an accurate, detailed and impartial RE3 review

[7734]

laaaaaame

[SRP76]

HA! I won't even see it. I only saw parts of 2, and wasn't interested. All this, because I saw the first one, and didn't like it a bit. I'd rather play the games than watch the movies, any day.

[acealive1]

wow.................someones a fanboy

[Danny]

HA! I won't even see it. I only saw parts of 2, and wasn't interested. All this, because I saw the first one, and didn't like it a bit. I'd rather play the games than watch the movies, any day. im a long time resi fan and trust me, 2 is much better and more faithful than the first piece of crap.

[ProfessorChaos]

im a long time resi fan and trust me, 2 is much better and more faithful than the first piece of crap. but it still sucks ass

[clanglee]

What?!?!? I mean, RE2 was closer to the game. . but it SUCKED!!! I mean. .soooo bad. I cannot really express to you the ammount of suckage that was in that movie. I liked the first one. . .but the second was a complete s*#tfest.

[Danny]

but it still sucks ass true, but at least the opening infection and chaos was bitchin', plus it wasnt an hour of hissing zombies than one friggin licker. all i can say is its a step in the right direction adding the tryant in reis 3, hopefully the 4th one will be a faithful one, cus you know resi 4 would be a good flick. ....well the first 3rd would be anyway.

[AcesandEights]

What?!?!? I mean, RE2 was closer to the game. . but it SUCKED!!! I mean. .soooo bad. I cannot really express to you the ammount of suckage that was in that movie. I liked the first one. . .but the second was a complete s*#tfest. Agreed. I liked the first one. It was a basic story, but was nice to see in the zombie genre. It had okay effects, some cheesy, but effective quick-cut editing and loud noise jumpiness, zombies (yeah, they hissed...I have no defense on that point ) and gunplay. Great, mindless fun. Of course, I didn't expect anything from the movie, at all and went because friends asked me to go...so I was genuinely surprised and that may be what makes me favorably disposed to the film. With all the crappy zombie movies out there I can never quite understand why RE 1 gets such a bad rap. It's not like it was striving to be Hamlet. I know some people will say, because it could have been this, or could have been that, or Romero was robbed of a chance to work on it, but I still think it's better than 80 to 90% of the other zombie movies out there. That second movie, though...unwatchable (for me).

[Rottedfreak]

laaaaaame Are you sure your impartial? this is what Resi fans say too.

[Wyldwraith]

I don't understand how people can say RE:3 sucks. The plot is as internally consistent and believable as survival-horror gets. The characterization is solid. Alice, Claire and Carlos do everything but leap off the screen. The action scenes look good, are fast paced and suffer from almost none of the flaws that made RE:2 a crapfest. In other words, besides the fact RE:3 shares some plot-continuity with RE:2 these movies have NOTHING in common other than being based on the same video game franchise. The list goes on: Unlike RE:2 the animal-zombies are used in a way that adds to the action instead of creating what feels like pasted-in novelty scenes. (Like the shot of the K-9 unit with the chewed-through cages at the school that gives no reason whatsoever for WHY a K-9 unit with half a dozen dogs was at the school in the first place or how the dogs got infected, or even why they ALL hung around the school) The undead murder (flock) of crows provided a nice set-up for Alice's flashy telekinetic firestorm. (Whether they should have given Alice telekinesis is debatable, but they did it and the scene increased the pace of the action) The zombie dog pit maintained by the depraved rednecks IMO added to the post-apocalyptic feel the makers were intending to foster. Alice's creative leashing of the dogs coupled with her turning the dogs on them was satisfying. Another thing I don't hear many people mention is unlike previous RE films, this one had a plot much more akin to classic Romero-esque survival horror. A band of survivors struggling against the zombie hordes in an attempt to find a safe haven. Yes, the evil Umbrella conspiracy subplots were present but while they didn't do a lot to add to the movie didn't detract much from it either. In fact, seeing Alice's "origins" and the twist of a clone helping destroy the doctor after he'd slaughtered so many clones was rather novel and poetic. This movie had flaws to be sure. Yet IMO it accomplished what it set out to be, an action-survival-horror movie that took more cues from parts of Dawn of the Dead than from RE:2. Its biggest achievement was the abandonment of the ham-handed attempt to be mysterious and conspiracy-thrillerish that marred previous RE films. I know that most survival-horror fans (myself included) have a very strong distaste for zombie flicks based on video games. The "work" of Uwe Boll in particular dives for a new low in the genre. This movie doesn't have that crap-campy feel though. My final analysis: Resident Evil: Extinction is a fairly good movie that suffers under the stigma of videogame-based movies and being the sequel of a ****ty movie. Looked at as a standalone example of the genre its my feeling it would be far more well-regarded. I found it an enjoyable 95 minute experience, thats pretty much what it came down to for me. I'd like to ask one thing of the people who disliked this movie. If this is a review thread at least state your basic reasoning for disliking the movie. One word replies like "laaaame" are a waste of space. Actually, I'll ask two things. Don't hold the incredibly awful RE:2 against this movie. This isn't RE: Apocalypse, its Extinction. If you don't like RE:3, great. But despise it for what it is, not because RE:2 kills brain cells and contributes to global warming and can probably cause birth defects in pregnant viewers

[capncnut]

I'm not even gonna bother seeing RE3. What's the point of getting into a movie trilogy if only one part is moderately good? And yeah <gun to head> two was better than the first, but still a mighty turd in itself.

[axlish]

Wyldwraith, I couldn't agree more. I love how folks expect you to care about their review when their comments amount to "laaame" or "but it still sucks ass". Is it too much to ask to get a semi-detailed review, with some decent grammar?

[Skippy911sc]

I did not like the movie...that being said I will point out the reasons why. I felt that it had all been done before in other movies, from the psychos in the beginning to the domestication of the infected. However the idea of the birds becoming infected due to them eating the dead people flesh was a cool idea. Definitely wait for video then watch and decide for yourselves. I realize a lot of people are into the fast action quick cutting flicks of modern filmmakers, I am more into the slow paced anxiety ridden films of yore. I did like DOTD 04 and felt it was an original take on the old movie. The running Zombies a certainly more terrifying in smaller numbers than the slow paced zombies of GARs development. I just dont like watching a movie and saying..."oh that from..." and at several points I did just that in R3. I was really hoping for more and did enjoy the other movies to some degree.