Was That Film Really That Bad??? - Far Cry (2008)

Boll is back! Even if you didn't want him to be. At a time when videogames rights holders weren't too picky about who they licensed their titles to, Uwe Boll was usually the first in line grab the film rights. Here, it's Crytek's classic, Far Cry (before it went and got all Ubisoft'd, for better and for worse). Could the Movie Man of Mediocrity finally deliver a film worthy of the source material? Or would it be the case that, once again, he's created a pile of complete Boll-ocks? Find out as I ask of Far Cry, was that film really that bad???

Let's get the "plot" out of the way first, and, to be honest, I shouldn't be that disparaging. On a remote island in the Pacific Northwest, dodgy scientist Dr Krieger (Udo Kier) is experimenting on behalf of the US Government to create super soldiers. This doesn't sit well with some of those attached to the project, in particular Max (Ralf Moller), who is secretly passing on information on the project to his niece, Valerie (Emmanuelle Vaugier), who happens to be an investigative reporter. She journeys up to the nearest port to the island, charters a boat captained by former Special Forces dude and functioning alcoholic, Jack Carver (Til Schweiger), who used to serve with Max, and tries to find out what's going on. Along the way, they clash with Katia Chernov (Natalia Avelon), Kreiger's head of security, Mike (Craig Fairbrass), leader of the US Special Forces guarding the island, and Emilio (Chris Coppola), a food delivery guy and alleged comic relief for the film. 

If you see this in future, RUN!

Taking a broad view, there are some similarities to the plot of the original game, and we do get a horrible Hawaiian shirt for good measure, but as you can probably tell, as a Boll meisterwerk(!), it's got its issues. 

Audience looking for the good bits, your humble scribe in the background after watching the film.

To cut a long story short (too late, Clue fans), it comes down to watching a film directed by someone who either a) hasn't the money to do justice to their vision, b) is going through the motions or c) is just a little bit shit at this directing malarkey. The answer, by the way, is all of the above. Budget-wise, this was a $30m production, which is respectable for a Boll movie and not bad for a video game adaptation either. Max Payne, released the same year, was made for $37m, and that had at least a sense of style. Where it seems to go wrong with Far Cry is that, to do justice to the source material, more money was needed, so you get the best that Canadia can offer and some truly terrible performances. 

NOT how to load a break barrel rifle. EVER!

In fairness, the majority of the main cast range from decent to actually quite good, even if their characters are two dimensional at best. Kier is always tremendous value, even if in this instance, he seems to be channelling Yuri from the C&C Red Alert games. In any case, his purring menace is pitched just right here. Schweiger is also decent, if a tad wooden and blank. Not exactly leading man material in action scenes but he can do light comedy now and then, but the less said about the "rating" running gag, the better. That's a prime example of pitching to a teen boy audience - which is funny as the DVD version is rated 18 in the UK. Avelon plays it hardball all the way, whereas Vaugier does have some good moments opposite Schweiger (aside from the "rating'.. dammit! I wasn't going to mention that again!). Fairbrass is Fairbrass, which is playing to his strengths, although it must be said that his "American" accent veers from almost ok-ish to "bloody hell, mate, you havin' a bubble" levels of silliness. Bless him for trying though. Even the late Don S Davis takes time out from Stargate Command to rock up in a neat little cameo. 

Budget James Corden. Fuck off, bonny lad, then fuck off some more!

However, it is the inclusion of Coppola that really grates, even more so than the bit-parters I'll get to in a minute. Emilio is the "food guy," a loud, annoying and almost never quiet sidekick that the film really doesn't need. He ruins every scene he's in, overacting, underacting and wandering free, Emilio's pointless, pointless is he. Think James Corden in The There Musketeers. Actually, think James Corden in anything! An obvious graduate of the shouting school of acting, it's almost enough to make you stop watching, but then you'd miss the bit part players. The newspaper boss whose as genuine as a politician's smile. The harbour couple, running the dock Jack uses - straight out of a Canadian sitcom (and with very poor air gun handling skills, I must say). Finally, the American tourists who want to watch whales. Stereotypical tourists, but so terribly overacted and pitched so badly it hurts, you kind of wish they'd get stuck on the island just to shut them up! However, as bad as the cast might get, there is still Boll's directing to consider...

Rate my set up...

Far Cry features car chases, boat chases and numerous fight scenes. These are actually boring, combining a penchant for being overly linear and being edited in such a way that all sense of fluidity and comprehension disappears in the final cut. Rather than making the fisticuffs feel real, it's as if you're watching a highlights video of the training sessions. And as for the gun play... 

SHUT IT!

Look, I get it. Until the turn of the 21st century, most action films tended to stick to the "hold gun in a cool way and pull trigger as there's a magic bullet supply" technique. It worked for Arnie and co, so why not here? Well, over the last couple of decades, the presentation of firearms use has changed, and in many instances mirrored the real world use as the actors would be trained by those who know. Here, we have "Special Forces" (my ring piece they are) acting like they're just walked out of a paintball competition. Boll's direction can't even make that look good. 

The new Smurf movie goes really dark.

That lack of realism extends to other weapons, like the RPG that acts like a Javelin. If you don't know, then fair enough, but watch enough action movies, play enough games or be interested in military history anyway, and you'll know. There's the helicopter and harpoon bit (like, seriously, just no!), and a scene where scientists literally just stand around as a dude with an M60 sprays across a room. And let's not get onto the make-up of the super soldiers. Ok, let's! If you ever want to know what a zombie Smurf movie would look like, then the exact shade of dead Smurf flesh is right here. 

The Mitchells if Eastenders was set in the military.

Given that Boll can't do action, can't do characters and really can't do story, what is left from the hodge-podge of Predator, The Island of Dr Moraeu and even the video game Far Cry? Not much, and yet...

For all of it's faults (for they are legion), Far Cry isn't as bad as some of Boll's other films (although I have yet to see Postal). It's not good. It's barely passable in fact, but it lacks the flaws that hammer some of his other efforts - the overly long and confusing battles in In The Name of the King, the absolute phoning it in style of Bloodrayne and whatever the actual fuck was happening in Alone in the Dark. However, saying it's not as bad as his others is like saying a type 6 is better than a type 7 on the Bristol scale. It is, but you'd never want to experience either if you could avoid it, so yes, Far Cry really is that bad, but there are shades of (Zombie Smurf) grey here too.

Was That Film Really That Bad??? - The Avengers (1998)

And so we arrive at this veritable feast of cinematic brilliance. A film so recognisable, so embedded in the psyche of the general public that even the behemoth that is Marvel decided to change the name of their 2012 low budget indie in order to avoid confusion in the UK. A cinephile's orgasm of plot, characterisation and drama. Action so beyond compare that they have never tried to bring the characters back... Oh! Fuck it! You know the film I'm talking about. And if you don't, you're about to. 

As Babylon 5's Zathras say, "Not the one!"

The 1990's saw a brief resurrection of genre TV shows at the cinema. The Saint tried and and was an honourable failure, whilst Lost in Space aimed for the moon and ended up in that Dr Who quarry off the A40. It was, however, The Avengers that had the most going for it. A recognisable brand, a fine legacy (even The New Avengers had its high points... and no, not those! And it featured an ever-so-chic Hunt. DO NOT say that quickly...), this adaptation was eagerly awaited, especially as it brought together the then-hot casting of Uma Thurman, Ralph Fiennes and the ever-dependable Sir Sean Connery. Oh, and a budget of $60 million, only $10m less than 1998's Saving Private Ryan and look what they put on screen there! Anticipation ran high.

Connery's "bear" faced cheek at the first script reading.

And anticipation remained, if at rapidly decreasing levels, as the film skipped previews. Yep, never a good sign when the reviewers get to watch a film at the same time as the paying punter. If they had seen it first, maybe they would have asked what the literal fuck was the money spent on? $60m. That's $111,000,000 today. Where did it go? Maybe it was to pay for Sean Connery to wear a fucking teddy bear suit? Maybe it was for a Ben Nevis sized mountain of Columbian sneezing powder, 'cos sure as hell the writers, producers and director were off their tits on something when they thought up this sorry excuse for a 90 minute desecration of the memory of Steed and company. Maybe, just maybe, they did the whole thing for $20 mil and spaffed the rest on a weekend at that Glasto, class A and all? Who knows? Who cares. All that was left was this steaming pile of nostalgia-laced shit that took a beloved TV favourite and passed it through Satan's colon faster than a Brown Ale-coated pork pie. 

Really, WB, really???

Sigh...

Where to begin? The plot, maybe? 

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaalls

So there's this guy, Steed (Fiennes). He works for The Ministry and is tasked by his boss, Mother (a woefully wasted Jim Broadbent), to find out why Dr Emma Peel (Thurman, who has zero on-screen chemistry with Fiennes) has sabotaged her own project, a weather control system named Prospero. She claims innocence, so the pair head off to check out Sir August de Wynter (Connery),a scientist who previously worked at The Ministry. Along the way, we meet Father (Fiona Shaw), second in command of The Ministry, and Bailey (Eddie Izzard), a henchman of de Wynter. Naturally, de Wynter is up to no good, as there is skulduggery, cloning and what not. Oh, and a Grace Jones song for the after party. At 90 minutes, it lasts far, far too long.

Bloody good right to look smug after that payday!

Let's begin with the casting. As noted above, our leads show naff all chemistry or, indeed, likeability. They trade innuendos in performances akin to a local am-dram performance of Romeo and Juliet with Anne Widdicombe and Jacob Rees Mogg in the lead roles, making most of their banter excruciating to watch. You do get to see Connery dressed as a teddy bear, but the rest of it feels like he's phoning it in. Shaw, a superb actress (most recently in Andor), is given little to do, and Izzard, who is sublime on occasion, barely registers at all. And why is Shaun Ryder a henchman? I have no sodding idea! 

If only they'd made a Mr Benn movie!

The state of the casting follows into the setting. It's like the cast are the only living souls on the planet. The 60's TV show had a specific look and style because it was filmed on the cheap. This film wasn't, but they kept the style anyway as a homage and it doesn't work. Logic is missing in action too and, aside from trying to look cool and prove Steed is handy with a brolly, the opening village scene makes bugger all sense. It doesn't get better - the aforementioned teddy bear costumes for one.

Or a remake of The Sweeney?

It feels like the writers got hammered watching old repeats then tried to re-create the magic through the port and brandy induced hangover (never, ever mix those two!) whilst thinking "Cool Britannia" was something more than just a marketing slogan. As per the rules, there's a cheeky voice only cameo for Patrick Macnee (the one, true Steed!), but that is slight comfort. By this point in the film, you'll just want the pain to end. But no, there is more to come, as the "special effects" culminate in badly shot model of a hot air balloon blowing up and then the actual denouement with de Wynter. 

Career symbolism ahoy!

The thing is, do you care that he gets his comeuppance? I didn't by the end of this celluloid mess. You may feel that I am being too hard on The Avengers. You might think that, just as The Saint and Lost in Space had some redeeming features (honestly, The Saint is pretty decent), The Avengers has too. I respect your point of view but you're just plain wrong. It was pulled from its original release date and dumped at the arse end of the summer. It was withheld from critics until its public release. It hit the box office with all of the style and grace of a seagull turd hitting a windscreen.  

"I'm thinking The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen will be a good follow up..."

When I started this series back in 2020, The Avengers was one of the original half dozen or so I wanted to review, having never actually seen it. It took a while, but I found a copy for £1 in CEX. I am pleased I have watched it, because now I can pass on this warning. No matter what good things you may have heard, what tiny, minuscule gems of brilliance you might have read about, The Avengers is a stinker of the highest order and, hand on heart, I can honestly say that yes, this film really is that bad.

Was That Film Really That Bad??? - Death Train (1993)

Did you know there was a Yorkshire International Film company? No? Me neither. But there was, and before you go searching for those elusive cinematic outings of Last of the Summer Wine or Emmerdale Farm (they doesn't exist!), there was a film that YIF was involved in that, whilst not filmed in Yorkshire, seemed to have a budget similar to the average episode of those TV shows. From such humble origins, a question must be asked of Death Train. Was that film really that bad???

Alistair MacLean's Death Train, to give this film its full title - although it was also called Detonator in the US - is a 1993 action thriller starring a pre-Bond Pierce Brosnan, flexing his acting and action muscles post-Remington Steele. He plays Mike Graham, a retired "business associate" of Malcolm Philpot (Sir Patrick Stewart, taking a break from the Enterprise D), head of UNACO.

T' Yarkshire!

UNACO (United Nations Anti-Crime Organisation) may seem familiar to some. It was the organisation used in a series of books headlining Alistair MacLean but written by others using his notes. The first, Hostage Tower, was turned into a TV movie for CBS way back in 1980 starring Keir Dullea, Peter Fonda, Douglas Fairbanks Jnr, Maud Adams, Britt Ekland and Billy Dee Williams. It's not a bad made-for-television movie and certainly looks the part considering it was shot entirely on location in Paris. Alongside Hostage Tower and Death Train, the only other UNACO novel to hit the screen was Night Watch (also known as Detonator II: Night Watch) in 1995, Brosnan's final film before Goldeneye. The rest, as they say, is history.

Evil Thomas is going to screw up Sodor.

Back to Death Train, and the plot is pretty simple. Disgruntled Russian General Konstantin Benin (Sir Christopher Lee) has enlisted the help of a German physicist to create a nuclear bomb that, in a completely off the wall way, will allow the Soviet Union to regain its rightful place as a world superpower... Yeah, I know, but it's a TV movie, what do you expect? To do this, he's put said bomb on a train along with a ton of mercenaries led by right wing conspiracy nut Alex Tierney (Ted Levine - he of doggies, baskets, aggressive skin care routines, and constant asking if you'd make the beasts with two backs with him...). To stop said crackerjacks, Philpott enlists Graham, Sabrina Carver (Alexandra Paul) and C.W. Whitlock (Clarke Peters), plus a fairly anonymous cast of European associates to add a bit of flavour. These generic characters are also used to introduce a level of treachery because, you know, dodgy stereotypes must be observed.

Someone is going to need some talcum powder... and Lynx Africa!

If you've ever seen this movie, you'll already know what I am going to start off with, and yes, it's the budget. This film was shot on a shoestring in Slovenia and Croatia during 1992 and it shows. They do the best they can, but once you've seen Carver shoot a "grenade launcher" or, even better, that helicopter rocket attack, you'll know you have a slice of pure cinematic Wensleydale. 

Rockets galore! Yet not a single one on target.

That is not to say that there isn't some enjoyment to be had from watching this and it is certainly more than just a curio for those wanting to see pre-Bond Brosnan - even if he still looks far too young in this role and his "accent" wanders more haphazardly than any of those rockets! 

For all you Amiga fans out there: Scala!

Arguably the biggest mis-steps are the direction and the script. The character interactions, at least as far as the UNACO team go, fall flat most of the time. Where there should be camaraderie, there is awkwardness. Where there should be banter, it sounds more like they're talking to their creepy uncle. Brosnan isn't helped by coming across as a sexist moron, whilst Alexandra Paul lacks the oomph to make the retorts hit back in any meaningful way. Aficionados of action movies of the 70's to 90's will recognise the tropes from the start but by this point, said tropes were wearing more than a little thin. As for the scheme to transport a bomb across most of Europe into the Middle East, well, it's different. 

Never look the Headmaster in the eyes! Especially when he's cos-playing!

Minor characters suffer too - the traitor sub-plot is obvious a mile away, C.W. is practically a functioning alcoholic given the amount he drinks from that hip flask, and Sir Pat Stew does his best with almost nothing at all. Those of you who remember the Demon Headmaster TV show of the early 90's will rejoice to see Terrence Hardiman playing a German Police commander, whilst kudos should always be given to Sir Christopher Lee, whose ability to "get by" in Russian is demonstrated well here, although the region 2 DVD lacks subtitles so I have no idea what he was actually saying. Levine gives good value as the on-train bad guy, even if his trigger technique is... concerning.

Picard found the new holo-novel quite disappointing.

It doesn't help that whoever trained the actors in firearms handling really wanted to use the Dummies Guide to Action Films, rather than, you know, have them even pretend to use the sights on the kit. The hospital fight scene is diabolically bad, and the lack of budget makes Lee's scenes look as if they were filmed guerrilla style in Zagreb.

More wacky rocket action!

Comment must also be made about the music. It's fits like a glove at times, but at others, it jars terribly, like lift muzak in a gunfight. Pacing is something else, and the relatively exciting helicopter attack and tunnel gun fight give way to a denouement that a) feels like it was written on the back of an envelope, and b) a whip round of the cast and crew's loose change was used to complete filming. 

Mike Graham will return...

Yet, for all of that, Death Train is a decent Friday night movie, either as a post-pub time filler or something to occupy you whilst you polish off that second bottle of wine, 'cos you'll need the mild anaesthetic of booze to see you through this. It has numerous flaws and plot holes - landing the chopper right in front of the news crew, that tease about a second bomb - but the principals do put the effort in (excepting Brosnan's dialect coach... if he had one). You could do far worse and I hope one day to pick up Night Watch as well but that thing is rarer than rocking horse poop. If I do, you can bet there will be a post about that one too, even if only for Brosnan's facial hair...

Was That Film Really That Bad??? - Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

The "difficult third album" is only a cliche because it happens to be true in many cases. Indeed, the same could be said of any art, and never more true of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. Not only did this film have to meet heady expectations raised by the seminal Wrath of Kahn, but it also had to juggle the difficult task of reintegrating a fan favourite character in to the series. Over the years, it has become a commonly held belief that the odd number entries into the Star Trek series are crap whilst the even numbered ones are held in high esteem (or at least in higher esteem than the odd-numbered entries). In the case of TSFS, it was too early for such simple labelling, so it must be asked of Star Trek III, was that film really that bad???

The film opens with the Starship Enterprise returning to Earth after the dramatic events of the previous movie. Looking much worse for wear, the ship is due for decommissioning and the crew are held to silence following the political fallout of the Genesis Project. When it becomes clear that Bones is carrying the soul of Spock and must be reunited with his body on the Genesis planet, Kirk and company resolve to steal the Enterprise and save their friends. 

I'm sure that'll buff out...

The Klingons want the Genesis device as a weapon and attack the science vessel dispatched by the Federation (the USS Grissom), whilst taking Kirk's son and Lt Savik (who were on an away mission to the Genesis planet) prisoner. Once the Enterprise arrives, it all kicks off, the Enterprise is destroyed, Kirk's son is killed, but the crew get Bones and a reborn Spock back to Vulcan. 

Ok, that will definitely NOT buff out.

It's a pretty simple tale and one that is delivered well. With a slightly higher budget than WoK, the space bound effects are top notch but the decision to film all of the Genesis planet scenes in a studio (and the sets are quite impressive at times) means that the film at times comes across as a standard TV episode writ large and paradoxically a little cheap. 

A Toast! To the set designers and construction gang!

The usual cast members return and, for a change, they are given a bit more screen time. After the first two films, it's nice to see Koenig and Takei actually have something to do, though Nichelle Nicols is criminally underused - and that is a trend that continued into the fourth movie. The sole returnee from WoK was Merritt Butrick as Kirk's son, David Marcus. Kirstie Alley didn't come back so the role of Savik was recast with Robin Curtis picking up the reins. A touch of class is provided by Dame Judith Anderson as a Vulcan high priestess and it's always good to see Mark Lenard as Sarek. The star of the show is Christopher Lloyd, playing a pitch perfect foil to Shatner's Kirk as Kluge, the Klingon commander chasing after the Genesis device. 

He's just dropped one and appreciates the ambience it provides.

The Search for Spock was a financial success, making $87m off a $16m budget, but it took less than WoK ($97m against a budget of $12m) and critical reaction was less favourable. No, it wasn't as slow or po-faced as The Motion Picture, but neither was it as action packed and dramatic as WoK. TSFS sits somewhere in between these two films but the key thing to remember is that it expands on the world outside of the Enterprise as well as allowing some of the cast to breathe a bit more. There is a enough humour to raise the odd smile and all told, this is very much a more personal story, relying as it does on the core trio of Kirk, Spock and McCoy. 

The space effects are really good though.

Maybe that's not what general audiences wanted. Maybe they wanted more of the ship combat and scenery chewing that WoK delivered. Or maybe not. Consider the next film in the series, The Voyage Home which was essentially a film about whale-napping, was a huge success for the series ($133m against $21m), as well as finishing off the story arc which began in WoK.

That guy at the back "Hey, Spock, do you like Sci-Fi movies?"

Is The Search for Spock really that bad? No. Thematically and stylistically, it fits in perfectly with the prior and later films. Yes, the studio work is obvious but hey, these weren't mega-budget films at the time. Compared to the likes of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Ghostbusters, TSFS had roughly half the budget and put bloody impressive SFX onscreen. Perhaps best binge watched with the second and fourth films, The Search for Spock delivers the story it needs to in a poignant and respectful manner to the characters. And after all, wasn't it the characters and the story that kept us enthralled with Star Trek in the first place?

A Guide To Video Games Movies by Christopher Carton - Book Review

Regular readers will know that I am quite partial to films based on video games. Even though I can be quite scathing and waspish, there is usually still enjoyment to be found somewhere... and yes, even in Resident Evil: The Final Chapter. However, whilst there are some very famous examples, there are also more obscure titles, and this is where Chris Carton's excellent tome comes in. 

A Guide To Video Games Movies does pretty much what it says on the cover, providing a well-written and informative directory of all game-based celluloid treats from the 1990's onwards. Divided into four sections, (1990's 2000's, 2010's and 2020's), Carton details nearly fifty films that, whilst they may be only very loosely based on their source material, are video games movies.

Each entry starts with a film promo poster and a details box giving release date, director(s), cast and tagline. The main entry begins with a brief background to the original gaming inspiration, followed by a description of the film and a comment on the quality alongside its critical and financial success. You then get a one liner reason as to why you should watch it and a brief note on whether a sequel followed up (or is likely). You also get a screenshot of the original game and a couple of shots from the film. 

At the end of each section are a couple of pages for the best of the rest, titles that may not have seen a wide release or were smaller scale features. 

I found this to be a fun read, the author providing a great look at each featured title without (much) sarcasm. If you want sarcasm, check out the Was That Film Really That Bad series on this blog. The author clearly demonstrates a love for the genre and a passion that resonates throughout this book, evident by the author's reasons to watch each film. I had completely forgotten about the "7 Seconds" event(!) in Alone in the Dark, and for that reason, I really need to watch that film again! There are some titles that I have never gotten round to watching, as well as some that I never knew about, and the joy of this tome is that I now have a list of games-based films to add to my collection. 

Indeed, whilst the general quality of video game films is rarely high, they always seem to have a certain charm and Carton displays that charm superbly here. Not sure if the use of the word "charm" will survive a viewing of Postal, but hey, I'd need to watch it to have an opinion. Whilst this book doesn't cover films inspired by video games, that could be an option for a future volume... hint, hint...

As you can see from the pictures, this tome is laid out cleanly and provides more than enough space for the images and text to breath. Production quality is high and it fits very well next to Daryl Baxter's superb Tomb Raider book. This is yet another quality release from White Owl, an imprint of the ever reliable Pen & Sword Books, and is a celebration of that much-maligned cinematic genre that deserves to get some love and attention. Chris Carton has proven to be the right person for that job!

Do I like this book? Yes! If you are a gamer who also likes films, should you buy this book? Hell, yeah! Would you enjoy watching all of the films featured in here? No idea, but what reading this book has done is prompted me to start searching for the films I don't already own to give them a go. And hey, if they're that bad, they'll get a WTFRTB post. 

You can pick up a copy of A Guide To Video Games Movies directly from the publisher here or order it from that online place or your local bookshop. You can also follow the author on Twitter here, where you'll also be able to find out about future titles. 

Was That Film Really That Bad??? - Resident Evil: The Final Chapter

Question: Was that film really that bad?

Answer: Yes.

End of post.

Thank Fuck for that!

That, gentle reader, would have been the result of this WTFRTB post on Resident Evil: The Final Chapter if I had shown the same amount of effort as Wor Paul did when he made this conclusion to the long running franchise. This has to be one of the laziest, most pointless films I have ever watched, and that's saying something considering I have watched the previous five films that make up the tale of Alice (and several Uwe Boll titles too!). To put it more politely, I am not just disappointed, I am terribly disappointed.

War. War never changes... Oops, wrong post-apocalyptic franchise! I hope there is no Fallout from that.

The plot is straight forward. Alice finds that Wesker has betrayed her so she want's revenge. The Red Queen also wants Wesker stopped so blackmails Alice to do so within 48 hours or she'll let the last human survivors die. Cue a mad dash back to the Hive, where it all began what seems like decades ago. Add a couple of clones of Dr Isaacs, a very tacked on appearance of Alicia, the daughter who was used to model the Red Queen and whom Alice is based upon, and an opening expository monologue that takes up the first five minutes of the film, and what you have is a movie trying desperately to finish the series in a way that will please fans and any randoms who've wandered in off the street. Yet it can't even be bothered to do that.

It's a fixer-upper.

I have to admit, it's the opening that really annoyed me. At the end of Retribution, there was a camera shot of the White House with our survivors on the roof as the last bastion of humanity fought to the end. Ignore the fact that it's not the last bastion. Ignore the fact that it made no sense. Prepare yourself, however, for one of the worst traits story-telling can have. Telling, but not showing. The Final Chapter opens with Alice escaping to the surface of a destroyed Washington DC after the monologue states that Wesker had set a trap. That is the pay off for the fifth film. That is the way Wor Paul has treat the story, the characters, the actors and the audience. And, in my humble opinion, he's a fucking tool for doing it. See, I told you I was terribly disappointed.

New Cirque de Soleil looks a bit shit.

It doesn't get any better. There's a silly road trip vibe with a couple of badly staged action sequences, followed by some purely nonsensical religious shite from a clone of Isaacs, then another sequence of set pieces that recall earlier entries, such as the defence of the compound gates, the narrow death trap ventilation systems and a completely pointless and un-noteworthy death by large fan. This film is only a 100 minutes long, but by this point, the Rings Trilogy felt shorter... all three of them in one sitting. Yet it gets worse.

This is a fight scene, not that you can see it in the dark.

Most of the back half is filmed at night or in places with poor lighting. With rapid camera cuts and really shoddy CGI, it's like watching a cage fight during a power cut wearing a blindfold. Even the introduction of Isaac Prime means nothing, what with his combat software built in, something that the Downey Jr Sherlock Holmes films did so much better without resorting to technology. I know I have accused this series of stealing, sorry, homaging ideas from other movies before, but here it seems like it has been done half-heartedly, as if even the crew can't be arsed anymore. This extends to the "you're fired so you can be killed" schtick that Robocop did so well... in 1987.

No 3D maps, but plenty of CGI exposition.

The actors, on the other hand, well, Iain Glen as Isaacs x2 is good value and he gives it his all in the fight scenes. Shawn Roberts plays Wesker as the same one note Agent Smith clone we've had for the past two films, and even the returning Ali Larter pretty much sleepwalks through the film. As for Ms Jovovich, she's here, she can still fight, but her role as the aged Alicia is just terrible, with bad make up and a Primary-school play level of "old" performance.

Part of me thinks I am being a little harsh, though that is only a small part. Res Evil 5 cost $65m and took in $240m in return. Not too shabby but worse in general figures than the 4th film. The Final Chapter cost $40 and took in $314m, a superb return but I can't help but think that people really shouldn't have rewarded Wor Paul and co for the worst film of the series. Maybe it was a bribe for them to fuck off and never come back. Who knows? More pertinently, does anyone care? After seeing Alice ride off into the desolation, I know I don't.

What I can say is that this is, without doubt, the worst of the Res Evil films with Wor Paul's mitts on them, and a shite pay off for fans who followed from the oh so innocent days of Res Evil one. True, a couple of the films were decent, if flawed, notably the first and fifth. However, they seem to have existed purely to create employment opportunities and rake in the cash from an audience who should feel conned as the credits of The Final Chapter roll. Hell, if I'd seen this at the cinema, I'd be heading straight for the nearest bar for a medicinal beverage or eight. As it is, watching them on DVD means there is a small blessing. At current rates, I can get £2 from CEX for cash, £5 for trade in. That's got to count for something...

On a different note, if you like movies based on video games, there is a new book on that very subject! A Guide to Video Games Movies by Christopher Carton was released a couple of days prior to this post going up. I have ordered my copy direct from the publisher, Pen and Sword Books, and am looking forward to what the author has to say about Wor Paul's series of films, alongside (hopefully) other movies that I've talked about here such as DOA: Dead or Alive, Wing Commander, and In The Name Of The King (shudder). It should arrive early next week and I'll have a review up a couple of weeks after that.  

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

This, gentle reader, is the fifth film in the seemingly never ending Resident Evil film series. If, by now, you thought you had seen it all, think again. Wor Paul is back in the writer's/director's/producer's role for another entry in the ever-shuffling zombie horror series. Despite reviewing like a five day old Eclair at your local Greggs, the series so far had made a total of $682m from a production spend of $183m, fair returns for the money and that was just the box office take. Success like that warranted a continuation, especially after the cliff-hanger at the end of the fourth film, and so Resident Evil: Retribution was released in 2012. The question, as always, was that film really that bad???

Before we go into the plot and the cast, let me talk to you about the opening of the film. It showcases both the best and worst of Wor Paul's film-making. Following on directly from the last entry, the opening credits show the battle on the Arcadia but in reverse slow motion. Credit where it's due, it's a rather nifty piece of cinema. Not only because you're getting it arse about face, but also because that slow motion can reveal lots of little tells and CGI whoopsies that could have derailed the effect Wor Paul was trying to achieve. To his, and the crews, credit, this actually works quite well. Yes, it's blatantly CGI heavy and that shows the weakness of the budget but as a way of starting the fifth film of the franchise, it certainly gets the audience's attention.

CGI? What CGI?

Now, onto the plot and the frankly bonkers story Wor Paul has put in place. We get to see "Alice" living a happy suburban life before zombies attack (we also see Olivera (Oded Fehr) and Ocampo (a jointly top-billed Michelle Rodriguez). We then cut to the real Alice waking up in an underground facility that is designed to simulate outbreaks of the T-virus. She meets up with Ada Wong (Li Bingbing) who is under orders by Wesker (a returning Shawn Roberts) to rescue Alice. It turns out that Wesker is a good guy now as the Red Queen controls Umbrella and Wesker realises the only one who can stop her is Alice. To aid them, he has sent a rescue squad (Leon S Kennedy - Johann Urb, Barry Burton - Kevin Durand and Luther West - Boris Kadjoe, back from the last movie). We also get a returning Sienna Guillory as Jill Valentine, as well as Collin Salmon as a soldier clone. The facility they are rescuing Alice from is attached to a former Soviet naval base in the Kamchatka Peninsular, where there is also a load of frozen military hardware.

This reminds me of the commute on the Coast Road

But that is not all. As the facility is designed to simulate outbreaks, there are various zones (think the Crystal Maze in the lifeless Ed Tudor-Pole years, just going through the motions) for New York, Berlin, Tokyo, Moscow and "Suburbia". Naturally, our heroes have to navigate through these to get to the sub pen and the lift (elevator) out of the place. Of course, in fitting with the naff action movie vibe, there is some bollocks about a countdown for, well, reasons. The survivors make it to the surface, there is a bit of fisty cuffs after the bad guys park a Typhoon-class sub in the way, and the eventually rescued ones make it to Wesker, who is holed up in the White House as the last bastion against the undead. At no point do they collect any gold tickets, so no-one gets a £100 weekend experience driving a clapped out Subaru in deepest darkest Surrey. This, gentle reader, is a crying shame and a missed opportunity for cross-franchise merchandising. 

Physics, we're heard of it.

Phew, that sounds like a lot but it is actually reasonably well explained throughout the film. I know, I am surprised myself but, and this is a big but, it allows Wor Paul to stage a farewell party to those who were there at the beginning. It's nice to see Michelle and Colin back, and Oded is his usual good value self. And, if I am honest, the plot shenanigans don't seem to grate that much for this film. That's not to say there aren't problems, questions or concerns. 

Hello, old friend...

As per all previous movies, the 3D maps are back again, though this time actually serving some kind of purpose, so there is that. Everyone seems to have the unlimited ammo cheat up and running again, with a ton of full-auto fire, few (if any) mag changes and not much effect for all that lead flying around. The CGI varies from merely ok to downright terrible - the car chase is particularly bad, though I do like how the Soviet Navy seemed to have multiple Slava class cruisers all in one place - it must have been the one CGI model they really put the time and effort in so there are tons of them (they only ever launched four - I know, nerd alert).

There are more Slava-class cruisers in this shot than were ever built.

To be fair, the creature CGI has improved slightly. The Licker does look a bit better, but the 3D (yep, filmed in that again) bullets are just dire. As for the city flooding scenes? They are beyond bad, making The Day After Tomorrow (2004) look almost photorealistic.

Big sub...

There is also a distinct lack of reality too. Now I know, these are "simulations" but can we at least have a constant passage of time? The bit where there are rocket grenades incoming and one of our heroes still has time to shoot through the floor is just silly. Then we have the Typhoon sub. When this surfaces, we are meant to believe that this is a monster of a sub, yet it looks like something you'd find on a children's playground, certainly from the size of it. It's just far too small, even compared to the CGI models seen earlier in the film.

...little sub, cardboard box.

Originality is still dead though. After copying the Crystal Maze, Wor Paul decides to ape Aliens as the annoying child is taken by a Licker - cue lots of angry Milla going all Ripley. Aliens did it better. Much better. 

Even the GI Joe movie did underwater scenes better... Sheesh!

Aircraft have their "unlimited fuel" cheat working too - the helicopter they escape from Kamchatka in is presumably the same one that makes it all the way to Washington DC. There again, we have the hold outs at the White House. That final zoom out shot is meant to impress but I couldn't help think "hold on, where is all this kit kept? What about fuel and ammo? It's been years since the T-virus was unleashed so how the hell are they still holding out?" Is it trying to ape the atmosphere from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and its Washington scenes? I can't help but think that Wor Paul keeps a notepad beside him at all times in order to record all the cool things he sees and wants to put in a film. 

The Final Bullshot.

This was the most expensive of the Res Evil series at $65m and whilst they have put that money on screen, it wasn't enough to match the vision of the director. That means it veers from looking ok to cheap and nasty no matter how stylish he intended it to be. The thing is, the actual core of the film isn't that bad and I quite liked it. I would say that it is probably my second best film of the series so far and a much better watch than films two to four. 

A decent, if overblown and brain dead, action film then, that carries the series forward to its inevitable, shambling end. One question remains though. Can it stick the landing with that cliffhanger ending or will it have all of the impact of a zombie who's fallen off a skyscraper? I think you can already guess the answer to that, but that's for another time.