‘Resident Evil’ is brain-dead
“In a zombie apocalypse movie, nobody’s ever seen a zombie movie.” – Ernest Cline
I was really into the Resident Evil (or, as it is originally known, the much cooler title Biohazard; why does Japan always get all the good stuff?) games when they started up 30 years ago. George A. Romero mostly sat out the 1990s and wouldn’t return to his ______ of the Dead saga for another decade (though Night of the Living Dead got a fairly decent remake from Tom Savini in 1990), so this filled the void nicely. In fact, the game caught the eye of Romero himself, who directed a commercial for the second installment and was interested in doing a feature film. However, studio executives, being the utter morons they are, fought with him and he got the boot.
From there, things did not improve. The Milla Jovovich pictures were abysmal; Welcome to Raccoon City was even worse, ditto the Netflix show. So this new re-whatever from Zach Cregger has cleared a bar so low that even a baby could crawl over it, but is so “in name only” that it makes Bill Clinton look faithful.
Medical courier Bryan (Austin Abrahams) is offered double his usual pay to deliver a mysterious package (when else?) late at night to (where else?) Raccoon City. Along the way, he encounters (what else?) zombies, monstrous dogs, and other creatures created (how else?) by a virus that escaped from a lab (gee, I wonder if the movie is trying to tell me something…). Can this brave individual accomplish his life’s greatest mission?
Aside from the eventual presence of Umbrella (which, since there’s no logo or any identifying features, is just some generic science company) and a few signature items as useless set dressing, there’s nothing unique to the Resident Evil brand here. This is as indistinguishable from every other zombie movie as it gets. I am (usually) not entirely opposed to new characters and situations – I’d wager that I’m the only person that has ever and will ever walk this planet whose favorite game in the series is Dead Aim – but its world needs to stay recognizable.
Instead of the franchise’s distinctive monsters, they jack them from other properties. The Puker and obese bald zombie from fellow long-running zombie game series House of the Dead are here (as well as the ticking clock from its second film, also subtitled Dead Aim, which I’m sure was a total coincidence), and the Demogorgon-like creatures somehow migrated over from the Upside-Down. Legion from Castlevania serves as the main event villain (growing over the course of the film from other characters), minus any kind of satisfying showdown.
You know what? Since this movie couldn’t be bothered to be a real Resident Evil film, I’ve probably already put in too much effort reviewing it. Th3Birdman has gone into detail about everything wrong with this and dismantled every assinine defense from its assinine defenders (and while I do also agree that review scales should utilize all of their options, let’s remember that the guys we’re all following distilled it down to a binary of whether your thumb points to the sky or to the ground).
I do, however, take exception to what is said at the 1:11:55 mark. “Not fair?” No, no, no, no, no. What’s not fair is ripping people off by presenting this to unsuspecting consumers as a legit Resident Evil movie. What’s not fair is treating a fanbase like rubes. What’s not fair is Sony slapping the title on some unrelated flick so they can continue to hog the rights ad infinitum (sidebar: is this really permissible? A movie can have f-all to do with the source material, but as long as it has the same title, the studio can retain the rights? How can this male cow fecal matter be allowed?). What’s not fair is stringing fans along for a quarter-century with promises of fidelity.
It is absolutely fair to judge something by what it’s purporting to be. They could’ve made and released this film independent of any existing brand, but they didn’t. They chose to make it part of an established IP, engendering expectations and inviting inevitable comparison to the games. If they’re going to use that name, then they need to be held to the same standards.
Sure, it is executed competently. Yes, some parts are funny or scay. But that does not mean it’s “good.” Scattered enjoyable aspects do not justify spending money on this, and its terrible ending does bring it down further.
If you absolutely have to see this imposter, wait for it to hit cable. Otherwise, we’ll just have to keep wishing in one and pooping in the other. At this point, that second hand is pretty much full, and with our luck, whoever the studio chooses as the next makers will find a way to pile more on.
