so to speak (I still love MK, Event Horizon, and can appreciate RE1 for what it is), and Mulcahy did a good job with what he was given to work with. But the writer is important, first and foremost.

Trust me man, no matter who the director or writer is people will still complain. You can't please everyone.

Fans would probably be just as pissed off if the characters they knew were misrepresented. Equally I don't think there's much point in putting out a film in which the events are the same as a 10 year old game. Some films work fine if you already know what happens, Lord of The Rings for example people were waiting to see *how* they were going to do it, but I don't think it'd be the same for a suspense/horror based game.

The problem with making films based on games like Resident Evil, Silent Hill or Doom is another example, is that the games mostly feature a character wandering around on their own, occasionally bumping into the odd character featured in one or two scenes. I can't imagine this making a particularly interesting film. So the writers would generally have a choice of rewriting the games story to make it watchable as a film, or freeing themselves from those constraints and start over whilst paying homage to the games.

Many joke to the game fans about if you made a movie completely based on the game, then you would have nothing more than a character going from room to room, putting items in a magic teleporting box, which would make it a bad joke. So what game fans have to realize is when adapting a game to a movie, there has to be changes, it's just unavoidable. Video Games and movies are two completely different things. But at the same time, I can see the gamers point of view where they said they want the movies to follow the same storyline even with the changes.

One of the things I think Silent Hill did badly is it assumed too much that people knew about the games and didn't explain things, and those that had played them complained that things weren't represented correctly (i.e. Pyramid Head for both).

[Shockwave]

One of the things I think Silent Hill did badly is it assumed too much that people knew about the games and didn't explain things, and those that had played them complained that things weren't represented correctly (i.e. Pyramid Head for both).

Really? I hadnt really gotten into any fo the SILENT HILL games, and i fucking LOVED the movie. 9/10.

I thought it worked on every level. It actualy made me a fan of the games.

Even without playing the RE games ont he other hand, id still say the RE movies have been shit zombie films so far.

28 Days Weeks Later, Shaun of the Dead, Dawn of the Dead 04, Planet Terror, and even the weaker(but still good) Land of the Dead all blow the RE film series away.

The genre has evolved, and even in game form, its continued to kick ass. People can say what they want, but RE1, 2, 3, CV, AND RE4(notive i left out RE-0) all kicked ass with thier plots and intense moments of normal people survival abnormal horrors.

It just takes effort. Something the films have lacked so far. Id love to see what someone with actual talent and a knack for writing could do with this series. It just might even be scary.:)

[X-Nightcrawler]

One of the things I think Silent Hill did badly is it assumed too much that people knew about the games and didn't explain things, and those that had played them complained that things weren't represented correctly (i.e. Pyramid Head for both).Yargh why is this a problem?

"Mulholland Drive" didn't explain SHIT! It explained much less than "Silent Hill" (oh that's right, nerds, I went there) but people still masturbate to it. Not only that, nothing in the SH movie is derived from the games; it's its own mythology, characters and plots. It only resembles the setup of the first. I got it on my first go, granted I'm a fan of the games, but there's nothing of the games in there, only small similarities (like, oh, look they burnt Alessa; the repercussions of this is a completely different thing).

"Silent Hill" and "Resident Evil" movies are exactly like that, none of them -currently- pretends to be set in the same universe of the movies, they just pick out names and change the characters around. Check out Dahlia. The character in the movie doesn't resemble in ANY WAY, not visually or otherwise, the Dahlia from the games (hell, Dahlia from the games was a villain). It's just the same name. Damn, they even went as far as making another Dahlia-like character who actually does look like game Dahlia in almost every way and called her "Christabella".

I don't get it. Why can I live with this, adore both the game series and the movie, considering how much I worship the games, while 80% of RE fans can't stand seeing some bitch called Claire Redfield who has nothing to do with RE2's Claire?

I think it's the mood. Or something, since that's the one thing Gans ripped directly from the games.

But yeah, fans will always find reasons to complain. When the movie was released, it was hilarious reading many of the series' fans complaining about Pyramid Head not being of the same symbolic meaning as in SH2, and even some funnier ones ("That's not how the siren sounds!" or my favorite, "Since when is Pyramid Head ripped? Huh?").

A lot of people would've bitched and ranted if the RE movie had been the one written and directed by George Romero (oh who, remember, directed those lame as fuck RE2 commercials which were 10 times worse than any of the current RE movies), I guarantee that. If "Silent Hill" didn't get away with it, neither would "Resident Evil".

[KCJ506]

Okay I left something out in that Silent Hill part. I was typing so fast and I wasn't paying enough attention.

Originally Posted by KCJ506
One of the things I read that people think Silent Hill did badly is it assumed too much that people knew about the games and didn't explain things, and those that had played them complained that things weren't represented correctly (i.e. Pyramid Head for both).

That's what I meant to put. It isn't what I think about it's what I've being reading on other boards. I thought Silent Hill was okay. I wasn't suprised nor really bothered with some changes they made. Like not having Harry as the main character.

About Claire in RE:E, I did like Larter's performance but I do think the lack of screentime really hurt her character. It would have been nice of she had mentioned Chris at least once.

[Superplasmatron]

Yargh why is this a problem?

"Mulholland Drive" didn't explain SHIT! It explained much less than "Silent Hill" (oh that's right, nerds, I went there) but people still masturbate to it.


Your trying to achieve what by this statement?

[Shockwave]

About Claire in RE:E, I did like Larter's performance but I do think the lack of screentime really hurt her character. It would have been nice of she had mentioned Chris at least once.

I wouldve like to see her do SOMETHING,thats for sure. That character was a total waste. Couldve been anybody.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Your trying to achieve what by this statement?

. . . why can some movies get away with "incoherent" and not others?

If you're referring to "nerds", I'm joking. Not trying to offend anyone.

[gspawn]

Why can I live with this [...]
I think it's the mood. Or something, since that's the one thing Gans ripped directly from the games.
That's the sort of point people should be able to respect. Personally, I disagree, but at least there's some notion of relation to source material going on there. And that's what's really horrible to most game>movie naysayers- Hollywood f***s it up. They aren't the same characters in anything but name and maybe costume if they're lucky. It's not the same story, except for a few names and maybe costumes if you're lucky. It's not the same setting, it's not the same mood, it's not even always the same time period.... and so on and so forth.

Let's say someone was making Oliver Twist into a movie. Only Oliver Twist was played by Vin Diesel. The story is set in a postapolyptic future where all mankind struggles for food. Vin Diesel jams a shotgun under the chin of a Food Storage Repository Captain (FS-RC) and coldly says, "Excuse me, Sir, but GIVE ME SOME MORE!!!" and blows his head off.

Think of why people would dislike that as a movie that's just called "Oliver Twist" that's just supposed to be the novel made into a movie, according to the directors, only they took some "artistic liberties" because they felt certain aspects of the novel wouldn't work in a movie.

That's exactly what's happening with most videogame movies, and it's an argument about Hollywood pissing on source material, not about what does and does not work in movie form from videogames. THAT's the real issue.

Would some of the Resident Evil games have worked as pretty direct ports? Yes. Did the movie really need to throw in Ali Larter as a character who could only possibly be related to the games in any way because her character happened to be named the same as someone from the games? Probably not.

[Superplasmatron]

http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/streetfighter.jpg

[Superplasmatron]

Let's say someone was making Oliver Twist into a movie. Only Oliver Twist was played by Vin Diesel. The story is set in a postapolyptic future where all mankind struggles for food. Vin Diesel jams a shotgun under the chin of a Food Storage Repository Captain (FS-RC) and coldly says, "Excuse me, Sir, but GIVE ME SOME MORE!!!" and blows his head off.



Sorry but that's genius, I would love to see this film!

[syxxpac]

http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/streetfighter.jpg

Street Fighter didn't have a story. Resident Evil DOES. Street Fighter is a cartoon-style fighting game. Resident Evil is a survival horror game.

...

Hmm... I don't get your point. Are you actually trying to compare proverbial apples and oranges, or are you just saying Street Fighter blew with no real point other than to SAY it blows? Because yes, it did indeed blow. Hoover City. I agree, sir.

[dellamorte dellamore]

No man , we're talking Orek level with regards to Street Fighter .

[X-Nightcrawler]

Just a broad question, to keep this alive.

Does anyone really think that a 'faithful' adaptation of RE1 (now that we're clear that "Silent Hill" wasn't as faithful as everyone assumed), moods, characters, plots, etc, would have been more of a success than the current adaptations?

I don't think so. Average moviegoers (you know 95% of the people who'd give the movie its gross) would've been bored out of their minds. Zombie movies don't have a right to be as boring, contained, paced and dull as the first "Resident Evil". Now, that's not an insult, but original RE was hardly a very exciting experience unless you were playing it.

But that's the thing, people don't play it when they watch the movie.

And something as, I'm going to say it . . . here it goes- dumb, as RE1, I don't think has the priviledge of taking its time. Much less considering the fact that society has a serious stigma regarding videogames, it'd be laughed at ("Silent Hill" is the case in point; no one wants a slow paced movie based on a videogame! Videogames are silly, boys).

No one takes zombie movies seriously, which is why 28 Weeks/Days are such groundbreakers. They're smart zombie movies (please, no one bother going "Uh, excuse me *snorts* but they're not zombies, they're just infected with a *snort**asthma* rage virus *pushes glasses up nose*.). "Resident Evil" isn't.

And there's not a worse torture than watching a stupid movie with a tired concept (holy shit, evil enterprises? Secret experiments leading to disasters? coverups?) taking itself very seriously and being as slow, uneventful and repetitive as a faithful adaptation of the first game would be once filmed. Look at a majority's reaction to the "Silent Hill" movie.

Which is why watching a stupid movie with a tired concept but having fun with itself, having hot nakedness, girls with guns and badass action setups is a delight, and a success. Screen Gems sure as hell chose wisely where to take the games, and if anyone says "Nu-huh", just check out the money they made from the three movies. There's no denying they took the right choice. Who gives a crap about the fans.

And yes, I know the beef is widely with Paul Anderson saying he's a fan and is adapting them faithfully or whatever the hell, but you can't blame the man for 1, doing his job; and 2, wanting the movie to lure more people in. Even if he has to *dramatic closeup* bend the truth and lie to fans!

And before someone goes "Yeah, well . . . the movie's script could've still been good!", then yeah, well, the games' script could've still been good. But alas.

. . . RE bashing exagerated to make point. Though I mean every word.

RE2 and 3 aren't that far away from the movies in terms of mood, so I'm putting those aside. And I won't even go to stuff like CV or RE4, which is even more EXTREEME than the movies.

[ScaryFreak1827]

Just a broad question, to keep this alive.

Does anyone really think that a 'faithful' adaptation of RE1 (now that we're clear that "Silent Hill" wasn't as faithful as everyone assumed), moods, characters, plots, etc, would have been more of a success than the current adaptations?

I don't think so. Average moviegoers (you know 95% of the people who'd give the movie its gross) would've been bored out of their minds. Zombie movies don't have a right to be as boring, contained, paced and dull as the first "Resident Evil". Now, that's not an insult, but original RE was hardly a very exciting experience unless you were playing it.

But that's the thing, people don't play it when they watch the movie.

And something as, I'm going to say it . . . here it goes- dumb, as RE1, I don't think has the priviledge of taking its time. Much less considering the fact that society has a serious stigma regarding videogames, it'd be laughed at ("Silent Hill" is the case in point; no one wants a slow paced movie based on a videogame! Videogames are silly, boys).

No one takes zombie movies seriously, which is why 28 Weeks/Days are such groundbreakers. They're smart zombie movies (please, no one bother going "Uh, excuse me *snorts* but they're not zombies, they're just infected with a *snort**asthma* rage virus *pushes glasses up nose*.). "Resident Evil" isn't.

And there's not a worse torture than watching a stupid movie with a tired concept (holy shit, evil enterprises? Secret experiments leading to disasters? coverups?) taking itself very seriously and being as slow, uneventful and repetitive as a faithful adaptation of the first game would be once filmed. Look at a majority's reaction to the "Silent Hill" movie.

Which is why watching a stupid movie with a tired concept but having fun with itself, having hot nakedness, girls with guns and badass action setups is a delight, and a success. Screen Gems sure as hell chose wisely where to take the games, and if anyone says "Nu-huh", just check out the money they made from the three movies. There's no denying they took the right choice. Who gives a crap about the fans.

And yes, I know the beef is widely with Paul Anderson saying he's a fan and is adapting them faithfully or whatever the hell, but you can't blame the man for 1, doing his job; and 2, wanting the movie to lure more people in. Even if he has to *dramatic closeup* bend the truth and lie to fans!

And before someone goes "Yeah, well . . . the movie's script could've still been good!", then yeah, well, the games' script could've still been good. But alas.

. . . RE bashing exagerated to make point. Though I mean every word.

RE2 and 3 aren't that far away from the movies in terms of mood, so I'm putting those aside. And I won't even go to stuff like CV or RE4, which is even more EXTREEME than the movies.


You bring up a really good point and I completely agree. As much as I love the games (been a HUGE fan since RE1 on PS) they probably wouldn't translate exactly well to film. Sure they could get bits and pieces across but the pacing might be off (like many complain about Silent Hill) and it might only cater to the fans (and not audiences expecting a fast-paced thrill ride like the recent zombie films). RE 1-3 (the movies) may not have the best writing/dialogue but at least they're entertaining and retain the 'spirit' of the games. The more upbeat/action-packed tone may not resemble the darker more depressing tone of the games as much but it still works. I can almost guarantee that a different adaptation of the games would've still gotten a lot criticism by fans (Chris doesn't shoot with a crossbow, Nemesis doesn't move like that, Jill in Levis???). The 2 mediums just need to be separated for each to be truly enjoyed.

[Tagia_Romero]

Just a broad question, to keep this alive.

Does anyone really think that a 'faithful' adaptation of RE1 (now that we're clear that "Silent Hill" wasn't as faithful as everyone assumed), moods, characters, plots, etc, would have been more of a success than the current adaptations?

I don't think so.

I have never played any of the games and have only read the books by personal choice, but...

I believe they would, provided that they are done right. What so many people need to realize that any character, from book, comic, graphic novel, videogame, whatever was not a movie in the first place still has characters, and those characters are the ones that you live through for the duration of the character's journey. It just so happens that while a few circumstances in the games are ludicrous, it's true strengths lie in a few solid characters. Not all of them are well-rounded or well-realized, but the few that are are the ones that you care about.

Don't you like Leon Kennedy yourself, X? Why do you like him? What makes him a great character in your eyes?

Now how would Anderson translate such a character in HIS mythos? He doesn't even concentrate on the characters really. They are window dressing, and truly, do you CARE what becomes of them?

Look at how he translated Jill in 'Apocalypse'; she needed bloody ALICE to save her all the time. Where was the survivor that fought her way through Raccoon City in the games and the books? Where was the truly self-sufficient strong female protagonist who relied on her wits rather than gung-ho courage? Let's face it, the only thing that mirrored the character in Apocalypse was the scanty outfit and the character movements; that's all, really. Sure she did wonders for the head between your legs, but did the head on your shoulders care for her well-being or for her as a human character?

I wouldn't believe so.

[X-Nightcrawler]

I'm going to assume the novels don't exist for this, because . . . they have nothing to do with the point. Someone could write right now a "Mario Bros" novel and make Mario the most dimensional, human and relatable character in the history of literature (not that Perry's novels did that), but that wouldn't mean all that dimension was in the game before the novel was written.

Don't you like Leon Kennedy yourself, X? Why do you like him? What makes him a great character in your eyes?

Now how would Anderson translate such a character in HIS mythos? He doesn't even concentrate on the characters really. They are window dressing, and truly, do you CARE what becomes of them?
Oh I love Leon. I love Leon and most of the RE gang.

But not because he's exactly a very developed character. I like Leon because I remember goign "Dude, this dude kicks ass" when playing RE2, and RE4 Leon is pretty cool too. The RE series don't have dimensional characters on any level. None at all. They don't even pretend to. I've said this, discussed it, haven't found my mind changed.

Mainly because the games aren't meant to be like, say, MGS or Xenosaga, where there are billions of hours of cutscenes that develop the characters. 90% of game time in a RE game is you playing, there are very few cutscenes, and characters aren't developed while I move them around and shoot zombies. They're developed through cutscenes (which is why Xenosaga, Xenogears, Metal Gear Solid has very dimensional characters).

Yes, the movies could have developed characters while being exactly like the games, I'm sure, but that goes back to my original point. They'd only please fans. People looking for zombie fun would yawn their way through the movie. I can almost guarantee it. The plot is just flat-out not smart enough for that. It's not because videogames can't have developed characters, it's just that RE has never had them.


Now how would Anderson translate such a character in HIS mythos? He doesn't even concentrate on the characters really. They are window dressing, and truly, do you CARE what becomes of them?I personally do. Not because the characters are very dimensional (though Alice is great and grows a lot), but because they're so fun to watch and they're likable. Sure, the characters in RE, the little we get to know of them, are likable too, but that's as far as they go. I'm not holding RE movies as anything smarter than the games, I?m just saying they're clever enough to embrace their sillyness and let me have fun with it. The only reason why the RE games are fun is because they're interactive. If Xenosaga wasn't interactive, it'd be just as great. No one plays RE looking for an involving plot and dimensional characters (let's face it, the plotting of those games is atrocious, especially after "Nemesis". Retcons, plotholes, loose ends, plot threads that go nowhere, unanswered questions, characters whose fates we never find out, etc), they play them to be scared and solve puzzles and shoot shit. It's not the same with "Xenogears".


ook at how he translated Jill in 'Apocalypse'; she needed bloody ALICE to save her all the time. Where was the survivor that fought her way through Raccoon City in the games and the books? Where was the truly self-sufficient strong female protagonist who relied on her wits rather than gung-ho courage? Let's face it, the only thing that mirrored the character in Apocalypse was the scanty outfit and the character movements; that's all, really. Sure she did wonders for the head between your legs, but did the head on your shoulders care for her well-being or for her as a human character?

I wouldn't believe so. Yes, and look at Dahlia in the Silent Hill movie.

But that just brings me to my original point. It shouldn't matter if this Jill isn't the same Jill we saw in RE3. It's another character. Just like Dahlia is a COMPLETELY different character in SH1 and the movie. I understand fans getting pissed that their favorite characters got 'degraded' into that, but, honestly, it's just not the same character. It's someone else with the same name. Anderson might say what he want, but it doesn't change the fact that Jill in Apocalypse has nothing in common with Jill Valentine. This Jill was never in no mansion incident (though there's some bizarre bit in Apocalypse when they say Jill had 'faced them before').

We just need to get over the fact that he's using the same names and clothes, not translating the actual character.

Yes, he could've been more fan-friendly, definitely. But the biggest issue isn't that this Jill isn't as awesome as that Jill, it's more that the more suspense-based RE has been transformed into a more wide-audience heavy action fest that turns its dumbness into an asset.

As much as I love the RE game series, and the characters (as icons, not characters, it's like saying Mario is a very developed character), I'll never say that they're smart, because as stories, they're not. Their smarts aren't in plots, they're in gameplay. It's not a stupid game, it's a stupid story.

[Tagia_Romero]

I personally do. Not because the characters are very dimensional (though Alice is great and grows a lot), but because they're so fun to watch and they're likable.


On a superficial level, yes, they are fun to watch, but they are very one dimensional. Come on, you knew the moment you saw the character of the Mary Sue Alice that she was going to become something more. The wire-work kicks, the sexy wardrobe, the mysterious past... she practically had her destiny written in the first movie.
The fact that she becomes omnipotent just pushes that argument further because Anderson has insisted on using the 'Chosen One' style character to be the center-point of his mythos.
Her wardrobe, powers and hair style develops and she looks great, but in terms of character? No. Because she was practically superwoman and in my eyes, that doesn't make her interesting all round. A character is a lot more than simple ability and aesthetics, to use a hackneyed term, it's the inside that truly counts.

[X-Nightcrawler]

On a superficial level, yes, they are fun to watch, but they are very one dimensional. Come on, you knew the moment you saw the character of the Mary Sue Alice that she was going to become something more. The wire-work kicks, the sexy wardrobe, the mysterious past... she practically had her destiny written in the first movie.
The fact that she becomes omnipotent just pushes that argument further because Anderson has insisted on using the 'Chosen One' style character to be the center-point of his mythos.
Her wardrobe, powers and hair style develops and she looks great, but in terms of character? No. Because she was practically superwoman and in my eyes, that doesn't make her interesting all round. A character is a lot more than simple ability and aesthetics, to use a hackneyed term, it's the inside that truly counts.Yes, I agree she's not exactly a very dimensional character. But after rewatching the first after watching Extinction, I was all "Well, this character changed."

And yes, on a superficial level, but there's no other level to either the movies or the games, so I don't have a problem with that angle. I didn't really expect her to go in the direction she did, and I personally don't like her turning into Susan Storm. Not a dimensional character, but at least has the decency of being badass enough for me to enjoy her 1-dimensionalness. I sure as hell don't want one-dimensional characters not being badass , like in the games. They bore me.

If they wanted characters to be dimensional and have an 'inside', they would've needed to change a lot more stuff like the silly-ass plot (does someone really think an evil corporation creates a virus that re-animates the dead is a clever concept? It ain't, bub). And that would've sure as hell pissed the fans. There was no way out of it. Changes HAD to be made.

[Hannibal Lecter]

I thought this was one of the better zomibe movies I have seen. Glad I saw it, but it's not a movie I will be able to watch for another year or two, until it gets ancient enough for me to wish to re-watch it.

Yours Sincerely, H.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Street Fighter didn't have a story. Resident Evil DOES. Street Fighter is a cartoon-style fighting game. Resident Evil is a survival horror game.

...

Hmm... I don't get your point. Are you actually trying to compare proverbial apples and oranges, or are you just saying Street Fighter blew with no real point other than to SAY it blows? Because yes, it did indeed blow. Hoover City. I agree, sir.

I think he may have posted it for the effect of looking at Jean-Claudes face staring at you in an angry pose. Just a thought.

Yours Sincerely, H.

[Tagia_Romero]

If they wanted characters to be dimensional and have an 'inside', they would've needed to change a lot more stuff like the silly-ass plot (does someone really think an evil corporation creates a virus that re-animates the dead is a clever concept? It ain't, bub). And that would've sure as hell pissed the fans. There was no way out of it. Changes HAD to be made.

To be fair, the virus was actually created to make bio-weapons that depended on physiological and mental evolution and the virus infected the human body in such a way that the human body DEGENERATED without proper sythesis.

But that's another argument, so don't fear I won't go into that. :p:D

But it is precisely the point that Anderson has made; he's only improved the aesthetic factor rather than the substansial factor. And I'm not actually referring to Alice herself, but the series as a collective. That's why the fans are divided; some want to see the 'cool' factor and the cool factor only, while others prefer to feel the same sort of challenge that the games made them feel; not the puzzles specifically, but the over-all texture of the pieces are what drew the fans in the first place, just like with your fandom 'Silent Hill'; what defined the game? The eerie, morbid and gothic beauty. That sensation has been lost in this variation of RE in favor of looking sex/crazy/cool and not concentrating on the scary stuff; after all, that is what Anderson SAID he wanted to accomplish and all said and done, he did not deliver on his promise.

[X-Nightcrawler]

To be fair, the virus was actually created to make bio-weapons that depended on physiological and mental evolution and the virus infected the human body in such a way that the human body DEGENERATED without proper sythesis.

But that's another argument, so don't fear I won't go into that. :p:DI don't remember that being in the games . . .
. . . still, it's not exactly groundbreaking. It's more like their 'excuse' to have zombies.


But it is precisely the point that Anderson has made; he's only improved the aesthetic factor rather than the substansial factor. And I'm not actually referring to Alice herself, but the series as a collective. That's why the fans are divided; some want to see the 'cool' factor and the cool factor only, while others prefer to feel the same sort of challenge that the games made them feel; not the puzzles specifically, but the over-all texture of the pieces are what drew the fans in the first place, just like with your fandom 'Silent Hill'; what defined the game? The eerie, morbid and gothic beauty. That sensation has been lost in this variation of RE in favor of looking sex/crazy/cool and not concentrating on the scary stuff; after all, that is what Anderson SAID he wanted to accomplish and all said and done, he did not deliver on his promise.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record . . .

Silent Hill > Resident Evil in terms of plots and characters. There's absolutely no room for comparison in these terms. But that's because SH decided to focus on other things RE didn't, and RE focused on a better gameplay, which is why, as videogames, RE is considered the better title (though only like 40% of the total RE games aren't crap).

But I mentioned that, Gans kept the atmosphere of the SH games, which is one of the games' best assets (the sights and sounds, it's art), Anderson didn't. Same thing as said above. Anderson went for the change that would let the adaptations be a success, and Gans didn't. And look at which one flopped and which one didn't.

[syxxpac]

Does anyone really think that a 'faithful' adaptation of RE1 (now that we're clear that "Silent Hill" wasn't as faithful as everyone assumed), moods, characters, plots, etc, would have been more of a success than the current adaptations?

Depends what you mean. Commercial success? Probably not, I'll give you that. Mature horror will always come up short at the box office to something lean, loud and dumb with plenty of tits and rock music. Creative success? Without a doubt. But then, I'm going by the hypothetical adaptations of Perry's novels, not the GAMES, which are weak, I've already said that, I'm not trying to deny it. Speaking of which...

I'm going to assume the novels don't exist for this, because . . . they have nothing to do with the point.

Then I'll just have to revise the entire foundation of my arguments from now on to be for "Perry's novels" rather than "the games". The books would still need a lot of work, granted, but it does focus the story and characters the way the games didn't, and I've already done what I think needed to be done to smooth their transition to the screen. It's just a matter of whether the scripts are good or not and whether they could work on the screen unto themselves, not whether throngs of teenagers would flock to see them hoping to see tits and arcade shoot-em-up sequences. You say fuck the fans? I say fuck the mainstream audiences if they see the videogame medium as a big joke. Why should anyone adapting a game cater to them if that's the attitude? It'd be nice if someone other than Gans started taking chances with what they have, instead of what they think thirteen year olds want to see.

I don't think has the priviledge of taking its time. Much less considering the fact that society has a serious stigma regarding videogames, it'd be laughed at ("Silent Hill" is the case in point; no one wants a slow paced movie based on a videogame! Videogames are silly, boys).

So any filmmaker with a videogame property on their hands should just fall in line and make something stupid and silly because that's what everyone expects out of the medium? Good thing some brave filmmakers took some chances on comic book properties (comics are just for kids!1!) and took them seriously, otherwise THAT subgenre might still be kept down in the same fashion by the same, rather close-minded attitude. Like anime in a lot of ways, video games tend to gravitate toward certain genres - action, sci-fi, horror and fantasy, primarily - so we're probably never gonna get a video game courtroom drama and get it adapted by John Grisham, but that doesn't mean each game is the same and should be delivered in the same way. That's why I respect Silent Hill, and why I don't respect RE. The former took a chance with a rather non-videogame-like story that actually attempted something different to the usual shoot-em-up, and the latter copped out cheap in every way.

No one takes zombie movies seriously, which is why 28 Weeks/Days are such groundbreakers. They're smart zombie movies (please, no one bother going "Uh, excuse me *snorts* but they're not zombies, they're just infected with a *snort**asthma* rage virus *pushes glasses up nose*.). "Resident Evil" isn't.

I agree. Resident Evil ISN'T a smart zombie movie. But it's funny how you bring up the excellent 28 Days Later, a mature horror piece whose first half is basically the crux of RE gameplay that you're simultaneously condemning in this very thread, especially the part where Jim explores the church.

Huh.

Nifty.

As much as I love the RE game series, and the characters (as icons, not characters, it's like saying Mario is a very developed character), I'll never say that they're smart, because as stories, they're not. Their smarts aren't in plots, they're in gameplay. It's not a stupid game, it's a stupid story.

There are no stupid stories, just stupid storytellers. Lord Of The Rings is as conceptually ridiculous and simplistic a story as they come, but it's a LITTLE bit respected, now isn't it? I wonder why that is.

Anyway, no story in the sci-fi/horror genres is gonna have much of a chance if the writer going in is condescending to the very story he's supposed to adapt.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Depends what you mean. Commercial success? Probably not, I'll give you that. Mature horror will always come up short at the box office to something lean, loud and dumb with plenty of tits and rock music. Creative success? Without a doubt. But then, I'm going by the hypothetical adaptations of Perry's novels, not the GAMES, which are weak, I've already said that, I'm not trying to deny it. Speaking of which...Hold yer horses, now, bub!

That's basically the point I'm trying to make. But remember! There's a reason why an average literature fan doesn't grab a Perry novel to read instead of the latest King thriller. Just a thought.
*cough*materialisn'tgoodenoughonafundamentallevel* cough*

Same as with the movies. The novels have the success the movies would've had. Only the videogames' fans would've bothered to catch the movies if they had been translated as faithfully as the novels were.


So any filmmaker with a videogame property on their hands should just fall in line and make something stupid and silly because that's what everyone expects out of the medium? Good thing some brave filmmakers took some chances on comic book properties (comics are just for kids!1!) and took them seriously, otherwise THAT subgenre might still be kept down in the same fashion by the same, rather close-minded attitude. Like anime in a lot of ways, video games tend to gravitate toward certain genres - action, sci-fi, horror and fantasy, primarily - so we're probably never gonna get a video game courtroom drama and get it adapted by John Grisham, but that doesn't mean each game is the same and should be delivered in the same way. That's why I respect Silent Hill, and why I don't respect RE. The former took a chance with a rather non-videogame-like story that actually attempted something different to the usual shoot-em-up, and the latter copped out cheap in every way.Hell naw. Any filmmaker with a RESIDENT EVIL property on their hands should fall in line and make something stupid and silly (if he wants anyone except the fans to care, of course).

I personally don't have anything against the medium of videogames, of course.




I agree. Resident Evil ISN'T a smart zombie movie. But it's funny how you bring up the excellent 28 Days Later, a mature horror piece whose first half is basically the crux of RE gameplay that you're simultaneously condemning in this very thread, especially the part where Jim explores the church.

Huh.

Nifty.Oh but no, no. As a movie, we can get the best of ideas of Jim's character just by seeing him act and respond to what he sees. We don't get this in videogames. That's the difference. "Walking around" would work in 28, not in a videogame (it wouldn't in a "28 Days" videogame), not to mention that there's far more depht in the first half of "28 Days" than there's in the RE you're comparing it to. They're definitely not the same.

Now I know what you're thinking. A RE adaptation could have the same dimension we get in the "walking around" seens of Days, but then we'd have "walking around" with a lame plot story in the background (I personally thought the "28 Days/Weeks" plot was great because it was entirely character driven). Which is boring, and not a financial success.



There are no stupid stories, just stupid storytellers. Lord Of The Rings is as conceptually ridiculous and simplistic a story as they come, but it's a LITTLE bit respected, now isn't it? I wonder why that is.It's because "Lord of the Rings" is definitely NOT conceptually ridiculous. I would never expect anyone to compare the concepts of "Resident Evil" and "Lord of the Rings". And I'm not even a LOTR fan. It's like wondering why Stephen King is respected and Dan Brown isn't.

But in the end, it's not about filmmakers taking videogames with a grain of salt because they're videogames. It's about filmmakers choosing which is the best way to take an already existing title with an already existing fanbase.

My original point which has now exploded into a billion strings of arguments was simply, do you think a faithful adaptation would've been a financial success? You said no, and I agree. So it's hard to blame these guys for taking that route, what they want is money, not to please the vocal minority of RE fans.

[syxxpac]

*cough*materialisn'tgoodenoughonafundamentallevel* cough*

Says you, sir. It's got a LOT of kinks that need ironing out, as I've said, but your argument is essentially like saying Spider-man couldn't have been adapted because of how lame and goofy the '60s cartoon was and basing it on that standard alone, which I think is unfair. REmake improved greatly on RE1's cheesiness and overall atmosphere. Perry's Umbrella Conspiracy novel focused the story into a single narrative and gave it more depth of character, but still lacking in a lot of ways that prevents it from being solid cinematic material (as you'll no doubt point out, and accurately, I'll admit). You're saying the evolutionary chain I'm describing can't go further upward? Logic and my own experimentation tells me it can, and surprisingly painlessly, considering the arguments I'm hearing paint it as utterly impossible.

Now I know what you're thinking. A RE adaptation could have the same dimension we get in the "walking around" seens of Days, but then we'd have "walking around" with a lame plot story in the background (I personally thought the "28 Days/Weeks" plot was great because it was entirely character driven). Which is boring, and not a financial success.

Well, if you care more about the commercial appeal than creative, that's up to you, but I like a little more substance and that's all I'm really worried about. I'm not a distributor, I'm a viewer ;)

And by the way, to get back to your "character-driven" point, I totally agree. That's why I MADE my own adaptations about the people and not so much the company. They're in the background like a shadow, but it's the characters who were front and centre, or at least I tried to make it about them. If I failed, that's my bad, but the point remains the same. That's what I meant by the books "needing a little work", I just tweaked them so that the "plot" around Umbrella's role wasn't the primary focus, but the survival aspect and character interaction and development, with Umbrella coming into play only now and then if need be, mostly just with exposition on the viruses, but hell, even the 28 movies did THAT ie. Rose Byrne's character, who plays a similar role to Rebecca's in my Biohazard script, at least when it comes to being the cute as a button "unofficial expert".

So no, with the right care, I don't think the two are worlds apart as you seem to think, if RE was handled in a more mature manner and taken seriously, with the focus put on the characters instead of the "evil corporation". I'll stand by my assertion that it's all in the execution, and dumbing it down with loads of action and Kung Fu is but one path to take, one that I happen not to have liked.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

It's because "Lord of the Rings" is definitely NOT conceptually ridiculous.

By being fantasy, it technically is ridiculous, that's the nature of the genre, to be fantastical. But it's developed to such an epic extent and taken utterly seriously. That's why it's so damn good. Tolkien was a great writer who didn't fall in line and make it just for kids just because the genre by and large catered to that demographic. He took tired concepts (ahhh, a key term in your argument, connect-the-dots is fun) like magic, wizards, dwarves, elves, etc. and fleshed it out beyond anything else in the same "children's genre".

I would never expect anyone to compare the concepts of "Resident Evil" and "Lord of the Rings". And I'm not even a LOTR fan. It's like wondering why Stephen King is respected and Dan Brown isn't.

I wasn't comparing their concepts, I was comparing the stereotyped attitudes surrounding the genres they belonged to, fantasy and videogame/horror, respectively. Not the same in any way, of course, but the creative battle is similar, that's my point.

But in the end, it's not about filmmakers taking videogames with a grain of salt because they're videogames. It's about filmmakers choosing which is the best way to take an already existing title with an already existing fanbase.

When you say "best", I'm only going to presume you mean "best for attracting teenagers and bringing in more popcorn revenue". Not that it's only attractive to teenagers, mind you, but that's a large chunk of an action/horror audience that will appreciate Matrix Kung Fu and Milla nipples more than people who actually care about a, ya know, STORY.

[Shockwave]

In the end, i think the RE films fail because they havent yet scared me in the way the games have. (even the awesome Code: Veronica! I said it!)

I realize thats much harder to do because your not PLAYING the movies, so the obvious thing to do, (as in many great horror movies such as the 28 Days/Weeks movies) is give me characters i give a damn about, and make me scared for thier survival. Give me a sense of mystery and dread. Make me WANT to see these characters make it out alive.

3 movies in and im still waiting on that.; Other then Alice is a bad-ass, i really dont know anything about the character before the shit that happend in the first one, and really dont care.

The Silent Hill movie worked for me because i didnt think the main character could beat the living shit out of Pyamin Head with his own weapon without even trying. There was a sense of dread there, even when she was facing her fear.

[Hannibal Lecter]

In the end, i think the RE films fail because they havent yet scared me in the way the games have. (even the awesome Code: Veronica! I said it!)

I realize thats much harder to do because your not PLAYING the movies, so the obvious thing to do, (as in many great horror movies such as the 28 Days/Weeks movies) is give me characters i give a damn about, and make me scared for thier survival. Give me a sense of mystery and dread. Make me WANT to see these characters make it out alive.

3 movies in and im still waiting on that.; Other then Alice is a bad-ass, i really dont know anything about the character before the shit that happend in the first one, and really dont care.

The Silent Hill movie worked for me because i didnt think the main character could beat the living shit out of Pyamin Head with his own weapon without even trying. There was a sense of dread there, even when she was facing her fear.
The RE Series is a great movie franchise. I don't think it's meant to be overly scary or anything, just exhilirating, which it is. It's more of an Action genre movie with a hint of Horror. Than vice-versa.

Yours Sincerely, H.

[Shockwave]

The RE Series is a great movie franchise. I don't think it's meant to be overly scary or anything, just exhilirating, which it is. It's more of an Action genre movie with a hint of Horror. Than vice-versa.

Yours Sincerely, H.

Im glad u enjoyed it!

That being said, i wasnt exactly exhilirated in any way so far by any of the movies.

The gaint plot holes and paper-thin characters didnt help either.

Like making a METAL GEAR movie an action movie, but removing all sense of stealth, character development, and story. throw in some Rock music and call it a day.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Movies are meant for viewers pleasure, and of course, their entertainment.

Movies are not truly meant to be in-depth. If you wish for in-depth story lines, read a book.

I've read the Hannibal book 4 times now, and i'm still amazed when I watch the film, how much they have condensed it. Movies are meant to be put into a 2 hour period, normally, not a 5 hour period with 3 hours of in-depth character review.

Could you make a movie, with a good storyline, good genre, good character development and background on the character in-depth and still end up with the viewers watching?

Don't forget that they make movies to get money, not for our pleasure, although they have to make it to our pleasure to get the money. Entertainment is everything. You don't have to love a movie to be entertained by it, that's how they make money, and that's what they're working for.

Yours Sincerely, H.

[Shockwave]

Movies are meant for viewers pleasure, and of course, their entertainment.

Movies are not truly meant to be in-depth. If you wish for in-depth story lines, read a book.


Could you make a movie, with a good storyline, good genre, good character development and background on the character in-depth and still end up with the viewers watching?

Yours Sincerely, H.

Im sorry, but to say that movies are not meant to be in-depth is beyond silly to me.

I love books, but movies are meant to far more the dumb fluff.; The very best of movies can rival anything the book world can throw at it with ease.

Ive seen lots of movies with good story lines, good genre, good character development, and background on the character in-depth. These qaulities make movies worth watching.


Saying the RE movies should be loved simply because "its a movie! Movies are supposed to be stupid! dur!" is just not my style.

[Digifruitella]

Movies are meant for viewers pleasure, and of course, their entertainment.

Movies are not truly meant to be in-depth. If you wish for in-depth story lines, read a book.


That is a ridiculous statement. A great majority of art-house films are in-depth and always have some moral lesson to teach the viewer. A great FILM is akin to a great BOOK. But to say that.."movies are just for fun they dont mean anything" is beyond an idiotic statement. I don't mean to pick on YOU, I'm in disagreeance with your STATEMENT. I've seen so many films from all over the world that have had such a profound effect on me by only utilizing 90 minutes of my time. Films that have made me think deeply about certain issues in my life as well as this life in general, and actually provoked me to change something about myself. So a movie is just for pleasure? You can enjoy it, yes, but you can also learn from them if you actually take time to think about the morals of the given film and apply the lessons learned to yourself.

Off-topic, but I had to have my say...now resume with the RE discussion :p

[TheJadedGamer]

I watched it and was surprised. It wasn't shit as the last one, but it ranks up with the first as a fun time-waster. But the storyline is still convulted and fucked, and it makes me hate the films because they stray too fucking far away from the games and turn established game characters into shadows of themselves.

(6/10)

[MidnightAngel]

Thanks to Paul WS Anderson this series have become a cinematic clusterfuck. Oh whatever. :rolleyes: