|
Movies Books Music Food Tv Shows Technology Politics Video Games Parenting Fashion Green Living more >

Lunch » Tags » Movies » Reviews » Resident Evil: Afterlife (3D) » User review

Resident Evil: Afterlife (Movie)

A movie based on the hit video game

< read all 5 reviews

Should have stayed in the Afterlife. Hopefully 3D joins in there as well.

  • Jan 15, 2011
Rating:
-2
*1/2 out of ****

"Resident Evil: Afterlife" makes we wonder just how far these idiot producers will go with the series. Now they've unsuccessfully converted from plain-old-boring 2D to plain-old-tedious 3D. Don't let the highly gimmicky advertising fool you; "Afterlife" is not the rewarding 3D ride that the trailer suggests. It may have been filmed with the equipment of James Cameron, but things don't depend on whether you've got the tools or not; it depends on if you know how to use them as intelligently as the original operator. Paul W.S. Anderson is no James Cameron, as you may have seen. Cameron is good about where he spends his cash while Anderson isn't. Also, Cameron enjoys making visually thrilling films, and in some ways I feel as if he does it for passion rather than cash. The problem with Paul W.S. Anderson is that he makes films (excuse me, movies) for profit. "Afterlife", his return to the world of "Resident Evil", is another one of his phony action flicks. It's loud, it's violent, it's stylish, and it's completely ludicrous. Part of me can forgive it for not sucking as the first two "Resident Evil" flicks did, but then again the other part is telling me "nope, this still sucks". It's not that much of an improvement on "Extinction", although the newest "Resident Evil" isn't at all worse either. It's the kind of movie that you want to appreciate, but alas it's just too stupid. Nevertheless, there were moments when "Afterlife" felt like a significant step in the right direction for the franchise. While the 3D is merely "meh", the cinematography all-together is pretty average. The soundtrack is pretty good and the film is consistently actiony. The only problem is that few of the action sequences are really entertaining; mostly due to the lack of challenge and consistency in the monsters. Once again, "Afterlife" isn't disappointing. I knew it would suck, and I might as well have wanted it to. That doesn't excuse the movie of its flaws, but at least it's watchable. However, even though it's not completely horrible like the first two, I'm kind of hoping that they can finally wrap up the series. I doubt that "Afterlife" will be the film to seal the deal, but maybe next time they'll realize just how much people hate these movies. I'm hoping that they hear our cries. So even though it has its moments, this new "Resident Evil" flick should have stayed in the Afterlife. It's not horrible, but it still kind of sucks. And you know what: who really cares?

The opening titles for this film are pretty cool. With that being said, that's all they are. And then the story starts, and the coolness essentially stops. "Afterlife" begins with Alice and her twenty-something clones invading an Umbrella base in Tokyo whilst attempting to assassinate Albert Wesker. They fail and Wesker gets away. In the process, all the clones are lost. Luckily, Alice escapes onto the Wesker's helicopter, only to be injected with a serum which will take away the effects of the T-Virus. Alice accepts the fact that she's human once again, although that doesn't stop her from wanting to kick some ass in her future life. So Alice escapes that whole scenario and manages to get herself a plane. With the aircraft, she flies over to Alaska in search of possible survivors. Luckily, she finds some uninfected people who she comes to trust over time. The only problem is that the undead know that they're there, and they're hungry for flesh. Terror comes a little easier as from the ground comes some kind of burrower zombies as well as giant, axe-wielding tyrants. And what do you know; most of the crew survives the whole ordeal. Again, "Afterlife" attempts to replicate the feeling of survival horror through mere survival and nothing more. The problem is that it's supposed to have characters worth following, and since it doesn't, their survival isn't important to us. On the bright side, fans of the "Resident Evil" games will be happy to see that some of the new characters are well-known faces, as well as some older ones who are simply given a little more screen-time. All in all, the plot is shallow as hell; spending more time on slow-motion action scenes than actually telling that thing we call a story. Nevertheless, it's somewhat fun in some instances, and somewhat boring in others. It's that sort of mix that kind of ruins the experience all together.

I'm sort of getting tired of seeing Milla Jovovich as Alice. I don't care if she enjoys playing this character; nobody thinks she's really right for it. Like I've said before, I like Jovovich. No matter how much crap she's in, I still think she has talent that she just needs to show more often. Needless to say, this isn't one of those break-through roles. She hasn't changed at all from "Extinction", although if you remember correctly, her performance from the third film wasn't as horrible as it was in the first two. All in all, it still strikes me as forgettable. The last thing I'm going to wish for is that in the future, they can actually pay to have real actors do some real acting for these movies. The series is in desperate need of help in that department, and once again, the supporting cast just plain sucks. They do the movie no justice.

"Resident Evil: Afterlife" made money. I'm sorry to say this, but the big fat gimmick(s) within the trailer(s) worked on many people. I don't know why anyone would pay to see such a cheesy flick, but I'm sure that half of them were RE fans. They're always so devoted, aren't they? I think that they're the reason why Paul W.S. Anderson made this movie; because even though he can't supply us with the slightest hint of intelligence, the little maggots just won't stop begging for more. More of what? CGI, stupid acting, stylish action, and disappointing monsters? Yeah, that's all "Afterlife" has. Style and Special Effects. It's a typical Hollywood actioner; thus the action scenes are extremely flashy. Sometimes this works to the film's advantage, and then at other times it just doesn't. I enjoyed some moments personally, although most of the film was just plain boring. There's nothing to look at here aside from style, and considering all the unnecessary hype, this should have been more than just CG and green-screen. Also, "Afterlife" has a lot of slow-motion. And I mean a lot. If you're still not convinced, then allow me to break it down for you; if you thought that Zack Snyder's "300" was overly high on slow-motion, then "Resident Evil" might as well be so riddled with such visual substance that it's near-death. If you cut out all the slow-mo, there wouldn't be much of a movie to watch. But then again, I don't give a damn. "Afterlife" wasn't entertaining enough to color me satisfied, although then again it's one of the best movies in the franchise. The worst thing about it is that it leaves room for yet another sequel. Damn it!

"Resident Evil: Afterlife" is nothing more than a big, fat gimmick. I dislike it so much because it's completely ridiculous, stupid, under-plotted, and all-around lame. The only good thing seems to be that it's still in watchable territories, but there's not a lot to be gained from watching it either so...it's not really worth watching. I wouldn't recommend it to many people since there's just not enough to see here. Surprisingly, it's not one of the top ten worst films of 2010, although it's probably there in the top twenty. It's not absolutely horrible, but it's stupid and it doesn't know it. I laughed at some seriously unintentional stuff, which always makes a bad movie the slightest bit more enjoyable. But then again I got the impression that "Afterlife" was actually trying to be serious. How about that? An almost unredeemable mess trying to be SERIOUS? Has the world gone mad? Perhaps not, but I think that we can all agree on the fact that Paul W.S. Anderson has. In many ways, I hope he quits this franchise and filmmaking as a whole, since it's merely a profession and not a passion for him. There's no passion in potboilers. Anderson needs to grasp that and more before he makes his next screw-up. Maybe he'll even direct the sequel to this mess. Oh, what possibilities. Let's hope that none of them become reality. By now I'm sure that a final verdict is not needed since you should know how I feel about Paul W.S. Anderson's latest trip to the realms of "Resident Evil". I've nothing more to say of it, since it's neither interesting enough to provoke more thought or horrible enough to provoke more criticism. I could go on and on with common criticism, but honestly, what would be the point?

What did you think of this review?

Helpful
6
Thought-Provoking
6
Fun to Read
6
Well-Organized
6
Post a Comment
January 17, 2011
This may be my second fav of the series thus far.
January 17, 2011
Same here.
 
January 17, 2011
that's Anderson for you, he's a popcorn director but he is a really bad storyteller. Milla still rocks though LOL!
January 17, 2011
Yeah. She does. Just not in these films XD I think that Anderson wants to be a good director of popcorn flicks, but they're not entertaining enough movies to make me regard them as so.
 
1
More Resident Evil: Afterlife (3D) reviews
review by . September 11, 2010
posted in Movie Hype
No
I am not sure. I did feel that Paul W.S. Anderson’s first Resident Evil was just a guilty, brainless popcorn experience, Alexander Witt‘s “Apocalypse” served up loads of action and stunts that somewhat covered up the very flawed plot and Russell Mulcahy’s “Extinction” was an attempted serving of B-movie zombie mayhem. Anderson had always been co-producer and co-writer of this franchise; and now, with ‘Resident Evil: Afterlife” he once again returns …
review by . September 23, 2010
posted in Movie Hype
Low on ammunition, but lots of firepower
The Resident Evil franchise is really two different things.  You have the video games, full of puzzle-solving and creature gore and some vast corporate conspiracy and of course, hordes of the undead.  Then you have the movies, which are action-packed gorefests with lots of pretty cinematography and vague references to the same corporate conspiracy.  About the only thing the two consistently share is the Umbrella Corporation and some pretty cheesy lines.      If …
Quick Tip by . September 12, 2010
posted in Movie Hype
Decent action flick, but I don't think it was quite worth the 3D price. Previous movies were better plot-wise, but fans of the other movies will probably enjoy it (despite some sketchy plot points).
Quick Tip by . July 22, 2010
posted in Movie Hype
I really like Milla Jovovich; and despite my disappointments as an adaptation of the video game with this franchise, I do see it as an entertaining movie. Milla got the moves...
About the reviewer
Ryan J. Marshall ()
Ranked #11
It's very likely that the only kind of reviews I'll ever post here are movie reviews. I'm very passionate about film; and at this point, it pretty much controls my life. Film gives us a purpose; … more
Consider the Source

Use Trust Points to see how much you can rely on this review.

You
ryguy4738
Your ratings:
rate more to improve this
About this movie

Wiki

Experience a new dimension in action horror as director Paul W.S. Anderson uses the 3D technology pioneered by James Cameron and Vincent Pace to take movie lovers on a nightmare thrill-ride. It's been five years since the zombie virus swept across the globe, and Alice (Milla Jovovich) is still traveling tirelessly in search of survivors. When the Umbrella Corporation ratchets up the stakes, an old friend turns up to lend Alice a helping hand. Rumor has it that some survivors have found sanctuary in Los Angeles, but when Alice and friends show up they find the city overrun with zombies, and quickly realize they've stumbled into a diabolical trap. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide

Genre: Action-Horror Thriller, Zombie Movie

File:Resident Evil- Afterlife.jpg

view wiki

Details

Director: Paul W.S. Anderson
Genre: Action, Adventure
Release Date: Sept. 10, 2010
MPAA Rating: PG-13
© 2014 Lunch.com, LLC All Rights Reserved
Lunch.com - Relevant reviews by real people.
()
This is you!
Ranked #
Last login
Member since
reviews
comments
ratings
questions
compliments
lists