Was That Film Really That Bad??? - Resident Evil: Extinction

After the dire (but profitable) Resident Evil: Apocalypse, it was a forgone conclusion that there would be another sequel. Given the actual not half bad ending to that dumpster fire of a movie (from a potential storyline point of view anyway), there was definitely room for manoeuvre in a third instalment. As sure as day follows night, three years later, Resident Evil: Extinction duly hit the big screens. Scoring 24% on rottentomatoes.com, this was a slight improvement on Apocalypse (20%), but was this film really that bad?

As the third film in the series, this entry took us right back to the beginning. Literally. We see Alice (the returning Ms Jovovich) awaken in that tastefully arranged collapsed-in-shower position as she did in the first movie but we're quickly moved from the mansion to a hospital type corridor where Alice duly dies. Hold on! What??? 

Oh! Clones. To quote a different movie from a long, long time ago, I've got a bad feeling about this.

Yep, nefarious scientist-type bods, led by Dr Isaacs (a returning Iain Glen) are trying to recreate the actual Alice as she is the only successful example of a person bonding with the T-virus. Why do this? Well, as per a handy info dump and narration, the world has turned to shit. The T-virus got out of Racoon City and the whole planet is dead. Bang go any potential stories from that second film then.

Isaacs is holed up in an Umbrella Corp bunker in the Nevada desert, whilst the rest of Umbrella has also retreated to similar facilities in cities around the world, all organised by Umbrella CEO Wesker (Jason O'Mara) who is based in Tokyo. They're hanging on but it's looking grim, hence the pressure on Isaacs to get the Alice program sorted. 

The Kraftwerk reveal killed 'em dead...

Meanwhile, the real Alice is motorbiking across the American south west and discovers a notebook that details a refuge in Alaska, as well as finding out she's telepathic - as you do. We also have our intrepid survivors from the second film: Claire Redfield (Ali Larter), Carlos Olivera (Oded Fehr) and L.J. Wade (Mike Epps). They're part of a convoy of survivors that also happens to be in the area. Everyone eventually meets up, deciding to head to Vegas to pick up fuel. Isaacs finds this out, sends a container full of "trained" zombies to stop them and collect Alice, everything goes pear-shaped and the climax of the film is of Alice battling an infected Isaacs (who has become a Tyrant) whilst Redfield and some minor characters head off in a helicopter to safety somewhere else. At the very end, Alice kills the Tyrant with the help of a clone, discovers that there are hundreds, if not thousands of "her" waiting to be released, and pledges to come after Wesker in his Tokyo stronghold. Cue set up for next sequel.

That's a hell of a lot of boys for that milkshake they making.

I will say this: it's genuinely not as bad as Apocalypse. Really! It's still a crap film, no doubt, but the actual story and tone of the film are at least semi-grounded this time. That doesn't mean to say I don't have issues with it. Get yourself a glass of warm milk and some cookies, gentle reader, and I shall begin.

Their friends or their careers... who can tell what was buried here?

They really did waste the set up left by the end of Apocalypse. With Alice rescued by our intrepid gang, they could have taken any direction they wanted to with the characters. Instead, with a minute or two of voice over, they wipe that possibility out by killing off pretty much the entire planet. It does, however, mean that the $45m budget (same as Apocalypse) can go a bit further as they're filming in the desert most of the time. 

Let's do Vegas on a budget, they said...

Story wise, the introduction of Wesker and the Umbrella corporate boardroom does give a bit more depth to the proceedings. However, there is a "fuck off" moment when, during a boardroom meeting, you realise that almost everyone there is represented by a hologram and when the call ends, each place still has a full glass of water in front of it! Maybe it's a commentary on the inflexibility of corporate behaviour. Maybe it's just a filming snafu. Who knows. The film also tries to riff The Island of Dr. Moreau but that falls flat too.

Water, water everywhere, not a single drop they can drink.

 

There is definitely a Mad Max look to the movie and I suppose if you're going to emulate, you might as well copy from the best. And, considering the budget, they do some decent work here. Las Vegas gone to seed looks impressive to begin with, until you realise that the scale is all wrong, especially the faux Eiffel Tower. Also, it's not right next door the Venetian. When you've walked between the two in 40 degree heat, you know! Though this does being up another "fuck off" moment where a survivor climbs the Tower to provide covering fire with his L85A1, otherwise known as the SA80. It doesn't jam once. It is, indeed the perfect desert-suitable zombie killing device until they climb up to get him. Except, gentle reader, the A1 was unreliable crap. The A2 is pretty good by all reports, but the A1 was terrible. Yes, movie guns only jam when the story suits them but it does take away any sense of realism when you see this guy rock and roll with it - and I am aware that I have used the R-word whilst watching a guy shoot zombies from a tiny replica of the Eiffel Tower in a tiny mock up of Las Vegas! 

Uh-huh... Yeah... No!

The CGI, of the dogs (yep, we still have zombie dogs), crows and the Tyrant itself, is pretty dire. Same goes for the truck bomb near the end of the movie. That's a budgetary thing but at least this time, when they aim for a dramatic shot, it kind of comes off ok, rather than the bullshit of the previous film. That's the responsibility of the director, Russell Mulcahy, the director of the brilliant Highlander and absolute shit show that was Highlander 2. Here, he proves that a decent director can turn Wor Paul's scripts into something that isn't a steaming turd. As per the last film, Wor Paul handles writing and producing tasks, so we still get a CGI map of an underground facility. It's almost like a calling card now.

Here we go again...

The cast do what they need to, and the additions of the zombie fodder/Umbrella staff are there for show only. Shout out to Matthew Marsden who, once again, proves that he can do the business but keeps appearing in crap movies (DOA: Dead or Alive - reviewed here, and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - nope, not touching that mess of robotic bollocks ever...) whilst Jason O'Mara makes Wesker a weird Eminem/Ray Charles/Agent Smith hybrid. 

Come on, let me see you shake your tail feather...

There is further nonsense, like Redfield taking the remaining survivors (Olivera and Wade don't make it) in a helicopter to, presumably Alaska, when in fact with that thing, she'd barely have the range to get out of Nevada. The whole clone project and the resources that it uses/wastes is another weird one. Where do they get the stuff from? The trip to Vegas - surely a city would have a large number of infected anyway - turns out it didn't, as Isaacs helicopters in a container load for the lols. 

Is this Vegas? Nope, surely a wrong turn at Albuquerque...

Resident Evil: Extinction is better than Apocalypse. It does waste the set up created at the end of the latter film but it does finish with its own opportunities. Nonsensical ones, but opportunities nonetheless. As with the previous two movies, the actors don't really get a chance to do much and, hell, most of them die anyway, but there is a bit more logic to the central story (well, only a smidge) and this film didn't raise as many hackles as Apocalypse. However, it's still a cheap looking daft videogame adaptation and that means yes, it really is that bad.