The Authenticity of Resident Evil: Afterlife [2010]

[Reader disclaimer: spoilers will be discussed].

If you're a gamer, I'm sure you're all too painfully aware of the game-to-film curse that somehow manages to take our most beloved video game franchises and suck them dry, returning to us on-screen as shadows of their former selves. Hollywood likes to regurgitate their cookie-cutter stories with everything and video game adaptations always seem to fall victim to it.

One video game franchise in particular was for a while considered to be a game-to-film success story, said franchise being my childhood love: Resident Evil (1996 - present). Paul W.S. Anderson came forward in 2002 with the first Resident Evil movie starring Mila Jovovich as the titular 'Alice' (a character, I should note, that never features in the video games) and managed to garner $130 million at the box office. It wasn't the perfect video game adaptation, but it showed promise, and most of us were just happy to have something that wasn't complete garbage (looking at you, Super Mario Bros).

After that, Anderson spawned numerous sequels, which...well, they weren't as great: six films were made in total but even Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2017) only managed to score a measly 38% on Rotten Tomatoes. The general consensus amongst long-time fans is that the downfall of Anderson's zombie-filled empire came with the release of Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010), the fourth instalment of the franchise. However, it is my opinion that this film is perhaps the only instalment that authentically reflects the true, campy yet delightfully violent nature of the original video games.

Firstly, let's look at references. The script for Afterlife began in 2008 but there are some undeniable influences from the Resident Evil 5 (2009) game that was released a year later, namely the inclusion of the "majini" as well as other Easter eggs, such as the P30 injector. 

"Majini", for those of you that aren't familiar, are a type of undead that retain some intellect and have distinctive mandibles that open up like a fleshy mouth-flower, much like the Demogorgon from Stranger Things (2016 - present) or the Reaper vampires from Blade II (2002). They were first introduced in-game with Resident Evil 4 (2005), where arthropods named "plagas" infected an indeterminate region of Spain, turning their victims into madmen with terrifying (albeit impressively flexible) mouths: the inclusion of this in Afterlife is never explained but it was a treat to see the filmmakers not only move away from the T-virus storyline and include variation but also reference things from the newer games.

Secondly, the characters. As with the majini, we are (finally) introduced to Chris Redfield (played by Wentworth Miller), one of the two playable characters from the first ever game in 1996. Incidentally, Chris is never featured in the sequels, but his appearance in Afterlife brings such a wave of nostalgia to the viewer, especially when we're also given a scene where he and his sister, Claire (played by Ali Larter) are reunited: this is a nod to the game franchise's ongoing plot-line of Claire and Chris spending most of their time searching for each other.

Albert Wesker (played by Shawn Roberts) is also given more screen-time in Afterlife: he was initially introduced in Resident Evil: Extinction (2007) but thankfully plays a larger role in the fourth instalment. Wesker is, first and foremost, one of the most prolific antagonists of RE and it was quite shocking that he was shelved up until the fourth film.

And then there's my favourite character: the Majini Executioner. When I was rewatching the film, I assumed this hulking behemoth of undead flesh was the Axeman (as listed on Afterlife's IMDB page), a side character from the Resident Evil Outbreak File #2 (2004) spinoff game. Then I realised that it was the Executioner, introduced in Resident Evil 5. 

Despite the Executioner lacking a backstory as in-depth and brutal as the Axeman, this character makes for one of the greatest secondary antagonists of any RE film, in my opinion. From his intimidating silence to his over-sized meat tenderiser of a weapon (which distinctly reminds me of the Champion's Cudgel from The Elder Scrolls series), the Executioner scene in Afterlife epitomises everything great about the franchise: gratuitous violence, bad-ass character design and a soundtrack that slaps. It genuinely feels like you're watching a mini-boss fight scene and it's fun as hell.

Lastly, the tone of Afterlife is, in my opinion, what truly grounds it as the most authentic-feeling film. Scenes like the Executioner fight as well as the rooftop explosion feel like we're in a video game, the latter demonstrated by camera movements and choreography you'd typically see in a third-person shooter as the player takes down waves of enemies. One of the best scenes of the film is where the Redfield siblings battle Wesker on the Arcadia ship, an almost shot-for-shot remake of a cutscene from Resident Evil 5 (in which Chris and Sheva Alomar fight Wesker as well, see the video above for the comparison shots).

Afterlife's dialogue is questionable. I don't think I could ever truly defend the film's writing because, for the most part, it's mediocre and downright laughable. But it doesn't detract from the action: in fact, it sort of supports the campy, ridiculously theatrical tone that we see evident in pretty much every single RE game prior to the release of Resident Evil 7: Biohazard (2017), which took a more serious and realistic approach. If anything, Afterlife would've been out of place for the film franchise had it taken itself seriously and tried to mimic the tone of its contemporaries, such as 28 Days Later (2002) or I Am Legend (2007).

All in all, Resident Evil: Afterlife achieves what I believe none of the other instalments do, and that is authentically capturing both the tonal and visual elements of the original franchise in a way that stands as a great example of what Resident Evil is all about. Fun, gore and some funky looking zombies.

- K 

[Editor's note: video credit goes to Hero on YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74_gTzYCxeg]

Why The Human Centipede 2 [2011] is Actually A Decent Film

[Reader disclaimer: spoilers will be discussed. This piece also contains material of a disturbing and graphic nature].

You won't have to have seen The Human Centipede: First Sequence (2009) to know what it's about. No doubt your friends have made you watch it for a dare at that one sleepover or you were too curious after it was hyped up and made the decision to see what it was all about. If you haven't seen it, well the premise is simply a man that wants (and succeeds in) stitching three people, erm...ass-to-mouth. 

This late noughties horror flick became an instant sensation, a modern-day video nasty, sickening people all over the world and earning itself some tidy bans in a few countries. Tom Six (the director) had openly declared to society that he was the new face of b-movie torture porn, despite it being disliked by so many people, audiences and critics alike: mainly it was hated for its audacious and disturbing source material but it also didn't help that the performances were lacklustre and the script could be called mediocre at best.

So it's interesting that its successor, The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence (2011) was surprisingly good in comparison. I'm sure most would disagree with me on that and happily plonk it onto the same burning heap that the original film (and third instalment) sit atop like an un-welcomed bad-taste horror prodigy.

However, this sequel has some merit, namely its use of meta-storytelling. The entire premise of  THC2 is that a sadomasochistic, introverted man named Martin (played by Laurence R. Harvey) is obsessed with the first Centipede movie and fantasises about creating his own real-life monstrosity with 12 people, as opposed to the original three. THC2 derives its horror not only from the visceral and gratuitous violence we see on-screen but from the genuinely terrifying concept that its grounded in our reality.

If we look at this film at surface level, it's pretty simplistic: the entire thing is shot in black and white (a seemingly artistic choice but nevertheless a necessity for Tom Six after he couldn't get it through censorship gates) and it does do what it says on the tin...it gives us a human centipede. But if you take a more analytical approach to it, you'll notice that THC2 is not only able to be self-referential but it also pays homage to other aspects of horror, making it more than just a two-dimensional snuff-like flick about some people stuck together with staples.

The main bulk of the film feels like a midnight feature of underground cinema, something so depraved and explicit that it could only be watched by dedicated movie-goers or curious patrons looking to get a kick out of being freaked out; the use of black and white alone makes me reminiscent of the b-movies they'd show in the 60s. 

There's a particular scene in THC2 that makes me think of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960): in the final act, our "protagonist" (if you can really call him that) finally snaps and smashes his emotionally abusive mother's head in with a crowbar, after which he proceeds to sit her at the kitchen table and stare at the bloody remains of her face like a man without a care in the world. It's unnerving, similar to the way in which Norman Bates kept his mother's corpse around and spoke to it like she was still alive: such absurd niceties are what truly evoke a good reaction from the audience (at least in my opinion).

The characters in the sequel definitely supersede that of the first film. Martin's incompetent yet believably malicious character is a complete 180 of Dr. Heiter from THC1, in that Martin is at least a character you can almost sympathise with as a victim of emotional, physical and sexual abuse, whereas Heiter is just a psychopath abusing his skills as a physician. Supporting character Dr. Sebring (played by Bill Hutchens) is a walking, Freudian parody, depicted as an authoritative yet perverse opposition to Martin. And of course there's Ashlynn Yennie, an actress from THC1 who reprises her role as an exaggerated, meta-version of herself, further strengthening the link between the first and second film.

Is this a perfect horror film, though? No, and I'm not here to contest that it is because THC2 is very self-indulgent, the narrative is littered with tired, stereotypical tropes and arguably strays further out of the torture porn category and more into a fetishization of scat/bodily fluid/snuff kinks (I wonder if Tom Six is aware that gross doesn't necessarily equate to horror).

However, the final act of the film is what fans remember: it's simply a test of endurance on behalf of the viewer as to how much you're willing to witness. If the act of teeth being smashed out with a hammer wasn't enough for you, THC2 gradually unpacks all of the twisted ideas in its arsenal: from ripping out a tongue with pliers, to explicit sexual assault, to stomping on the skull of a new-born baby, THC2 does it all and spares no mercy in showing it. It is an embodiment of the torture porn genre but not in the generally campy, over-the-top way: it's decisive torture, implemented by an amateur in crude fashion. It's horrifying because, unlike Dr. Heiter with his medical expertise, any of us could be capable of doing what Martin does (if you're twisted enough). 

The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence is a decent horror film (despite its obscenities and ludicrous script) because it not only utilises the shock factor of the first-film but creates something entirely new in the process: bigger, bloodier and weirder than before. 

- K