Four
years ago, Guillermo Del Toro helmed a movie based on a comic book that
no one worthy of even the most basic levels of respect had heard of
prior to its release. In fact, the only ones who had heard of this
strange movie before the weeks leading up to it were people who use
comic book and sci-fi conventions as a good reason to venture out of
their dimly lit low-rent abodes. This movie was the original Hellboy,
or the ‘Little comic book adaptation that could’, which only succeeded
because Guillermo Del Toro took a point of American pride that hadn’t
been played to death in film and used it to subtly draw in audiences:
Nazi-killing.
Today, Guillermo
is a far more high profile director thanks to his Oscar winning Pan’s
Labyrinth in 2006, and his tendency to cram more eyes than is sane or
reasonable in to fantasy creatures to create slightly more unique
fantasy creatures. Guillermo’s Hellboy II: The Golden Army is a vehicle
for the man’s imagination and the plot reflects this in that it’s a
thinly veiled excuse to venture from one fantastical set piece or
creature to the next as it gracefully dances around plot holes.
Seriously, I saw this film hung-over and even I managed to pick out two
gigantic plot holes in the last act before the end credits rolled.
Maybe I’m extraordinarily keen, but as much as I would like to blindly
accept this as truth, I know full well that something got #$%^ed up in
the screenplay.
Hellboy
II assumes a partial familiarity with the series, but the film can
still be enjoyed even if you spend the first ten minutes of the film
firmly believing that Hellboy was undoubtedly evil incarnate because
he’s crimson red with a pointy tail and trench-coat. Actually, the film
could probably be enjoyed far more this way because you’re more likely
to enjoy the company of Guillermo’s oddities. Personally, I’ve grown
accustomed to the empathic and erudite Abe Sapien that just so happens
to be some sort of humanoid fish creature so I won’t really enjoy the
novelty of the freak as much as a virgin to the mythology might. Since
the allure of the film isn’t directly drama or intrigue (and certainly
not story), the enjoyment must ultimately come from the characters that
populate Guillermo’s world, and in fact that’s about the only place the
enjoyment comes from. It wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing if Hellboy
II were the product of someone else, but because its Guillermo’s
Hellboy II, it’s difficult to accept such a thoughtless story.
The
pre-opening credit vignette introduces a young Hellboy brushing his
deformed teeth on Christmas Eve while his guardian tells him a bed time
story about The Golden Army. It’s an adequate way to start the story
and give a little history to the film, but the problem with this is
that all the pertinent plot pieces occur before the movie starts and in
the last act. This means that for the majority of the film, the plot
has all the momentum of glaciers. Again that’s not exactly a bad thing,
but there is a point where you realize that Guillermo’s almost
pretentiously taking you on a tour of his brain and you wish you could
bitch slap his frontal lobe so he could get on with the damn story.
Anyway,
mythical creatures and humans had been warring for a rather long time,
and the mythical creatures, believe it or not, were always the ones who
ended up with their asses in their hands. After a goblin blacksmith had
become sick of seeing his handy work lodged in the wrong bodies, he
designed and built an invincible Golden Army and gave it to the Elf
King as a present. The Elf King used the army against the humans for a
little while before calling a truce with the humans because he’s a
little $%^&* bitch who can aim a gun but can’t pull a trigger. The
King separated the golden crown that controls the army into three
pieces which deactivates them until the crown is rebuilt. He gave one
piece to his vengeful idiot son, one piece to his fish fetish daughter,
and kept one piece for himself.
When
the idiot son decides to go after the crown for retribution against the
humans, Hellboy and his comrades (including a fish, a bureaucrat, an
arsonist, and a cloud of smoke) are on the job like some offbeat Scooby
Doo team created by a seventeen year old teen that enjoys Harry Potter
and cross over fan fiction a little too much.
This
on its own is perfectly fine and decent. The source of all the problems
in the film lay in the connection between the vengeful idiot son and
the fish fetish daughter who are twins. Because they’re fantasy
creatures and twins, there’s an obligation for the existence of some
sort of supernatural connection linking them together. An internal GPS
that allows them to find one another is acceptable. Both of them being
afflicted when only one is injured is not. Fish fetish could be
vacationing on Mars and her nose would begin to bleed if vengeful idiot
got knocked in the sniffer in a bar brawl in Cuba.
This is not a good device. This is ill conceived, lazy, and
inconsequential, and the entire film literally falls apart because of
it.
Disregarding the damaged plot, the movie is
effective. It's colourful, vibrant, and imaginative, the characters are
well developed, and the set pieces are executed with an appreciable
flair. It's a refreshing change to watch a summer blockbuster about
something other than bloated mainstream superhero melodrama or
high-tech, sleek and shiny robot orgies. All and all, Hellboy II is the
rough equivalent of a Playboy model missing a few toes: It’s nice to
look at even there’s a few things clearly missing, and don’t be
surprised if it turns out to be dumb as a post when it’s all said and
done.
I
have no idea why megastars are suddenly obsessed with ultra-violent
mind #$%^ery all of a sudden, but I’m rather enjoying this trend.
Wanted is somewhere between lightening @#$s awesome and Shoot ‘Em Up
done slightly better.
James McAvoy is a depressed nine-to-five
drone who suffers from crippling panic attacks and enjoys looking
himself up on Google. Angelina Jolie is a skilled assassin who enjoys
bullet riddled bodies and rewriting physics on a whim. Morgan Freeman
is the leader of a fraternity of assassins who enjoys monologues and
binary threads. Together they try to take down one of their own who
betrayed the fraternity and is systematically destroying the league one
hit at a time.
While it seems to
be an unwritten yet universal law to make hyper kinetic actions movies
as convoluted and nonsensical as possible, Wanted would appear to have
a rather bland plot by comparison. I’m not complaining. I watch movies
like these for the visceral thrills and creative set pieces, and Wanted
has them in spades. What ruins most high speed action films is the
tendency for directors to get cocky and pretentious and start tossing
around moral or political messages and ideas. This disease goes by many
names including Tarantinoitis and MBS (a.k.a. Michael Bay Syndrome).
Side effects of this malady include the movie feeling about as balanced
as a teeter-totter with a fat kid on one end and a ghost on the other,
and horribly contrived narrative sequences. This is all beside the
point and I’m really just trying to use Wanted to illustrate how much
better storytellers we’d all be if we just knew when to cut the crap
and get to the point.
The film
has a unique and undeniable flair and panache that can charitably be
described as the bastard child of Crank (2006), Hardboiled (1992) and
300 (2007). When you combine that with surprisingly well defined
characters that are a cut above the typical action film stock, you’ve
got a pretty bitching film on your hands.
Wanted
does contain one (predictably) large plot twist to keep things
interesting, and while I can appreciate a curveball or two in order to
make sure I’m still paying attention, this one is markedly out of
place. The movie has two climaxes and not one, and they’re spaced so
close together that if I were to graph my excitement during the third
act it would look something like a Bactrian camel. This is a problem
because Climax 1 is slightly better than Climax 2, yet Climax 2 is
positioned later in the story thereby establishing itself as a rather
weak focal point. The valley between the camel’s humps then transforms
into an adrenaline killing limbo where the producers decided to stash
the laws of physics and their marijuana supply.
I
liked Wanted despite the uneven ending, but it’s really not a very
difficult movie to like if you’re into that sort of stuff anyway. If
you ever wondered what it would be like to give a guy with Ferris
Bueller’s fourth-wall breaking shenanigans a gun and tell him he’s a
killer, then this is your movie. It’s got enough blood and bullets to
satisfy any John Woo meathead and Angelina Jolie’s bare ass for a
couple of seconds, so at least the entire male 18 – 49 demographic is
obliged to watch it.
Hancock is a pretty crappy movie, all things considered. You
know that a movie’s pretty pathetic when the best things you can say are about
it are, “Well at least it didn’t make this
mistake.” I suppose really it’s my fault for expecting anything good from it in
the first place.
Honestly, it’s amazing to me that anyone with even the best
of intentions can create a movie so bad. It’s as if the production team took
the best idea and instead of making a good movie, decided to @#$% on it so no
one else could take the idea seriously ever again. That said, Hancock is the
story of a downtrodden alcoholic superhero, which is a premise that I’m really
quite fond of. It’s an interesting spin on a genre that has been bludgeoned to
death since Hollywood
decided it only wants to make movies with built in sequel potential. I then
suppose that it’s a good thing that while the executives are distracted beating
the comic book hero horse to death searching for Spider-Man 11 and an
adaptation of the Incredible Hulk that will please everyone, people will look
back on Hancock and say, “At least we got one super hero movie with a novel and
innovative plot, even if it only lasted for 20 minutes.”
So Hancock is a combination of Jason Bourne’s amnesia and
muddy history with Superman’s indestructibility. The only way Hancock as a
character could be more cool is if he were white and always on fire. Either
way, Hancock is about as close as you’re going to get to a superhero that’s
simply %^&*ing awesome, even if he is just a black Superman with a drinking
problem.
One day, Hancock has the unfortunate luck to save Jason
Bateman from being hit by a train, and Jason Bateman decides to turn the
traveling whisky scented maelstrom into a likeable (albeit stereotypical) hero out
of gratitude. This involves sending Hancock to prison in order to appease the
angry public who hate the wake of collateral damage he leaves everywhere until
they realize just how much he’s needed. And lo and behold, the plan comes to
fruition when he’s needed to stop a bank heist after being incarcerated for
about one week.
The movie is excellent up to this point, and I believe
that’s roughly the 45 minute mark. It turns to absolute $%^& the moment
Hancock cuts the hand off the mastermind of the heist and that particular
crisis is resolved.
Here’s the biggest problem: Hancock is a good television
series. It could’ve been so much better if there was one hour per week about
two dozen times a year for about three or four years of Hancock. To the movie’s
credit, it’s just barely over an hour and a half long so it doesn’t overstay
its welcome that much. But that’s
just a couple of points back compared to the hundreds it loses for having worse
exposition than a Dan Brown novel.
You can’t have a good movie without a good climax or finale
and that normally requires a confrontation between hero and villain, especially
if it’s a superhero movie. And while I can admire the decision to keep the
antagonist under wraps for the sake of intrigue, something is clearly wrong
when nobody, not even the film itself, knows who the hell the antagonist is. For
this reason, the ending is like walking into a familiar high-class restaurant
and asking the waiter to surprise you when it comes time to order, and instead
of getting a fantastic meal, the chef just walks out and gives you a #$%^ slap.
In between the great beginning and unbelievably bad ending,
we’re treated to a middle section that meanders mercilessly between set-piece
and sitcom. Charlize Theron plays Jason Bateman’s wife with a mysterious
connection to Hancock, except it’s not that mysterious because she’s Charlize
!@#$ing Theron and she’s obviously there for a reason or else they would’ve
just got a lesser known actress for less money and plot damage. This character
is even worse because she sheds some light on Hancock’s enigma, and this in
turn destroys whatever credibility remained. I’ll admit that it’s refreshing to
see a superhero that isn’t the product of gamma rays, nuclear spiders, or super
suits, but these origins are more favouarble by leaps and bounds to “Ancient
God because I said so” (and yes I also wish that were a joke.)
Hancock is a movie that not only has no idea what it wants
to be, but no aspirations to be anything at all whatsoever. There was great
potential to be a superb comic book comedy crossover about a floundering PR
specialist and an alcoholic superhero, but it would rather just Deus Ex itself
to death because being original and witty for too long is apparently bad.
- Andrew “Jason Bateman plays variations of Michael Bluth in
every #$%^ing movie” G.
I actually have a somewhat established career on a few low traffic movie review sites, believe it or not. I was going to extend it here, but found no audience. I will now start philosophical writing and discussion here instead.
Ali Larter, Oded Fehr, and Milla Jovovich in 'Resident Evil: Extinction'.
For
me to say that RE:E is a good movie is a compliment far beyond what the
same words would mean to the casual fan. One of my biggest Geek-isms is
being a hardcore fan of the “Resident Evil” games, so imagine my
surprise when at the tender age of eleven, I first heard news of a
Resident Evil movie (Keeping in mind this was long before I learnt the
true horror of the words “Directed by Paul W.S Anderson”. At the time,
I was naпve enough to let “Resident Evil (2002)” get away with being
the standard horror fare it really was, largely because I was too busy
finding parallels with plot points and characters in the game. In 2004,
“Resident Evil: Apocalypse” hit the theaters, and having developed a
more critical eye, I was able to see the two films for what they really
were: a poorly constructed and disconnected series (which for me is
even more dissatisfying because the movies are a completely jumbled
interpretation of its source material). Three years later, and
expectations lowered considerably, I went into RE:E expecting nothing
more than “Modern Clichй Zombie-Fest III”. Boy was I ever surprised.
‘Extinction’
picks up a few years after ‘Apocalypse’ left off. The Raccoon City
infection was not contained, and decimated the vast majority of humans
in a matter of months. Alice abandoned the other survivors of the
original outbreak, and now travels the Nevada desert alone on her own
mission. Her old escape partners, Carlos and L.J, join a convoy managed
by Claire Redfield, and they too are now seeking salvation. Alice
reunites with her old allies with a possible hope of salvation in
Alaska, and they’re off on the road to peace, or at least they hope.
Meanwhile, the Umbrella Corporation, now operating in labs and bunkers
in various major cities worldwide beneath the earth, continue to search
for a cure, and a way to survive; efforts which rely heavily on
capturing Alice, their original specimen.
Producers took a
chance in giving Russell Mulchay directing duties, who really has no
real experience with this style of film (his forte being music videos
and TV). Even though the decision was not ideal, it was still a
no-brainer. After ‘Apocalypse’, no one wants to see another Alexander
Witt movie, and it’s better than distracting Paul W.S Anderson and Uwe
Boll from the video game adaptations they’re currently butchering.
For
what it’s worth, Mulchay’s goals with Extinction are modest, so he can
achieve most of them with relative success. The action sequences are
coherent, even if they aren’t particularly inspired. The acting is
decent, even if isn’t particularly compelling, and the pacing is fast, even if it does trip over itself every once in a while.
None
of which really matters for a zombie movie. The movie really shines in
that it accurately captures the essence of the Resident Evil games,
even if it refuses to capture plot elements and characters motivations.
Critics can and will slam the constant “Walk into dark room. It’s
quiet… too quiet… *BAM!* You’re dead” scenarios. But that’s exactly
what the games were about. The cheap thrill, that while predictable
still remains visceral, and the B-movie elements with the A-level
budget that are entirely expected, but still enjoyed.
Ali
Larter as "Claire Redfield" in 'Resident Evil: Extinction'. She
probably doesn't care that her character is misinterpreted, and you
shouldn't either.
‘Extinction’
is ‘Snakes on a Plane’ good, not ‘Shaun of the Dead’ good. It’s a sort
of ‘good/bad’, not ‘good/good’. It’ll work for some, but not for all,
and I have not qualms about that statement.
To say ‘Extinction’
is the best of the trilogy is damning it with false praise, because
look at what it had to measure up to. But it succeeds at what it aims
to do, and that’s all that really matters.
3/5
Bottom Line:
The first RE movie that captures the spirit of the RE games. It’s not
great or particularly special in any way, but it’s at the very least a
successful tribute to its source material.
That’s the only lesson to be
learned from ‘Shoot ‘Em Up’, a movie that wears its 18A rating like a
medal of honour. I dare anyone to show me a movie that crams more
bullets and bodies into 90 minutes then ‘Shoot ‘Em Up’.
Is there
a plot? Well if by “plot” you mean an excuse to spend an hour and a
half detailing the many ways in which a carrot can deal death, than
‘Shoot ‘Em Up’ has a plot more Oscar worthy than the last decade of
Best Picture winners combined. By conventional standards, the plot is
so pompous and stupid, it makes the firefights seem like opera. There’s
something about a guy called Mr. Smith (Clive Owen) fighting to save a
marked baby, and a prostitute (Monica Bellucci) he dragged into the
action for no good reason. Hertz (Paul Giamatti) wants them all dead
because his boss, a presidential hopeful, wants to rid America of guns…
or something. I’m really not sure. I’m still awestruck after seeing a
guy have his eye replaced with a carrot. The story unfolds so clumsily
that it’s a relief when a tyro assassin breaks the dialogue by thinking
he can mess with Clive Owen.
What Clive Owen looks like when he realizes he hates you.
‘Shoot
‘Em Up’ is an action fans wet dream, which basically means if you hate
guns and violence, you’ll hate this movie (conversely, those are two of
my favourite things).
The script is probably about five pages
long, and basically consists of one-liners. The story unfolds only
through bits of dialogue when the characters realize they need to
reload their weapons, which really only acts as a vehicle for moving
the action from one area to another.
You’d think a movie as
action packed as ‘Shoot ‘Em Up’ would rely heavily on incoherent quick
cuts and editing, but the camera work is so unflinching and at times
even brutal (not quite sadistic mind you) that the full brunt of the
imagery hits you harder than a filing cabinet to the temple. Quite the
example is cutting the (umbilical) cord with a bullet, and it doesn't
stop there.
Needless to say, nothing about this movie makes
sense. The laws of the universe that control everyone else in the world
seemed to have only watched the first five minutes of this movie before
collectively saying “@!#$ it”, and reaching for the popcorn. Thanks to
‘Shoot ‘Em Up’, I feel stupid for even doubting the possibility of
Inspectors in 1992 Hong Kong carrying two pistols ungoverned by the
need to reload.
Can a man take out a sky full of paratroopers,
or rig a gun warehouse with enough traps to make Jigsaw proud in about
10 minutes? Can a man jump off a bridge into a car and then drive away,
or nonchalantly walk out of a building where he just had all of his
fingers broken and stabbed in the forehead with a scalpel? Can a man
pick off a SWAT team in a sleazy hotel room while mid coitus with a hooker? If you have to ask yourself any of these questions, you’re in the wrong theatre.
How many guns does it take to fill that hole where logic should be? Watch 'Shoot 'Em Up' and find out.
Bottom Line:
Never mind the grossly under tasked actors, useless story and ludicrous
gun play. For being inappropriate in almost every way imaginable,
‘Shoot ‘Em Up’ is John Woo action for North American audiences.
Ahh, the iPod. The now iconic device that revolutionized portable
digital media years ago has been revamped and reissued for another
holiday season. It was announced today at an Apple Inc. event entitled
“The Beat Goes On” along with a host of other new Apple goodies, and is
set for release at the end of the month. It’s been nearly two years
since the last 5th generation iPod was launched, and six years since
the very first iPod was introduced in Q4 2001 (that’s a new iPod
roughly every 12 months. Dead technologies wait for no man). Now that
my iPod is on the verge of becoming obsolete, I myself am debating
whether or not I should pick up one of the new models at launch, wait
for a price break, or scrap this generation altogether. I invite you to
join me as I type my thoughts on the subject for all to read.
Apple
currently offer iPods in three different varieties, so as to appeal to
everyone and their music collection. The cheapest is the “iPod
Shuffle”, a tiny 1GB clip for people who don’t have a lot of music, and
don’t exactly care all that much about what they’re listening to at any
point and time. The “iPod Nano” is tall and thin and about mid priced
in terms of MP3 players, available in 4GB and 8GB capacities. It’s
mainly targeted at people who have a fair sized music collection, and
like it with them all the time. Finally, there’s the “iPod Video”, the
largest and most expensive of the current generation. Available in 30GB
and 80GB capacities, it’s for serious music people and is the
definition of “Portable Music Repository”. Today, Apple unveiled
remodels of two out of three of the current varieties, and introduced a
brand new iPod altogether.
Meet your next investments. The new iPod Nano on the left, and the new iPod Classic on the right. Due out September 28th.
Good
news first, the iPod remodels look very good, addressing a few
aesthetic and main hardware complaints I’ve personally had with my
iPod. The iPod Nano now features video playback on a two inch diagonal
screen, and remains in anodized casing as opposed to scratch prone high
gloss lacquer white and black. The renamed “iPod Classic” has a beefed
up hard drive at 80GB and 160GB, and for the first time anodized casing
like its Nano and Shuffle counterparts. These remodels also are set to
remain at the current retail price as the iPods they’re set to replace.
In the Nano’s case, they’ll become even cheaper. The only downside I
can see at the current moment is video playback on the Nano seems
unnecessary. Consider that full movies average out to be 700MB, that’s
12% of the hard drive gone for a single film, if you want the 8GB model
(almost 23% on the 4GB).
The newest addition to the iPod family
is the “iPod Touch”, looking very similar to the iPhone released
earlier this year. Now while an annual reissued iPod is expected about
this time every year, this is really the spiritual successor to the
iPod video, in that it offers the same functionalities, but with a
touch screen to ‘improve’ upon the click wheel.
Apple Inc. Introduces the iPod Touch. Sure it looks nice, but wait until you find out how big the hard drive is.
The
iPod Touch is a 3.5 inch diagonal display with touch screen
functionality, and features only one physical button (that redirects
you back to the main screen). Along with music and video playback, the
iPod Touch also features Wi-Fi connectivity and a Safari web browser –
both firsts for the iPod. Finally, included in the package is standard
iPod accessories (USB to Dock connector cable, white earbuds, and dock
adaptor) plus a stand, manual and polishing cloth, however no thin
protective sleeve is included.
Apple’s latest revolution costs
$299USD and $399USD depending on the hard drive capacity, standard
introductory price for new iPods. It all sounds so nice, sleek and
shiny, doesn’t it? That’s because I haven’t told you how large the hard
drive is. You’re paying $299USD and $399USD for only 8GB and 16GB
respectively. Even novice techies should be outraged. I’ll just let you
sit on that for a minute.
So from pure speculation, why do I
think the new iPod Touch a rip off? First and foremost, it’s a
multimedia package without the means to support it. Remember when the
PS3 launched with a measly 20GB hard drive, and tech heads around the
world let out a collective guffaw? 20GB is far too little for what is
marketed as a home entertainment hub, much like 16GB is far too little
for a portable multimedia databank when compared against other portable
players from Archos and Creative. What’s more ridiculous is the iPod
classic is less expensive for a hard drive 10x larger. Apple is
literally competing with itself.
Consider another apple product,
the iPhone. People who have already purchased one have no reason to buy
this new iPod Touch. Why? Well for one, the 8GB iPhone is the same
price as the 16GB iPod Touch. For another, the iPhone does everything
the iPod Touch can, plus it’s a phone. Conversely, people who want to
buy the iPod Touch might as well just buy an iPhone if they need a new
cell phone too.
iPod Touch vs. iPhone. Would you really buy both?
Furthermore,
the iPod Touch has added new functions, most notable a web browser, to
applications on the iPod that have not been perfected yet. The video
component has yet to be refined, or even addressed as somewhat
problematic. Specifically load time and unintuitive scene navigation.
While Wi-Fi connectivity to iTunes is nice if you actually use the
service to buy songs, the Safari web browser and online capabilities
severely compromise what made the iPod so revolutionary in the first
place – the ability to take every piece of digital media you have with
you. All for the sake of what could very well be a clumsy, cramped
online experience.
From the information I’ve collected so far,
I’m not very impressed with Apple’s sixth generation iPod Touch. For
the step forward it’s taken in adding Wi-Fi and a browser, it’s taken
two steps back for its pathetic storage and for potentially neglecting
to address problems from past generation. Regarding the touch screen,
it’s a feature I’m not all that crazy about. The high lacquer iPod is
already a smudge and scratch magnet from as little as breathing on it,
now you’re supposed to inflict the same type of damage to an expensive
piece of technology. Needless to say, this new iPod seems considerably
underwhelming.
A Brief History of iPods 1st Generation - Mechanical scroll wheel available in 5GB and 10GB at launch for $399USD and $499USD respectively.
2nd Generation - Touch sensitive scroll wheel available in 10GB and 20GB at launch for $399USD and $499USD respectively.
3rd
Generation - Back lit central buttons and scroll wheel available in
10GB, 15GB, 20GB, 30GB and 40GB between $299USD and $499USD at launch.
4th
Generation - First "click wheel" model. Originally black and white then
re-released in colour with photo output display. 20GB, 30GB, 40GB and
60GB from $299USD to $449USD.
Current Generation - 30GB and 60GB
for $299USD and $399USD with video output. Reissued later with 80GB to
replace 60GB. Currently $249USD and $349USD.
iPod Classic - 80GB and 160GB for $249USD and $349USD respectively. Same applications as current generation.
iPod
Touch - 8GB and 16GB for $299USD and $399USD respectively. Same
applications as current generation plus Wi-Fi, Safari browser and touch
interface to replace click wheel.
It's just reviews of movies right now, but I plan to expand into other things whenever I feel like it. It's my public archive, but I'll post some articles here periodically (It'd be nice to have a readership outside of my real life friends).
| My Profile
Maet's blogs, last updated : July 18, 2008
. At the time,
I was naпve enough to let “Resident Evil (2002)” get away with being
the standard horror fare it really was, largely because I was too busy
finding parallels with plot points and characters in the game. In 2004,
“Resident Evil: Apocalypse” hit the theaters, and having developed a
more critical eye, I was able to see the two films for what they really
were: a poorly constructed and disconnected series (which for me is
even more dissatisfying because the movies are a completely jumbled
interpretation of its source material). Three years later, and
expectations lowered considerably, I went into RE:E expecting nothing
more than “Modern Clichй Zombie-Fest III”. Boy was I ever surprised.
