Review of Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004) by Hotelcentral — 23 Oct 2019

There are two main problems with Resident Evil (RE) Apocalypse and its predecessor: 1) They're zombie flicks, and, 2) They're zombie flicks.

People who get paid to review movies can't just say, hey, it's a zombie flick. They have to try to be "insightful" and "meaningful." They need to say something "significant." So if they encounter a movie that isn't quite the equal of "Wyrmwood: Road of the Dead," or "Scout's Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse," or "Train to Busan," or "NotLD," or "Dead Set," they have little choice but to proclaim they're watching garbage and no one else should waste their time.

Fans of Resident Evil the video games, by comparison, have a lot of preconceived notions about what the RE films should look like, and, to be honest, who cares? I never played the game and doubt I ever will. But I do like zombie flicks.

OK, so, this is a zombie flick. If you like zombie flicks you'll probably like RE: Apocalypse. There's lots and lots of zombies. Some get shot, some get burned, some get blown up, and eventually there's this big bomb that comes down out of the sky, but don't let me spoil the part I could easily spoil. I mean, sometimes you nuke things and it works, and sometimes it doesn't. If you've seen Andromeda Strain (1971) you have some idea about what I mean.

I'd recommend seeing the first RE film before you see Apocalypse, but if that's not convenient don't worry. You'll get a nice intro to what's going on right after the opening credits.