Total disappointment :(

Rating: 1/10 (7 March 2011)

So when the first RE film came out, I was happy. It did everything a film based on a video game like Resident evil should do; it created a new storyline with new characters, it introduced a new audience that had not heard of said game without making the gamers repeat a story the already saw, it gave cool nods to the franchise that us fan boys can smile about, it entertained us, scared us a bit, it didn't try to add characters from the franchise into its storyline solely for fan service (a mistake later made by its 3 sequels), and most importantly, it made itself seem like it was part of the same canon of the video game and fitting just fine (My geek out moment was when they said "Take him to the Nemesis Program") :D
So as the series went along, it became clear that not only were films not part of the same canon as the video games, but the film series seemed to distance itself from their source material.
Anyway, I was excited with what Afterlife might bring to table, especially after the ending in Extinction, with Alice starring at dozens of her own clones. But then the clones get killed off before the first act of the films is even half way through, so I felt cheated. But what mostly bothered me was how much the film seemed to borrow from Resident Evil 5; to the point things don't even make sense. I mean, where did the Axe guy come from? Did Wesker send him? Was he the result of a previous Umbrella experiment that just happened to break loose during the outbreak? Of all the places, why is it in L.A? The licker in RE 1 had reason for being there, Nemesis also had a reason and Dr. Isaac also had its reason for why he became the way he did. But where does this guy come into play? I know he isn't the final villain but regardless he is simply an unexplained plot device used to move them from point A to point B and he is also there because he was in RE 5. Why does it borrow so much from RE 5? Now I understand it is a film adaptation and my problem isn't that they use too much or that it shouldn't, it's that after having their last 2 films fall so far away from the video games' set storyline, they start borrowing ideas for its plot? Why? I thought heading further away from what the games did worked for it, in fact, the other reason I disliked the film is because the story of RE5 wasn't even that great, or interesting. The mind control devices, Jill Valentine at the end (with the same look and everything), the Axe monster, the new zombies with huge mouth, Wesker, I mean come on.
And there were also things I hated about it that have nothing to do with what it borrowed:
1. Alice loses her powers, yet still manages to survive a helicopter crash. 2. The clones die too early (I know I already mentioned this) 3.It's good to know that even though the world is taken over by zombies, women will still use a lot of make up 4. If Alice survived the helicopter crash and was able to walk out of there, why didn't Wesker do the same and manage to capture her then and there? 5. Alice just stands there while Chris and Claire fight against Wesker, oh and so do Wesker's hounds. 6. What's with the coin bullet thing? I would make sense if this had been added in Extinction but they don't even explain why she does it exactly. I mean where did this idea come from? 7. Who better to play Chris Redfield than Wentworth Miller (the guy from Prison Break) especially because he knows to get out of the prison! 8. The athlete guy jumping, grabbing the end of an airplane and manages to balance it out before it falls off a building. (Dunno if this is physically possible, but the scene just bothers me because it makes him look too super powered, although if the scene is possible then I don't care.) 9. Wentworth Miller isn't a good Chris and neither is the Chris in this movie. 10. Also, Alice loses her powers, and later in the film she gets stabbed in the arm, and she genuinely seems to feel pain, but then she uses that arm just fine, and apparently she must have contracted Wolverine's healing factor because the wound isn't even there anymore nor is it even acknowledged that ever happened. What the hell? Did she lose her powers or not?! Did she retain some bits of her powers? I don't care what the explanation is, I just need one.
Most of the things they did were simply done because of the success of RE5 and because they wanted to cash off the success of 3D. It's that simple, the plot isn't there because they don't care about it, and they were just looking to cash in on the success of something else. Sure they were doing that before, but it at least made money for its own merit and not so much from what it borrowed. It wasn't trying to cash off the success of the RE games, otherwise it wouldn't have distanced itself from it at first. To me this is makes the makers of the franchise seem either hypocritical or just plain greedy, or maybe both.
This is coming from someone who has been enjoying the franchise so far. Sadly I must give Resident evil Afterlife 1/10 stars. There was no pay off, too many plot holes and unexplained plot devices, the characters seemed too powerful to be human and too much was borrowed for its own good.