None of this is real.

[elschmo]

I watched Resident Evil: Retribution with Sis #2 last weekend.

1. 
   
   This series is testing me, I swear. Don't get me wrong: I love this series, as much as I complain about how it often fails to live up to its potential as a vehicle for ramming into people metaphors about the present state of humanity, and how it can be absolute rubbish at storytelling sometimes. I will, without fail, leave the theatre with a smile on my face after the film's over, and declare that this is one of my favourite series ever. I will defend the Resident Evil films to the death, no matter what. But … this time around, I don't feel like that about this time. Once the euphoria had died down and I had the time to reflect on Retribution, I feel almost … let down. I don't ask for much from this series (though I should). I'm aware that these films are to entertain, and that to expect some sort of cranial stimulation that doesn't result in a headache is akin to expecting water not to be wet. Still, I feel that Retributionwas like a slap in the face; it epitomised all that is bad about the series, and to see all my doubts come to life on-screen in the form of Retribution was what tipped me over, I suppose. Of course, I will catch the next instalment (there had better be a sequel, I swear), but if it's a blatant lead-in to a seventh? No, no, no.
   
   
2. So, what exactly is it about Retribution that has me all in a tizzy? It's barely consequential to the overall mythos. Like Prometheus, only the final third was of importance. The first hour? Fluff, utter fluff -- and it was fluff that we've seen before, too, because it has the same goddamn plot as the first film. Retribution would've worked a lot better if consisted of its final third and the events of the inevitable sequel. Think of it this way: The film provides little to no future material for Alice's next opening monologue. Never mind that the fact that all four films can be summarised in less than five minutes says a lot about the series' narrative prowess, we learnt a substantial amount of information about this filmic universe and how the characters and events have shaped it over the course of the films. Retribution contributed nothing of the sort. Other than the knowledge that Umbrella has sold biological warfare to other countries, and that the Red Queen, somehow, has survived the events of the first two instalments and is now the series' Big Bad, there is a gaping hole where the logic for all that has happened in this should be. (Furthermore, the first example is, at this stage, irrelevant.)
   
   
3. It's surprising that we learnt not much of value, considering that the dialogue is 90% exposition. (The other 10% comprises bad attempts at bad-ass one-liners, sullied either by poor delivery or plain awful writing.) The problem is, what's explained most of the time is what's about to happen on-screen, as if the audience is too dense to process the visual information -- we're treated like we're clueless, but about the wrong thing. Reviews claim that Retribution feels the most like a video game, and it's true; the exposition provided is very much like a walkthrough, simply telling you what needs to be done. There is no attempt to address the whys, to create cause and effect. I had admittedly read the synopsis on Wikipedia the day before, and I made the same complaint -- that nothing led to anything -- but brushed it off because Wikipedia articles are meant to be concise, seldom pithy. Oops, it turns out that the film actually is like that.
   
   
4. Explain the things that matter; its predecessors sure did, even if it's sometimes lacking. For example, the Las Plagas virus. Leon knows what it is, but how does he know? It doesn't mutate Bad Rain … why is that? Have they perfected a strain of the virus, like Umbrella wanted to in Extinction? Is Alice still needed, then? Were the zombies in the Moscow simulation results of an early stage of the virus? Secondly, Jill. I'm sorry, but the hand-wave in the opening counts for shit -- we know that Umbrella kidnapped and brainwashed her, obviously. The question is, how did they get a hold of her? What is that mechanical spider, and, other than mind control, what other purpose does it serve? Is it an early prototype of a device that can create the perfect soldier before Umbrella stumbled upon the T-virus? Remember that it appeared in Afterlife on Claire, that it took her a while to recover from its effects … whereas when it's removed from Jill's chest, it takes mere minutes for her to recuperate. Not to mention, the damn thing is right there in plain sight -- how did Alice not realise that she needed to take it off Jill, much less recognise it for what it was? She was the one who extracted Claire's spider as well, for crying out loud! Thirdly, the Red Queen. I understand the need to have her return as a villain, what with Alice in Wonderland being a clear inspiration to the first film (and overall, perhaps), but unless the Red Queen had existed in other facilities besides the Hive -- which wasn't what was implied in Resident Evil -- her reappearance is bull. Plus, does anyone remember the White Queen? Now, if it were her that had turned homicidal, that'd make more sense, I think. She wasn't destroyed in her respective instalment, and her actions would provide a counterpoint to her sister's, i.e., she is consciously fucking shit up, whereas the Red Queen was doing what she was programmed to do, the means be damned. It'd provide a busload of symbolism, too; the idea of corruption, for one, coupled with the fact that she's the White Queen … Then again, I'm convinced that there's no real effort in maintaining Extinction as part of canon, so …
   
   
5. This is the official synopsis on IMDb:
   
   The Umbrella Corporation's deadly T-virus continues to ravage the Earth, transforming the global population into legions of the flesh eating Undead. The human race's last and only hope, Alice, awakens in the heart of Umbrella's most clandestine operations facility and unveils more of her mysterious past as she delves further into the complex.
   
   Except … we learnt nothing about Alice's history, other than that there might be a possibility that the Alice we've been watching all this time is a clone (as hinted in Ada's line about how the clones can be anything in the simulations, even an Umbrella soldier). Let's be honest; it'll most probably be a non-issue in the next film. If it's not, I'm not sure how I'd feel about it? It could shed some new light on what has happened previously; for one, the constant reiteration of her name and the fact that she "remembers" everything. On the other hand, it would be similar to "It was all a dream" (in that, depending on when the clone was activated, most of what has happened, if not all, was a simulation), and … wow.
   
   
   
   
   I think I'd explode from the utter cliché of it all.
   
   
6. On the topic of clones, I don't see the point of bringing Carlos, One, and Rain back (other than as fan service, of course). They'd serve the same purpose if their identities were obscured. Unless … they were there to supplement the idea that everything in the series so far has been the result of a simulation, to highlight the possibility of that being the case; remember how in the first film, One calls Alice "soldier"?
   
   
   
   
   
7. Nevertheless, returning to Alice … it's remarkable that after following her exploits for five films, we still know nothing about her. Zero character development has occurred over time. Let's see: In the first film, it's established that she hates Umbrella, and is selfless, survival-savvy, and a great fighter. Fast-forward to Retribution, and … she's still the same person. No, gaining and losing powers doesn't count. Regardless of whether we were promised some kind of background, it's ridiculous that this is even a thing. It's true that she has a motivation, and it's on that basis that we root for her as a protagonist, but how else is she fleshed out? Before Umbrella, who was she? She has her strengths -- what about her weaknesses? Alice has fallen into the trap of the Strong Female Character, a character who is a Strong Female, as opposed to "female, strong". Though the linked article mostly focuses on the fact that the Strong Female Character, for her improved literal strength, still requires a male character to save her in the end, what it says about characters, both female and male, requiring depth holds true. I wouldn't care this much if this were a one-off thing, but like I said above, we've been with this character for five films (which has spanned over ten years), and yet, we don't know any more about her than we did in the first fifteen minutes of Resident Evil. I mean, it isn't like there haven't been countless opportunities for her character to expand. Oh, wait …
   
   I mean, I love Alice. I love that she is at the forefront of this franchise, making it female-driven; and that she embodies a lot of great qualities. It's frustrating that all that potential is never explored in favour of excessive slow motion, tedious action sequences (did the final fight with Jill and Bad Rain really need to be that long?), and the need to shove COOL into the viewer's face.
   
   … Hang on, did I describe my beefs with the series on the whole, too? Yeah.
   
   
8. I don't understand why new characters continue to be introduced and put on a bus (if not killed, which, really, would be the best outcome for anyone in these films), when so little is done to expand them. Leon and Barry are great as references to the games, awful as characters in the film. Who are they, what do they do (and what did they do before the outbreak?), how did Wesker find them, etc. -- in short, why should I care about them beyond the fact that they're here to save the day (kind of)? Likewise, Leon and Ada's relationship: nice nod to the source material. However, unless one has played, the scale of their relationship is lost -- without the relevant context, Leon gripping her thigh comes across as … I don't know, a bit opportunistic? Again, the narrative doesn't address causality: From what we've seen, we are aware that there is a degree of familiarity between the two -- but to what extent and, most importantly, how was that achieved? Like I said earlier, the impact of Leon's concern about her in the film is lost without a proper frame of reference. I know that one exists on a medium other than celluloid, but it is also one that a casual viewer might not have -- or want -- access to. Seeing as this has moved past being an adaptation and is now, more or less, an independent series with its own structure, how can you assume that casual viewers -- who, honestly, would now be likelier to fill seats than fans of the games -- will know what is and isn't a reference to its source material? (I mean, I still see people asking on IMDb if Alice is from the games …)
   
   
9. Why does no one -- especially Alice -- question Wesker's apparent Heel Face Turn? Why is no one surprised that he's still alive? If I recall, he was perceived to have been in an explosion … which, um, I imagine would be difficult to walk away from unscathed. Similarly, how does Alice know who Ada is when the two have never crossed paths, period? I suppose that this is possible because of Alice's history with Umbrella, but this series has never been great at establishing background information, so …
   
   
10. This is probably too late to mention since I went ahead and complained a ton, but what the hell, here goes: This doesn't mean that I want the film to be bogged down with dialogue that addresses all the concerns I had above, because while the lack of information is frustrating, so would an endless stream of spoken details -- "spoken" is bolded, because that's the keyword right there. Instead, use visual cues -- this is, after all, a film. Remember the flashbacks in Resident Evil that told us what had happened before the Red Queen went homicidal, what Alice's and Spence's motivations were, without having anyone engage in a conversation about those topics? Remember the ending of Resident Evil that showed us how Raccoon City was overran by zombies without someone outright telling us that? Ditto for the characters and their lacking state of affairs. Remember in Apocalypse how we knew Jill's background from her introductory shot because of how it included details like the newspaper clippings that explained her expulsion from the police force? Remember the flashback that explained the Ashfords' involvement in the creation of the virus? Similarly, stick with a core group of characters and develop the hell out of its members throughout the films. Prior to Apocalypse, most of the main players in the games have been established, so that can provide some aid. New characters are fine as long as there is a foreseeable end in any way for them, as long as their whereabouts are kept track of constantly; presently, I can't think of another series that has characters disappear from the face of the earth without any recognition whatsoever.
    
    Basically, planning and thought have to be present in every aspect of the films, not just whatever that can be taken in with a blink of an eye. Also, cohesion and coherency are equally important, because this is the third film in a row to have tossed a wrench into the timeline. (I believe that in the opening, Alice claims that the virus had infected the rest of the world in months …) Show and tell us what would be considered important to the overarching story, not x-rays of the extent of damage Bad Rain can deal to the human body or the Red Queen overtaking the screen and informing us of her one motive every five minutes.
    
    
11. … Okay, I am aware that this has gone on for much longer than people would've liked (Resident Evil and serious talk? What). But like I said above, I love this series, and to see it stumble repeatedly is disheartening. Of course, I don't expect action to be taken as a direct result of this review (though that would be awesome) … Still, it's nice to start a discussion, you know? Anyway, back to the review, which will deal with some casual nitpicking and, finally, things that I actually liked about the film, because as much as the walls of text above would like you to think so, Retribution isn't entirely a lost cause. (And again, all that potential …)
    
    
12. There are fifty clone bases, correct? Explain the number of people in the Tokyo simulation, then. Also, I do not want to be part of the cleanup crew. (If Umbrella used clones for that, how fucked up would it be to clean up corpses that look like you?)
    
    
13. Where is Becky in the ending? Seriously, we don't need another Angie on our hands.
    
    
14. I don't understand why, when the games are filled to the brim with infected creatures of all kinds, the films keep using the same few. (The ending shows the Kipepeo, which … is a start, I guess?) It could be for the sake of continuity (LOL), but I feel like that shouldn't matter in this case? 75% of the point of Resident Evil is becoming acquainted with the kind of creatures Umbrella comes up with (either in the laboratory or through their people developing intense megalomania), and yet, lickers and zombies (regular, Las Plagas, and dog alike) are all that are fit for film? Oh, and clones? Meh. More Tyrants and other infected animals, please. I mean, look at this one:
    
    
    
    
    … Yes, he appears to be wearing a Speedo, which really ought to make him a fantastic addition to the series.
    
    (Sorry, I felt like sharing that after I spent a good five minutes laughing at his design. The other Tyrants have Barbie anatomy, so the point of the underwear is …)
    
    
15. So, clones. I'm neutral toward them -- like them when they're done well, don't like them otherwise. I have a feeling I'd fall into the latter camp for this series because as it stands, Umbrella's fascination with clones has a lot of potential of becoming The One Explanation for everything that has happened, and it's a rather lazy way out, you know? It would explain the lack of character development: Characters are clones. Clones are, as seen in the films, expendable. Thus, so are the characters. Likewise, logic doesn't "have" to dictate everything that happens, because everything that happens isn't real anyway! It is, like I said above, very much like "It was all a dream", and to have that as the ending after six films, especially six films that constitute a series notorious for its … eh quality of writing, is a real kick down below, i.e., not cool.
    
    
16. I liked the opening monologue, truth be told. (It eliminated the need to watch the other films again, that's for sure.) It's great that it included familiar faces, faces that will appear again in this film (albeit as clones), to jolt the viewer's memory of who they were and what role(s) they played in this universe. More of this, please (i.e., visual clues), and less "I and a bunch of people, including my superior, One, and best friend, Rain, worked to escape the Hive, but they died in the process". (Not an actual quotation, but that is how most of the exposition sounds like …)
    
    … Great; now I'm wondering if this is another hint that everything has been a simulation. The previous films have never been this explicit about who and what was involved, and for that pattern to change in the instalment where this new development is introduced?
    
    
    
    
17. The opening sequence, like in Afterlife, is pretty good, too. Though I appreciated that it was fast-forwarded when shown in real time, I feel like it wasn't necessary? Other than the obvious "It'd have opened up more time for worthier exposition" argument, the reverse opening, monologue, and immediate cut to "Alice" waking up in "her" bed would be a better way to screw with the audience (kind of like what was done in Extinction) as well as lend some credence to the possibility that everything is a simulation. (Come to think of it, Extinction's opening could function in the same manner, too …)
    
    
18. On that note, it's nice that the series is finding -- or has found -- its feet visually; there is a greater sense of consistency in how Afterlife and Retribution look. These two look more polished and have a more definitive style, as opposed to the varying colour palettes and aesthetic in the first three.
    
    
19. Ultimately, what I loved the most about Retribution was how it had so many nods to its predecessors! (I am a sucker for intertextuality.) Once I realised what was happening, I mentally noted down the various examples. Here goes:
    
    
    • Jill says to Alice, "Glad to have you back" when the latter awakes on the ride to Wesker. Jill said the same thing in Apocalypse when she, Angie, Carlos, and LJ collect Alice from Detroit. In addition, the scene mirrors Rain's brief non-virus-induced revival in the first film, except Alice is in Rain's place and Jill in Alice's.
      
      
    • Suburbia Alice, upon awaking, has the same tics as Alice when the latter wakes up in the shower. Suburbia Alice also touches her hair when she does, a reference to when Alice feels for and pulls out the wires from her head at the end of Resident Evil.
      
      
    • "You're all going to die down here" is a Red Queen staple, I guess, because the new incarnation says that verbatim, complete with head turn.
      
      
    • Barry getting injured by a Licker in a train station … where have I seen that before? Oh, that's right: Spence also met his end in the form of a Licker in a train station.
      
      
    • The music in the Tokyo and New York simulations has the same cues as the themes that play over the respective sequences that inspired those two. (Speaking of the soundtrack, the opening score is fantastic.)
      
      
    • Bad Rain's "You can't kill me" is highly reminiscent of Isaacs saying in Extinction, "I can't be killed."
      
      
    • Alice's weapons during her fight with Jill extend into what looks like her kukris in the same film as above.
      
      
    • Alice using spilt fuel and shooting at a vehicle to kill the Executioners is similar to how she kills a couple of Lickers in the church in Apocalypse. (It also reminds me of how she combines gas and a lit cigarette to kill the zombie dogs in the same film, but it might be a bit of a stretch.)
      
      
    • Jill pointing a spear at Alice's eye is positively cringeworthy -- just like its inspiration, in which Alice nearly stabs a scientist in the eye with a pen in Apocalypse; both are a testament to each's new power (and control thereof).
      
      
    • The Russian simulation, with Leon et al. taking cover in a store from stronger zombies with tougher firearms, is evocative of the showdown between S.T.A.R.S. and Nemesis. (Leon's crew fares a lot better, though.)
      
      
    • Alice retrieving Becky from the Licker's sac looks a lot like Alice helping a clone from the latter's … containment unit in Extinction. (Sorry, blanking at the moment on what to call the latter. Bubble? Pod? Tank?)
      
      
    • The car accident in Suburbia is evocative of the car accident in Apocalypse (so … is anyone noticing a pattern here?): The car topples over. Three people are involved, one of whom is a child -- the child that Alice eventually takes under her wing.
      
      
    • Finally, Alice teaches Good Rain how to use a gun. Good Rain is more competent with a camera, however. (Never mind that we never see Good Rain use her camera in the film …) What does Alice tell her? "Point and shoot" -- the same thing Jill tells Terri Morales, who has a camera glued to her hand whenever she's on-screen. Honestly, when this part started up, I was waiting for those three words to be said -- I wasn't disappointed.
    
    I'm sure there are others, but that would entail watching all five films again, which … eh. If I'm bored.

On the surface, Resident Evil: Retribution looks decent: The action sequences are entertaining (albeit a bit wearisome at times). It's always nice to see familiar faces again, and the visuals are stunning. I was most excited about how were numerous callbacks to its predecessors; however, I find it ironic that just as the film draws the most from its predecessors' more memorable moments, it's also the one that exemplifies the flaws of the series. Once the smell of "new film" wears off, it becomes apparent that Retribution contributes almost nothing to the overarching mythos of the films and refuses to answer the questions that matter. There is zero plot progression and character development, occurrences that are startling for what is slated to be the penultimate entry in such a long-running series. If the people behind this don't seem to care where the series in general is heading, why should anyone else? It is, quite simply, a waste of time.

Rating: 1.5/5

… This has been one long-as-hell review, wow.

P.S. I bought the official novelisation. Let's see how that goes.