Resident Throatpunch, thread II

Thought I'd post this link for those of you who are interested. It's the George Romero draft of the RESIDENT EVIL script. I havent read it myself yet, and I may not: this film has taken up too much of my valuable time already. Nevertheless, I thought this might inform the Romero / Anderson debate.

[This message has been edited by Rob (edited 03-19-2002).]

I did NOT think this was a great movie, but I certainly felt it was slightly above average. I put it on the same level as "All About the Benjamins," a movie I similarly enjoyed, but certainly wasn't going to race out and see again.

I can understand someone seeing that they pretty much just took the title of the game and made the "Mortal Kombat"-version of a zombie movie being angered by that. But I can also see how people just going to be entertained can find it fun and a silly modern bug-hunt.

But Nick's right, this ain't "Aliens." Never will be. At this point, I don't know if Hollywood is CAPABLE of making "Aliens." Hell, "Resident Evil" was a German-financed film that didn't even find American distribution until it was completed and screened (kind of a big deal) and then it went to SCREEN GEMS!!! Not that Screen Gems sucks or anything, but it's likely a lot of people passed on it first.

Hollywood's changed in a big way and yeah, we can harken back to "Aliens" and "T2" or any of those movies and wish that every single sci-fi actioner was on that level. It's sad that movies DON'T appear to strive for that anymore.

But I'm sure people in the '80s said that about "Slaughterhouse," "Madman," "Sleepaway Camp," "Student Bodies," "My Bloody Valentine," "April Fool's Day," and the countless other "Friday the 13th" clones.

We remember "Friday the 13th," not those other movies (with exceptions - it would be a sad waste of T&A if all those movies hit the celluloid graveyard). Ten or fifteen years from now, what will we remember from 2002?

"Resident Evil" will probably be a blip. Right now, it's in the midst of all this money and marketing campaign and franchise potential and all of that - as it's a money-making venture. Keeps some people employed, fills a slate, keeps the wheels churning.

But there will only be a tiny handful of flicks from 2002 that will make fuck-all difference in a decade.

Welcome to the new/old Hollywood where it's all about that Friday afternoon's take in Manhattan - NOT about the longevity of the film. They've been doing it like this since the beginning, it's just more evident the closer you get to it and the more upfront a seat you've got.

But I still enjoyed a lot of "Resident Evil" just as I thought it was a fun B-movie. I'm hoping, with "Reign of Fire," I get to put words like "enjoyed it for a slate-filling B-movie" away, however.

------------------
"Let's pray and get shit-faced."

[This message has been edited by Smilin' Jack Ruby (edited 03-19-2002).]

So, Nick, will you be willing to post SJR's rebuttle above as equal airtime on the main page? He pretty much said exactly how I feel about the movie, and I seem to remember last year you were the one yelling at everybody that you can't expect every movie to be as good as flicks like Aliens...certain movies stand out because they're EXCEPTIONS. You don't raise the bar every time you go out there. Some movies just get made because the driving force behind them really wants to do the movie, and are lucky enough to get picked up by somebody who thinks it'll make money, rather than going straight to video. Again, the question that some of us keep repeating: What did you expect?
Am I going to be let down when I see the Time Machine? Possibly, since I was expecting something more than it probably is. Will I be let down by Blade II? Probably not. Was I let down by Resident Evil? No...I was expecting a B-movie sci-horror mazerun with an A budget, it's what I felt like seeing when I saw it. I had fun, will probably see it again with Hastur since she couldn't see it Friday (although I wouldn't go see it by myself). I will be picking up the DVD. Do I wish it was better? Well, frankly, yes...but I don't think it desrves the venom it's gotten. It's exactly the movie it set out to be.
Maybe it's because the zombie movie was never really alive, for me. My favourite Romero film? So far, from what I've seen, it's The Dark Half. Favourite Romero zombie flick? Day of the Dead, since at least it had something resembling a plot with the scietific experiments angle. Those films had one attraction for me...seeing what Tom Savini was going to do, next. I hold great respect for Romero because of what he was able to pull off with his films, but the whole concept of zombies en masse, the squiggling hoard coming after you, holds no appeal. They're mindless. There's no character, there,no cleverness, nothing to outwit. So I don't expect much from them.
Oh, and Hastur points out that she likes Milla, alot. Hell, my attraction to her isn't really hormonal, just like my revulsion to Julia Roberts has nothing to do with her looks. I just like her.

Exactly... and, unfortunately, so many films are being cranked out on a regular basis that the best many films can hope for *IS* a blip, unless you're Cameron, Lucas, or Spielberg (and hopefully we can soon add Raimi and Jackson to that list.) Remember when you could tell if it was summer or winter by when the blockbuster or Oscar-worthing films started?

Now it's all a blur, and for any film to get even a weekend's worth of cash and publicity has become all-important, especially during the summer when no one wants to open their less-than-epic flick against "Star Wars" or "Spider-Man" or whatever. Everybody else gets one weekend, that's it, and then off to overseas, pay-per-view, HBO, DVD, and video release.

But to answer Nick's front-page worthy opinion, we offer this: Isn't the creature film dead, too? How can you champion a film like "Jeepers Creepers" for its effort and wash your hands of "Resident Evil" at the same time? The Undead love you like a crypt with cable tv, but isn't the name of this website CHUD.com?

------------------
The Undead are Watching.

Anderson simply did not bring a script. I thought the idea was fine. I thought there were even a few inspired moments. But, overall, the script was just serviceable. The script really let the actors hang out to dry. I thought Milla did a great job. Sure, I think she looks great, but she can also act. Her character was fine and, really, the only one that was somewhat written. Nick really hates Mabius - but he was barely in the film (I thought he was fine). The clearest example of Anderson's weakness at character development (at least in this film) was with Rodriguez's character Rain. Her performance was annoying to be sure (is that character ever not? Except for maybe Vasquez), but can anyone pull off a line like, "When I got out of here, I think I'm going to get laid"? None of the other characters were really developed at all - which is why it's miles away from 'Aliens'. Interestingly enough, 'Blade 2' tries for the 'Aliens' path as well, and comes up short - but it's a small portion of the movie. Anyway, I enjoyed the 'RE' somewhat. I just wish it had been better. I will say that it has a great ending shot...

***Spoiler***

However, it would have been nice to seen a bunch of zombies stumbling thought the rubble.


[This message has been edited by Kevin Matchstick (edited 03-19-2002).]

I'm pretty much with SJR and Lich on this one, except I have to say this film is MUCH better than the latter half of Jeepers Creepers.

I can't consider Jeepers one film because the first part is so good, and the latter half is so wrecthed. They don't belong together.

I wasn't serious about you running SJR's rebutal, Nick. However, I was serious about the other question: What did you expect? You couldn't have been expecting the Next New Thing, because even I, who have been so busy that I barely have time to check the site for news (which is why you don't see as many posts as you used to), knew better than that. So, what has you so full of bile for this film, the guy who was championing the cause for "just enjoy the movie for what it is, damnit" just a few months ago?

Yes, I know you pointed out what was wrong with the film...lack of character development (I'm with you on that, characters are the soul a story), the music (debateable, I think it worked in some places and in others...well, I can see what they were trying to do, but failed), the splitting up of forces (the first split up made no sense, the later ones did...panic reactions do happen among teams)...but these are all things you didn't like.
It doesn't answer the question of what you expected. Neither does "Good screenwriting, god music, good characters." Those are one note answers that don't quanitfy anything, especially since, from a plot standpoint, it *was* a good script. You may not LIKE the plot, there may have been holes in it, but the script itself fit structure and development frameworks better than alot of films (and a hell of alot better than I expected it to, to be honest)...it's main lack was character development. But just saying "Good script" is like saying "Lunch" when someone says "What do you want out of life." It's technically accurate, but doesn't really answer the question.
No, I'm honestly asking what you expected. With examples. And this applies to anyone else who was hugely disappointed with the film. I'm asking because I was curious, not because it was a great film (which I don't, that's my point. It was schlock...but it never pretended to be anything else).

Hee hee - so true.


------------------
"Let's pray and get shit-faced."

Mikah's right. Even though Resident Evil was saddled with an unimaginative script, laughable dialogue, and PG-13 level gore; For some reason I still found it a LOT more entertaining than the second half of Jeepers Creepers. But then again, the first 30 minutes of JC makes Resident look like Wishmaster 2.

That brings up a great point.

Nick, was the purpose of the front-page editorial to convince us you're right, make we who enjoyed it change our minds, convince others that they shouldn't take a chance themselves, or (our personal favorite) just stir up the pot some more?

Okay, that WAS a rhetorical question. Add a few more onions and simmer for another day or two.

------------------
The Undead are Watching.

Finally a game-based movie gets a renowned director who actually cares about the source material, played the games, and is about to begin shooting...and then they fire him and hire Paul Anderson!! WHAT THE HELL!!

I'm sorry. It's just the overall shck value of that happening. More people would have seen it with his name attatched, though RE would have made even more $$$ with a PG-13 label.

------------------
Final Fantasy Horizon

There are no whys, how come, please explain, well I disagree and heres why type stuff to discuss....If Nick writes up a review/editorial and I agree with what he says all I could really post is a compliment which in turn produces no discussion.

I've not seen Resident Evil but it is doing good at the box office and it seems that several members did like the movie. It's only logical that Nick being who he is will get this sort of discussion at his site.

------------------
~Eileen

"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

"Finally a game-based movie gets a renowned director who actually cares about the source material, played the games, and is about to begin shooting...and then they fire him and hire Paul Anderson!! WHAT THE HELL!!"

Considering that A) Anderson wrote the script as well as directed it & B) according to many people here, there are homages & outright steals from the games all over the film, I'm willing to bet Anderson both played the games and cared about the source material.

"Why is it no one gets this worked up about Nick's opinions being on the main page when we agree with him?"

Actually, we have...in defense of them when other people laid into him for them.
In this case, however, it wasn't a matter of not agreeing with him. It was that, when we didn't agree with him on the boards, he went and made a whole news story on his confusion over why so many people liked it when he thought it was Spider Jeruselem's unwashed pants. Now, there's nothing *really* wrong with that...it's his site & it advertises the fact that there are boards on here the readers can come be heard on...but it's like Bill Maher talking over his guests because he doesn't agree with them, and he's got control of the show. Sometimes you just want to throw a water balloon at him...and the boards are where you fill the condom up with water and toss it at him. (Or anybody else who has an article on any of the sites, myself included.) Hence the "getting worked up."
Although I've yet to see anyone call Nick or anyone else who didn't like it any interesting names. Hell, I thought discussion was what the boards were all about, back before the days of "My donkey dick's bigger than your sorry excuse for a toothpick" tennis matches.
Note: The above comparison should not take it to mean that just because I used Bill Maher's name that I think Nick is a childish loudmouth who lacks respect for anyone who doesn't think the same way he does. It was just the first name that came to mind besides Jerry Rivers and Larry King, neither of which I would inflict comparison to on ANYBODY.

[This message has been edited by Coyote (edited 03-20-2002).]

Personally, I loved all of "Jeepers Creepers" and I think my love for RE is far too evident. Carry on.

------------------
Speak English Or Die. --Sgt. D

This is just a thought or question to those who didn't enjoy this film:

Was Romero's aborted involvement, Anderson's helming the film, and personal "negative" feelings about Anderson's skill as a director somewhat contributed to your dislike for the film? Have you also read the original Romero script and felt that it would have been a better film?

Now, Coyote, as you felt that Nick had "talk[ed] over us" we can equally do the same to him. What Nick had said is not really insulting in my opinion. For example, I just turned the tables around with those questions I had just asked. I can say, "Hey, Nick, I can't believe that someone who loved "Jeepers Creepers" did not enjoy "Resident Evil"! This is CHUD for God's sakes, and the site's name pays homage to a cheezy B movie that had a plot similar to "Resident Evil"!"

Thanks, Coyote! I got to use you to vent those questions.

Nevertheless, to me, "Resident Evil" is a movie I'd categorize on the same level as "Speed," "Scream," and "Charlie's Angels" -- just pure mindless fun.

------------------
Speak English Or Die. --Sgt. D

Oh, Nick didn't insult me in the slightest, nor do I think his intent was to insult. I do not feel personaly slighted, cheated, belittled, talked down to, or that Nick in any abused the fact that he owns the site by posting his opinion on his own site. The above comments were made in response to the small twinge that went "sproing" inside when Nick went all verbose on a non-interactive collumn on the main site. That twinge wasn't anger, it was just that, a twinge. It's like when you hear your cat in the next room getting into something, but you have no idea what he's doing....*twinge* And just like I don't think Nick is my cat, I don't feel that he "talked over us"...that was just part of the example of tying in the wish of tossing water ballons to people reacting on the boards to the article, that's all.
I ain't mad at Nick. Well, not for this, anyways. My anger at him turning me down as my date to prom has nothing to do with this.

Dude, that is friggin hillarious.

On the note of RE, haven't seen the movie and I usually heed advice by the chud columns so I will wait till rental or if someone pays my way to go see it.

Chud is usually right on movies, there have been a few that I didn't agree with, but that is rare.

------------------
end of the line

Just to beat a dead horse in response to the 'zombie-flick is dead' revelation, BoxOfficeMojo.com has a genre tracker for zombie flicks, placing the box office take thus far for "Resident Evil" fifth out of 27 such flicks since 1982.

Ahead of it are "The Serpent and the Rainbow", "Creepshow", "Pet Sematery", and "Death Becomes Her." Wow... they really do get worse as they get to the top, huh?

------------------
The Undead are Watching.

[This message has been edited by The Crystal Lich (edited 03-20-2002).]

Well I just watched this film last night.

My thoughts on it are biased due to the fact that I watched it from the third row and my back was so cramped I started to go blind. And what's with film quality the closer you get to the screen? The entire movie was blurry and had terrible video noise. Was this due to poor projection or are all films like that when you get close?

Anyway, it had it's moments, jump out of your seat moments and not so great moments. I just don't understand what goes through a directors head when they make a film such as this.

If I made resident Evil I could guarantee a better film. First of all I would get rid of the horrible Aliens rip off script that they were going with. Instead I'd cross genre's such as The X-files and Day of the dead with a little bit of the Thing and The Shining.

Now to make it all gel I'd have the story start off as a bit of an investigative "X-files episode", or even "the thing." Notice how in the Thing we didn't know what truly happened to those scientists, but it made us want to find out so bad that we were squirming with anticipation. Now on to the setting or mansion itself. Have you ever watched the Others? The entire mansion was a black tomb. This is how the mansion in RE should have been. It would make for a scary atmosphere not to mention how creepy it would be for the zombies to come darting out of the dark. Of course some rooms would need to be lit because we wouldn't want to sit through darkness at all times, but in RE there was not enough dark atmospheric scenes.

On to creature FX and I can't stress this enough, get rid of Computer animation where it isn't needed. There were parts in RE that could have been ten times more effective with puppets. The Thing is again a great example, Ooh the dog's head coming apart, damn creepy and looked real to me, more real that that blob of computer animation.

What about gore? Now I've watched all the Zombie movies from Romero, I'm not sure which one it was but there was so much gore I couldn't believe it. Why didn't resident evil have this gore, and I'm not talking about computer animated gore, I'm talking about sick out rip your torso in two puppetry gore.

Well I can sit here and bitch and moan for a day but the fact remains that RE was made and it'll never be undone or made into anything better. We have to suffer with what we got.

Hopefully if they make silent hill they'll remain true to the source material. That video game is more creepy than anything I've experienced. I'm speaking of the first game though, the second doesn't hold a candle to the first.

Ciao guys, I'm eagerly awaiting Blade 2, a film I know will live up to expectations.

people have compared/judged this movie against ghosts of mars, event horizon, and mortal kombat even.

How does this compare to that other monster movie with a hottie in a nice dress...The Relic?

Based on the hate I've seen so far I think I'll spend my monday matinee money on blade 2 next week instead of this, but try if you will to sway me.

someone tell me what besides the retarded-looking monsters and the mansion/lab concept was even remotely like Resident Evil in that movie. The game is about STARS, guns, survival, imminent death, absolute fear. The music in the game is eerie, the sounds are nerve-wracking. The game has a plot which makes sense and keeps getting deeper and better with every puzzle you solve. All I saw in the movie was a few ugly dogs randomly thrown in for the kiddies, pathetic "zombies," Umbrella as a nametag to confound the idiots in the crowd...
There was nothing in the movie to suggest that the director did anything more than glance at the pictures on the back cover of one of the games... I suppose Spiderman will be about some russian spies and a british agent in a spider suit... Do we get the idea? Show me anything significantly similar to the game. Anything at all. I bet all you'll come up with is the nametags. I could paste a green monster into any martial arts movie and call it Street Fighter, k? Resident Evil was neither Resident to the game nor Evil in any sense except in its huge bag of ass-ness. Don't even try to defend it in terms of the game... it FAILED as even a tribute to that legacy!

Assbag, it's a prequel.

------------------
Speak English Or Die. --Sgt. D

Thanks, folks, I'm $20 richer.

"The Serpent and the Rainbow" is not a zombie flick any more than Seven is a comedy. It's a voudoun movie. If it's going to be lumped into the zombie catagory, you might as well toss The Crow, Truely, Madly, Deeply, and The Greatest Story Ever Told in there, too.

You know that you've been hanging around in CHUD for way too long when you're about to crash for nitey-nite when someone's post just gnaws at you and you just gotta get your thoughts in.....

Okay, I was NOT satisfied with my one-note respond to Assbag. (Oh yeah, I just got back from seeing "Ice Age" and it was such a cute movie!) I should be sleeping now, but, what the heck!.....



Besides S.T.A.R.S., there *were* plenty of "guns, survival, imminent death, absolute fear" in my opinion. As for S.T.A.R.S., look closely at the police car at the end of the film. Guess what? You'll see a S.T.A.R.S. symbol! It hints at their arrival in a sequel (or it could be that the Special Ops team was actually STARS). Anyway, like I said, this is a prequel and Anderson had many options to work with (remember: the film was about "EVENTS LEADING TO THE INCIDENT AT RACCOON CITY"). Now, however Anderson (or whoever -- though I'd like for Anderson to do it) makes the sequel gel in with Resident Evil 1 and 2 (btw, RE3 takes place before RE2), it will remain to be seen.

I agree that RE the film lacked in the "eerie and nerve-racking" department. It's a loud action thriller, when it boils down to it. Personally I enjoyed that; I also felt that it paid respect to the game because I was never truly creeped out by those games in the first place. It's just a rush getting shocked by zombies and blowing away such zombies. And with a Game Shark, the carnage is endless! Hehe.

And if we will refer to the plot of the games..... I love these games dearly, but plotwise, it's very simple (and amazingly subtle) but the puzzles themselves are fairly ridiculous! Nevertheless, the plot of the film is also fairly basic, but as a videogame-turned-to-movie plot, it's quite decent -- at least to me.



I don't want to rehash the points I've noticed that paid homage to the games, but I'm just wondering what you mean by "significantly similar" to the game? To me, they were all there -- cleverly placed, I might add.. As far as the ugly dogs are concerned, they were in the games so they were not randomly thrown in for the kiddies. In fact, if you've played the first game, the FMV shows you 3 zombie dogs (called MA-39 Cerberus) rips Joseph (of S.T.A.R.S.) to bloody bits. Also, the major plot point of Alice wanting to bring down the Umbrella Corporation is *the* main story of ALL the Resident Evil games. That's pretty significant.

Anyway, I do notice some potential problems as to how this prequel would work with the sequels -- in regards to keeping with the RE Games storyline. I have yet to figure out whether this mansion is the same mansion the S.T.A.R.S. heroes enter from the first game. Because The Hive was NOT in the game at all. Could there be another mansion nearby? RE game purists are probably pissed off at the explanation of the T-Virus breaking out in a lab in The Hive instead of the underground lab of Spencer Mansion.

But then again, that's being too nitpicky of the storyline. The thing is, Anderson molded this movie to have a feel of Resident Evil and NOT be a carbon copy of the Resident Evil games. I really enjoyed that as I'd be bored to tears if I was watching a carbon copy of the game.

As for your Blanka comparison, I just can't personally understand why you felt that the "nametags" were the only thing that paid homage to the game!

Assbag, I'm not defending the movie (well, I guess I am because I loved it); but defending Anderson for really paying great tribute to the games.....

------------------
Speak English Or Die. --Sgt. D

Andersen's about as far from being a hack as possible.* That might actually be part of the problem...his passion may cause him to not sit back and look at the "big picture." Or maybe he does see the big picture, and his tastes just differ from what you think his tastes should be; I know people who love Full Moon, and I just don't get it. But there ya go.

*"Hack" was the primary focus of a thread, earlier, about people tossing out words as insults without knowing what they mean. Know the definition of insult before you toss it out. In this case, Hack, from Dictionary.com:
"One who undertakes unpleasant or distasteful tasks for money or reward; a hireling.
A writer hired to produce routine or commercial writing."
Since Andersen loved the games, lobbied himself for the picture, then wrote and directed it, that's pretty damn far from "hack." In your opinion, , he may have been trite, lame, or boring, but he didn't get assigned the movie and churn out a script just to have something to film so he could get a paycheck.

I agree with him. "Resident Evil" is warmed over ass.

Just watched it.

MOR horror film. I liked that they didn't go for any cutesy jokes, and the beginning had the seeds of a decent set-up. Special forces team trapped a mile underground with a legion of zombies.

But they forgot to flesh out the story or the characters, and whacked the only character of any interest, the fella from the 007 films, way too early, and left us with a cluster of insipid, banal pretty faces. I never forgive a film for doing that. Hollywood, the next tiome you're going to throw $60 million on a horror film, please send it William Wesley's way.

I didn't really regret seeing the film because of my lowered expectations. But that's a lousy way to watch a movie.