Aaarghh! (spoilers)

Rating: Null/10 (11 January 2003)

I would have LOVED to see G.A. Romero make a comeback with a "Resident Evil" movie: zombies are his territory and he would have been able to pull some depth to it. Everything would have clicked, sure hit.
INSTEAD, the producers handed R.E. to Paul "I've only directed flops" Anderson who (as we all saw) had NO originality and NO perception for this matter whatsoever. His approach reminded me of that such of a kid's in a candy store: "ooh we got to squeeze in these cool elements (the train, the dogs, the monster in the end) from the game, and we got to put in some matrix-type action and ooh I saw this cool death-scene in the beginning of "Cube" and, and... oh yeah, we need a talking computer! With a hologram!"
"Excuse me, mr. Anderson, but we can't fit them all into a 90-minute movie"
"SURE WE CAN! We just cut the suspense and the zombie on-screen time!"
Yeah. Of a zombie horror movie. I don't think RE was all that bad though, a 5 out of 10 = watchable.
It just p***es me off that the producers don't seem to be taking us "old school" horror fans seriously. I mean, would hiring Romero have been too big an investment? Or didn't they want the material be too controversial? With Romero this could of NOT have been less than a 7 out of 10 movie! Probably even a new "Dawn OTD"...? Definitely something to give MPAA and purists gray hair, for a long time :)
What saddens me furthermore is, they'll (the producers) most likely end up screwing the upcoming Jason vs. Freddy all over: "Hey guys, we could save 10c by rewriting Alice and Tommy off! I mean, who remembers them anyway? And while we're at it, let's change Robert Englund with another actor, C'MON, NO-ONE WILL NOTICE!" Go ahead, make it a PG-13 movie while you are at it, to attract more viewers to it.