Skip to main content

I ingest you, I gain control.

Resident Evil: Afterlife

(SPOILERS) Resident Evil: Afterlife’s box office would be mystifying, were it not for the genie of 3D bolstering its business. Something that – thanks mostly to Avatar – had many grateful adherents circa 2010 who might otherwise have floundered dreadfully (Clash of the Titans, Alice in Wonderland). It made more than double Extinction’s gross worldwide, which might have been well and good had it incrementally improved on that movie’s significant uptick in the franchise’s quality. Instead, it feels like a bargain-basement idea (stick the protagonists in a prison for most of the duration) and one that is pervasively “You had to be there” in terms of the 3D-attuned visuals (unless, of course, you have a 3D telly).

Because, while it the 2D reality isn’t quite as unflattering as some of those really bad effects you’d find in 80s 3D movies (Jaws 3D for example), there’s no degree of seamlessness in writer-director-producer Paul WS Anderson’s approach, so evidently is it tailored for x-ray specs. The results unforgivingly leave you

bewildered by the sluggishly paced action, and cameras held on money shots that never materialise as remotely impressive. The actual spatial relations of the action are fine, pretty good even, but it simply doesn’t work in 2D. Anderson has also gone Matrix-lite in costuming a decade too late, (and even more so in Retribution), eliciting a sense of déjà vu when it comes to wire-fu.

With all that emphasis on presentation, where does that position this fourth instalment? An opening with multiple Alice clones (“Hey boys. Is that any way to treat a lady?”) is quickly disposed of when she/they loses her mojo through pernicious use of anti-virus software. Albeit, bereft of powers, if anything, she seems even more ludicrously unbeatable. The big villain is Weskler, moving centre stage, but much more lunkish and less engaging performed by Shawn Roberts than predecessor Jason O’Mara. Kim Coates delivers patented and rather redundant sleaze (“Back in the world he was a big movie producer”) while Wentworth Miller comes on promising Hannibal Lector vs the zombies but turns out to be same old Prison Break Miller – as the games’ Chris Redfield – and appears in a prison presumably as a gesture/reference to his best-known role. The movie brings back Claire and, in the credits scene, Jill Valentine, but since there’s zero personality involved in this procession of familiar characters, you should be hard pressed to care. The ground-zero Japanese patient zero is more memorable.

Afterlife offers the riff of a fabled Arcadia as a dream haven from the apocalypse, so from a rather personality-free prison they move to a rather personality-free ship, which turns out to be chock full of Umbrella test subjects. There’s much in the way of CGI split mouths of the games’ “Majini” (it says here), which is appropriate as it looks like a game effect but is doubtless originally a homage to The Thing. There are also scarab-esque transhumanist control devices that attach themselves to the chests of victims, but Anderson offers zero thematic resonance to any such ingredients.

Resident Evil: Afterlife isn’t actively awful. It doesn’t especially aggravate through being aesthetically offensive. But it’s bland and empty headed, the visuals unable to fill anything of the void it has created. This “second trilogy” (if you will) kicks off as it means to go on, and if it doesn’t plumb the depths of Apocalypse, it offers no kind of reinvention.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .