Review of Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004) by Harry W — 29 Apr 2013

Resident Evil was a semi-decent Zombie Action film, but the sequel it has presented is unworthy because despite some semi-decent action, the entire story is shrouded in poor lighting, choppy editing and just a lack of fun.

The main problem was the lighting, because apparently the apocalypse had to take place during the night so that I can't get a clear view of everything that's going on, and even that didn't add to any intensity because there was already nothing there thanks to the lack of thrills from crappy zombies and few of them, as well as a thin plot.

But really the main problem with Resident Evil Apocalypse is that it just isn't fun. I mean, you'd expect apocalyptic zombie killing from a team of vigilantes escaping the limits of a city would be good, but instead it was damned boring and utterly tedious without a clever script or entertaining gunshots anywhere, as well as the fact that the only thing Milla Jovovich brings to her lead role is her athletics and her tits, but any Playboy model could have done it just as well.

And no other actor is recognisable or slightly memorable because Paul W. S. Anderson's film is a blank and dark bore with less appeal to it than Michael Bay's Pearl Harbour, yet he figures that fans will just automatically be entertained which is a hugely unjust assumption.

There's really nothing more to say, Resident Evil Apocalypse had little appeal and provided little reason as to why I should keep watching the series. But I'm hoping they get better so I will anyway.