Resident Evil 4: Afterlife

[Chamber005]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220634/

Pretty excited about this one. I was worried after Jovovich had the kid that she might not be wanting to do a follow-up to number three. Cool to see that the other Redfield is coming on as well.

I'm pretty much a whore for stuff like this, though. Give me Freddy vs Jason, AVP, Terminator #27, I'll be there. Must be the comic book geek in me.

Weird that I'll be there for RE4 opening night, yet I'm still pretty indifferent about seeing Avatar. lol

 

[Batutta]

Anybody who has more faith in Paul W.S. Anderson than James Cameron I have serious doubts about.

 

[Chamber005]

Anybody who has more faith in Paul W.S. Anderson than James Cameron I have serious doubts about.

It doesn't have much to do with the director and everything to do with the property the work is based on.

Everytime I walk into a comic book shop there's a hundred different super hero comics. I usually pick up books that take place in the Marvel universe not because Stan Lee originally created the Xmen and Spiderman, but because the characters, storylines and properties are ones I enjoy.

Of course there are exceptions (Powers, Buffy Season Eight, Chew, Walking Dead to name a few). But in order for me to get excited about an exception in comics there has to be something mind blowingly original about the content (not, say, the art -- or, say, the CGI effects if we're talking about film).

It's fine that Sam Raimi directed Spider-man, but I wouldn't have been any less eager to see it if it would have been directed by someone I'd never heard of. Heck, outside of a small cult following, most people had no idea who Sam Raimi was.

I know when I see a Resident Evil or Living Dead movie there will be guns and there will be zombies and it won't be a parody of the genre.

Of course the games are better than the films (even including the CGI flick RE: Degeneration), just like the Xmen comics are lightyears better than all of the movies, but I'll always be willing to spend my money on a property I trust rather than a director.

 

[Huy Vu]

I gotta say I rather enjoyed the previous 3 movies as dumb entertainment. Plus Apocalypse actually had a rather intriguing ending and based on the tagline for this one it looks like they'll be taking advantage of that.

 

[Batutta]

It doesn't have much to do with the director and everything to do with the property the work is based on.

I've found the single biggest factor determining the potential quality of a film is who's directing it. It's not the only factor, but the most telling. A good property means nothing in the hands of an incompetent filmmaker. Paul W.S. Anderson has made piece of crap after piece of crap.

 

[Chamber005]

I've found the single biggest factor determining the potential quality of a film is who's directing it. It's not the only factor, but the most telling. A good property means nothing in the hands of an incompetent filmmaker. Paul W.S. Anderson has made piece of crap after piece of crap.

Well, that's your opinion -- which isn't necessarily an opinion shared by the people who continue to pay to see his films again and again.

And not to get into a Paul Anderson thing (I don't really much care who is directing a film, it's almost always about the script, not the guy pointing the camera around IMO), what exactly in the composition of his shots or in his storytelling abilities point out to you that he is such a horrible director? The only flaw I've ever seen in any of his films has been the writing. The sets always look good, the storytelling is pretty straight forward and the actors seem to be doing whatever it is they're supposed to be portraying in a given scene.

Guy's not making Shakespeare, but all of his stuff is usually a crowd pleaser. I'd put it on the same level as the old Universal monster flicks of their time.

 

[Batutta]

Well, that's your opinion -- which isn't necessarily an opinion shared by the people who continue to pay to see his films again and again.

And not to get into a Paul Anderson thing (I don't really much care who is directing a film, it's almost always about the script, not the guy pointing the camera around IMO), what exactly in the composition of his shots or in his storytelling abilities point out to you that he is such a horrible director? The only flaw I've ever seen in any of his films has been the writing. The sets always look good, the storytelling is pretty straight forward and the actors seem to be doing whatever it is they're supposed to be portraying in a given scene.

Guy's not making Shakespeare, but all of his stuff is usually a crowd pleaser. I'd put it on the same level as the old Universal monster flicks of their time.

All his movies have been crap to me, so I think its fair to say this one will be too. I'll give you that he's a better director than a writer, but he's writing this film too. And part of a director's job these days is helping to shape the script. This isn't the studio system any more where a director could be hired on a monday, and shooting the script on tuesday, with no input into the writing. While a good script is essential to making a good film, a bad director can screw it up royally, and since a director has the most fingers in all aspects of filmmaking, if he's lousy at his job or has poor taste he'll make everyone else's work look bad as well. That's why I say the director is the single biggest factor. A writer doesn't tell the DP what to do, or how the film should be scored, or make decisions on costuming, or editing, or deal with the actors. The director does. It's not a guarantee of a good film or a bad one, but after I've seen several of a directors works I usually have a good idea what he's all about. Some directors I'll see whatever they do. Others I'll give the benefit of the doubt if the material looks interesting. Others I won't even bother with. Paul WS Anderson is in the last category for me, and that's because he's earned it.

 

[Chamber005]

All his movies have been crap to me, so I think its fair to say this one will be too. I'll give you that he's a better director than a writer, but he's writing this film too. And part of a director's job these days is helping to shape the script. This isn't the studio system any more where a director could be hired on a monday, and shooting the script on tuesday, with no input into the writing. While a good script is essential to making a good film, a bad director can screw it up royally, and since a director has the most fingers in all aspects of filmmaking, if he's lousy at his job or has poor taste he'll make everyone else's work look bad as well. That's why I say the director is the single biggest factor. A writer doesn't tell the DP what to do, or how the film should be scored, or make decisions on costuming, or editing, or deal with the actors. The director does. It's not a guarantee of a good film or a bad one, but after I've seen several of a directors works I usually have a good idea what he's all about. Some directors I'll see whatever they do. Others I'll give the benefit of the doubt if the material looks interesting. Others I won't even bother with. Paul WS Anderson is in the last category for me, and that's because he's earned it.

I hear ya, but I think your position is more of a critical/filmmaker variety. Most viewers follow properties (when there is one), after that comes Celebrity and on and on down the list. Sometimes directors can be celebrities and so have a following because of it (Spielberg, Cameron, etc), but most people don't really care too much about who is directing something, especially when you're talking about these kinds of genre films.

Once in a while you'll get a Celebrity director in conjunction with a genre piece and that elevates the perception of the piece (the same way Celebrity actors inject some relevence into a genre film) -- Coppola's Dracula, Spielberg's WotW, Branaugh's Frankenstien (Branaugh's Thor for that matter). Bryan Singer did something for the perception of Xmen, though I'm not certain his participation did much for the actual asthetics of the film (I didn't think the first one was very good).

In the end, though, people are going to see Resident Evil or Dawn of the Dead or Spiderman or Batman (who the hell cared who Christopher Nolan was?) regardless of the director. The Celebrity director might add a little anticipation to the expectations of the movie, but thinking that the director on any of these multi-billion dollar franchise properties is somehow doing whatever he wants is a little, ya know, naive. Absolutely no offense! Just, I mean, if anyone is pulling the strings on these projects it most certainly is NOT the director.

So if I were to label Anderson anything it would probably be "Sell out", "Uncle Tom", etc. He's someone who plays it safe consistently (who then gets hired by the studios and gets given massive budgets consistently) and has learned the business of Hollywood pretty flawlessly. But, personally, I didn't find anything particularly WRONG with any of his flicks. They're just popcorn mindless entertainment. I think if he had any real talent that he felt the need to constantly flex throughout a popcorn movie, it might bring an integrity to the flick that would end up losing its core audience of, ya know, people who want to enjoy some mindless entertainment! :thumbsup:

And it's funny because Anderson reminds me a lot of Rodriguez in the way he directs his films, and yet RR seems to get a pass for Spy Kids 29 and that bizarre Lava Girl s&^t?

I'm pretty sure I own every single Paul Anderson movie ever made just by accident, because most of my bluray collection is of the popcorn variety -- stuff I can have on in the background while I draw or read comics. The only other director I probably have more stuff from is Bruce Timm -- and that's just because I have all the DC animated stuff he's worked on. lol

 

[Batutta]

The Celebrity director might add a little anticipation to the expectations of the movie, but thinking that the director on any of these multi-billion dollar franchise properties is somehow doing whatever he wants is a little, ya know, naive. Absolutely no offense! Just, I mean, if anyone is pulling the strings on these projects it most certainly is NOT the director.

Uh, no, sorry, the primary artistic vision of a film is most certainly in hands of the director. A producer is not on set every day calling the shots. When it comes down to it, the artistic decisions that really matter are made by the director. No, he can't do any damn thing he pleases (and I never said as much, again you're always framing things in the extreme), but assuming he's on the same page as the producer and the studio, it's his eye that is guiding the whole enterprise. As far as the audience not caring who the director is, we were never talking about the audience. I was talking about you and me. You said you were more excited about RE: 4 than seeing Avatar, which is absurd to me considering Cameron has made several masterpieces of the sci-fi genre and Paul WS Anderson has only made a mockery of the genre, including one of Cameron's own works. He's a terrible filmmaker, who's made terrible films. Sorry, if you had picked a film by almost any other director I wouldn't be raising a stink, but he's pretty near the bottom of my sh*t list.

 

[Chamber005]

Uh, no, sorry, the primary artistic vision of a film is most certainly in hands of the director. A producer is not on set every day calling the shots. When it comes down to it, the artistic decisions that really matter are made by the director. No, he can't do any damn thing he pleases (and I never said as much, again you're always framing things in the extreme), but assuming he's on the same page as the producer and the studio, it's his eye that is guiding the whole enterprise. As far as the audience not caring who the director is, we were never talking about the audience. I was talking about you and me. You said you were more excited about RE: 4 than seeing Avatar, which is absurd to me considering Cameron has made several masterpieces of the sci-fi genre and Paul WS Anderson has only made a mockery of the genre, including one of Cameron's own works. He's a terrible filmmaker, who's made terrible films. Sorry, if you had picked a film by almost any other director I wouldn't be raising a stink, but he's pretty near the bottom of my sh*t list.

Yeah, I guess I just don't understand why you feel his popcorn movies are so horrible. I can name about a hundred worse directors (or, people who have made worse movies) than the ones he's made.

Maybe what you're saying is that for the amount of money he gets paid and the consistent hugeness of his budgets he should be better?

I dunno, if I'm a multi-billion dollar investment structure (e.g. a Hollywood studio), I don't think I'd be entrusting my multi-million dollar properties in the hands of someone who is as horrible as you're making him out to be.

And, honestly, as far as him making a mockery out of one of Cameron's "own works", there are plenty of critical sci-fi film folk who felt Cameron's sequel damaged the integrity of the original Alien.

I guess it's all a matter of opinion.

My position was that, unless the person is the exception to the rule (which for me would be Smith, Tarantino, Scott, Spielberg and numerous others before Cameron), I'm typically going to be more excited about a property I enjoy rather than a director who has been commissioned to do a project. But then, I feel the same way about actors.

Aliens I'm there, Terminator I'm there -- both franchises Cameron has had his hand in. But I'm going for the franchise, not the director. Ironically I thought the third Terminator had better characterization than the first two (which Cameron wrote and directed). The second one was obviously more cinematic, as was the fourth, but the third one had real people in it behaving realistically. I don't think that means Mostow is better than Cameron necessarily. In both cases I give the credit to the screenwriter and performers and, somewhere in there, finally the director.

 

[Batutta]

Yeah, I guess I just don't understand why you feel his popcorn movies are so horrible. I can name about a hundred worse directors (or, people who have made worse movies) than the ones he's made.

Maybe what you're saying is that for the amount of money he gets paid and the consistent hugeness of his budgets he should be better?

I dunno, if I'm a multi-billion dollar investment structure (e.g. a Hollywood studio), I don't think I'd be entrusting my multi-million dollar properties in the hands of someone who is as horrible as you're making him out to be.

As you may have heard, Hollywood studios are a place on can fail upward. His films have made money because, as you have said, he attaches himself to properties people are interested in. If you make money, that's all the studios care about. I hate his movies because they are in a genre I have a particular fondness for, and the fact that he's making at best mediocre garbage within that genre is all the more painful for me. If he was making Megashark VS. Octopus I wouldn't care at all. But he's screwing up things I usually enjoy. You think he's not so horrible and that's fine for you. I thought Aliens VS. Predator looked like somebody smeared feces across the screen.

 

[Huy Vu]

Who cares? It's the same thing with people hating Michael Bay for no other reason than his movies are shallow. There's nothing wrong with making mindless popcorn movie, and yes it does take a certain level of skill to fill that niche. I enjoyed all 3 of the Resident Evil movies and I even liked Alien vs. Predator, does that make me stupid or unappreciative of the "art"? There's really no need to make statements like "Anybody who has more faith in Paul W.S. Anderson than James Cameron I have serious doubts about." To each their own, just leave it be.

 

[Chamber005]

As you may have heard, Hollywood studios are a place on can fail upward. His films have made money because, as you have said, he attaches himself to properties people are interested in. If you make money, that's all the studios care about. I hate his movies because they are in a genre I have a particular fondness for, and the fact that he's making at best mediocre garbage within that genre is all the more painful for me. If he was making Megashark VS. Octopus I wouldn't care at all. But he's screwing up things I usually enjoy. You think he's not so horrible and that's fine for you. I thought Aliens VS. Predator looked like somebody smeared feces across the screen.

But why? I mean, specifically? I thought the composition of the shots were fine, the storytelling was straight forward. I thought Sanaa Lathan had a good enough performance. The effects were pretty sweet. AVP wasn't as good as any of the Aliens flicks or the first Predator, but it was better than the second Predator and I enjoyed it more than the last two alien movies (though those were better films).

Would AVP have been a better movie if a different director had shot the identical script? Possibly. But the script is approved by the studio and, again, I don't care who the director is, on these kinds of properties ANY changes to the approved script would have had to have been fought for tooth and nail (and typically would be denied by the studio). I think you're confusing movies that are done in conjunction with a director's own production company rather than a work-for-hire gig. Most directors are not allowed to deviate from the script without going through quite a bit of red tape.

In AVP's case, the story was written by Anderson along with Alien creator's O'bannon and Shusett. Anderson then wrote the script, got it approved by the hiring studio and then shot the script that he wrote.

Maybe he did have free reign over every detail, but even if he did, I still don't see anything inherently wrong with AVP, a fun sci-fi popcorn flick. It's no better or worse than, I dunno, the Blade franchise, Final Destination franchise, Underworld franchsise or any other equally average popcorn movies.

Now if you're saying there shouldn't exist anything in art that is just for mindless fun and escapism, I could probably jump on board with that and denounce every popcorn movie ever made. But barring that, I think Anderson's work on the Universal monsters as well as his sci-fi stuff is all exactly what I expect from big studios who own big studio properties -- straight forward, safe storytelling.

And I mean in AVP:R they were knocking off little kids and digesting pregnant women -- that's way more raw than anything they'd done in any of the previous films. And, personally, I loved the way the first Resident Evil ended. Only in Terminator 3 have I seen a movie end on such a superbly awesome down note (in the realm of popcorn movies, Empire and the like aside).

These movies aren't supposed to be deep or introspective or have very interesting photography or academy award winning performances. They're just a good time. Mummies, Zombies, Aliens with none of the baggage of content. Same as The Nightmare on Elm Street and 13ths and (later) Halloweens. Same as all the old Universal monster flicks that were churned out by the dozen. Just fluffy good times!

Or have you never seen Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstien? lol

 

[Batutta]

But why? I mean, specifically? I thought the composition of the shots were fine, the storytelling was straight forward.

I thought the whole concept was retarded to begin with to be honest. Beyond that, I didn't care about a goddamn thing that happened from beginning to end. His characters are one dimensional and uninteresting. The directing is uninspired. The performances bland. It was a horror thriller I did not find either horrific or thrilling. Paul WS Anderson's interest in his characters never seemed deeper than just being cardboard cutouts for target practice. There is nothing more boring to me than seeing characters I don't care about being killed for 2 hours. If you think that this movie even remotely compares to either Alien, Aliens or Predator, or even Predator 2, than I guess you have a more forgiving taste than I. There is nothing I find more offensive than somebody taking something that was once great, and turning it into crap. Paul WS Anderson to me is a director who is drawn to the sci-fi and horror genre for all the wrong reasons, more interested in cheap shocks, surface action and creature fetishizing and very little in its storytelling possibilities.

 

[Chamber005]

I thought the whole concept was retarded to begin with to be honest. Beyond that, I didn't care about a goddamn thing that happened from beginning to end. His characters are one dimensional and uninteresting. The directing is uninspired. The performances bland. It was a horror thriller I did not find either horrific or thrilling. Paul WS Anderson's interest in his characters never seemed deeper than just being cardboard cutouts for target practice. There is nothing more boring to me than seeing characters I don't care about being killed for 2 hours. If you think that this movie even remotely compares to either Alien, Aliens or Predator, or even Predator 2, than I guess you have a more forgiving taste than I. There is nothing I find more offensive than somebody taking something that was once great, and turning it into crap. Paul WS Anderson to me is a director who is drawn to the sci-fi and horror genre for all the wrong reasons, more interested in cheap shocks, surface action and creature fetishizing and very little in its storytelling possibilities.

Well if your problem was with the concept, the creators of Alien are as much to blame as Anderson for that, as they helped craft the story for AVP.

I guess we can agree to disagree. As someone who watches a lot of good and a lot of bad sci-fi, I think Anderson is on the better side. His movies aren't as good as any of the other directors we've mentioned here, but I can't fault the guy for working on properties that I want to see.

But what's crazy is that if I put the first two Mummy movies against, say, A.I. and War of the Worlds, though A.I. and WotW are FAR better flms, I was much more entertained by the Mummy films. I could barely stay awake for A.I. or WotW and in neither one of those MUCH better films did I care even a little bit about any of the characters.

So while the AVP films and the RE films aren't well done movies, they're enjoyable even when they suck. Whereas A.I., Minority Report and WotW were not enjoyable for me despite never truly sucking at all. That's because Anderson's stuff is fun and popcorn and the other movies mentioned are trying to be something more than what their scripts would allow.

Regardless, Anderson is getting it done and carries a substantial stick in Hollywood. I can't even begin to imagine how impossibly difficult it would be for a guy with no talent to land all the high profile gigs he's snagged. Guy would have to be the best salesman in the universe, and even then he wouldn't still be getting those jobs if people felt he had no talent.

 

[Batutta]

That's because Anderson's stuff is fun and popcorn and the other movies mentioned are trying to be something more than what their scripts would allow.

I do not find them fun. I find them humorless and drab and obvious and devoid of wit. You keep operating under the assumption that I want all movies to aspire to high art. I don't. I'm just not entertained by medicore crap. And I don't give a rat's ass why Hollywood keeps hiring the guy. ME, MYSELF & I think he sucks. The ability to get a movie made does not make you a good filmmaker. Otherwise Uwe Boll would be the next Orson Welles.

 

[Batutta]

Look, I want to bury this debate so I'll add some final thoughts. The reason I find Paul WS Anderson's movies terrible is because they are neither bad enough to be entertaining in a 'so bad it's good way', or skilled enough to qualify as good entertainment. They exist in that stultifying middle ground of mediocrity. It would be one thing if he didn't take himself seriously, but he's clearly aiming for a certain level of quality and falling far short. The first Predator is no magnificent piece of art, but for what it was trying to achieve it was very well done -- suspenseful, well shot, a great music score, fun characters, and Arnold Schwarzenegger at the height of his neggery goodness. AVP was just dull as hell to me, and the fact that he sullied 2 classic film characters in the process offended me. You mentioned The Mummy flicks and that director is another guy on my sh*t list. The first Mummy was a so-so 2nd rate Indiana Jones knockoff that at least had a sense of fun about it. But when he made Van Helsing he took a giant crap on a bunch of classic film characters and raised my ire. If these guys are going to be making mediocre junk, I would rather they confine their hackery to lesser material. That said, I never had much love for the Resident Evil franchise so he can have at it. They were fun games, but that is all.

 

[Nektonic]

I like quite a few of Anderson's films, but he really let me down with AvP. Shopping, Event Horizon, and Death Race are my favorites of his. Based on what he did with Event Horizon, I would've rather seen him do a pure Alien sequel, and one without Predators in it. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing what Anderson could do with an Alien(s) sequel if James Cameron wrote the script, but with Anderson directing. That could be really good.

As for Resident Evil 4, I'm willing to give just about anything with zombies in it a chance. Man, I remember the terror-filled Resident Evil 2 sessions back in the good old original Playstation days. Good times.

 

[Chamber005]

I like quite a few of Anderson's films, but he really let me down with AvP. Shopping, Event Horizon, and Death Race are my favorites of his. Based on what he did with Event Horizon, I would've rather seen him do a pure Alien sequel, and one without Predators in it. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing what Anderson could do with an Alien(s) sequel if James Cameron wrote the script, but with Anderson directing. That could be really good.

As for Resident Evil 4, I'm willing to give just about anything with zombies in it a chance. Man, I remember the terror-filled Resident Evil 2 sessions back in the good old original Playstation days. Good times.

Which brings up a good point -- I remember the acting and the writing in the video games being decisively dodgy. Having read all of the S.D. Perry RE novels, I feel that the RE film franchise is about on target with all of the properties that have come before it.

Sure the second film sucked it in every conceivable manner, but RE:3 more than made up for it.

 

[RockmanX3]

Being a huge fan of the games, I sat through all 3 of the movies and hated all of them. I was hoping the 3rd one would be decent because Wesker is in it, but it was just as bad.

I think I'll actually watch this one too because I've already invested so much time watching this train wreck of a series.

I did like Anderson's Mortal Kombat and Event Horizon.