Reviews

1 Review
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Resident Evil (2002)
By way of being a very loose adaptation of the source material, Resident Evil is fun enough to just about succeed.
23 January 2019
Fans of Capcom's best-selling video game series will mostly be disappointed by this adaptation of their beloved survival horror, but by trading scares for shootouts, director-writer Paul Anderson ensures that his Resident Evil is accessible to a wider audience.

The first instalment of what is - as of this writing - the highest-grossing video game franchise of all time perhaps benefits from a more cautious budget. Where Anderson would return to direct the later iterations with a frustrating dependence on slow motion effects, here he is forced to think more creatively, drawing inspiration from the fixed camera angles of the games. He wholly succeeds in a slow-burn approach, not revealing the undead until the second act, and his flirtations with artificial intelligence, a concept the video games were never really preoccupied with, is a novel addition. His dialogue may be soulless, but Anderson clearly knows a thing or two about action-heavy set pieces and what audiences want from them. Again as a result of the low budget, there is a wealth of gritty and gory practical effects that lend Resident Evil an air of credibility, if only for trying.

Milla Jovovich and Michelle Rodriguez elevate the script, which manages to slowly unfold a story intriguing enough to keep you invested for the runtime. It may be flashback and exposition heavy, but there is admittedly a solid character-driven mystery to go with the carnage on show.

It's interesting to view this film in hindsight, knowing that it produced five sequels of wildly varying quality, but which still resonated with global audiences who were consistently satisfied with the action. Resident Evil is an excellent case study in how to produce a successful video game; capture its essence, but do something entirely different with it, even if this means alienating the fans for the sake of a wider audience who won't criticise you for getting the source material completely wrong.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed