When “Resident Evil” first came out in 2002, it enjoyed a unique position in the world of video game-to-movie adaptations. Virtually every such film to date had struggled to cram half-baked and unwieldy game concepts into genres such as kung-fu and action-adventure. “Resident Evil,” however, was different. It fit snugly into the category of zombie film, a genre which frequently prides itself on cheap thrills, goofy antics and a loose emphasis on plot development. In this niche, the film thrived.
After eight years and four movies, however, the series’ seams are starting to show. Its latest installment, “Resident Evil: Afterlife,” suffers from many of the ailments of both the video game-based movie and the over-milked sequel. Since the cross-medium synergy has worn out, the time has come to figure out “Afterlife’s” real identity. Is it simply a zombie film trying to do its best to compete in the market, or a video game being crammed into another medium?
Taking the view of the first option, the film fares decently. The plot is rife with amnesia, mind control and long-dead characters coming back to life, although the latter is expected given the subject matter. On the flip side, many survival-horror staples redeem the experience, such as a host of both loveable and hateable characters to serve as zombie lunch.
If you elect to view the film as a video game come to life, it fares decidedly worse. While the “Resident Evil” movies feature a different lead character and follow a different timeline than the games, the producers vigorously attempt to shoehorn the games’ plots into this new structure.
The film starts out in Tokyo where the evil Umbrella Corporation, the mainstay antagonist in the Resident Evil universe, is predictably up to no good. Four years after their deadly T-virus has all but wiped out the human race, Umbrella for some reason pushes forward with their experiments on biological warfare. In keeping with their bizarre fetish for secret underground bases, the corporation is stationed deep under the earth. While this seems to be a good defense, it is never enough to stop Alice, the series’ super-weapon heroine.
For fans of the series, the rest of “Afterlife” can be summed up as such: Cut most of the major plot elements out of “Resident Evil 5,” put them in a Yahtzee shaker, shake well and toss the results all over the western United States. Albert Wesker, the games’ most iconic bad guy, makes a long-awaited appearance in “Afterlife.” His ice-cold demeanor and glowing red eyes make for good fan service, but the acting is stale and dialogue unconvincing.
The cast of “Resident Evil: Afterlife” reads like a “who’s who” of prime-time network television. Wentworth Miller from the hit show “Prison Break” and Ali Larter of “Heroes” play Chris and Claire Redfield, respectively, and “Sons of Anarchy’s” Kim Coates plays a whiny film director named Bennett.
While all give mediocre performances, their presence backs up Mila Jovovich’s lead, and watching a bad movie with familiar faces is somewhat more enjoyable than watching one with no-name “stars.”
The one thing that distinguishes this film from its predecessors is the liberal use of 3-D effects. Predictably, the producers did not create an immersive “Avatar”-esque three-dimensional experience, but instead opted for the theme park method. Storms of shrapnel, bullets and brains assault the audience whenever the action heats up. But aside from that, the 3-D is hardly noticeable.
“Afterlife” isn’t all that good, but what did you expect? The series has had as good of a run as any game-based film ever has, but any franchise stretched too thin will start to wear. The plot is unoriginal and the acting isn’t great, but it manages to pack in all the hallmarks of a good zombie B-movie.
Some people get eaten, some zombies have their heads smooshed in, and unlike in the source material, the survivors never run out of bullets. And if you were thinking of seeing this movie anyway, that’s probably all you wanted to see.
Andrew Sheridan can be reached at [email protected].
