Editorial
Front Page - Friday, September 24, 2010
The Critic's Corner
David Laprad
“Resident Evil: Afterlife” is the best live action 3D movie since “Avatar.” That might sound like high praise, but the truth is, it’s the only live action 3D movie since James Cameron released his science fiction blockbuster last December.
With the exception of animated films such as “Toy Story 3” and “Despicable Me,” everything else has been a pretender. “Clash of the Titans,” “The Last Airbender” and every other “3D” movie you’ve seen since “Avatar” was actually a 2D movie that had been put through a post-production process to make it look like a 3D film.
In every case, the results were poorly lit scenes, nauseating camerawork and laughably bad 3D. For example, the hair on the heads some of the characters in “Clash” stretched several feet behind them, while in “Airbender,” the actors sometimes appeared to have two faces.
After paying $11.50 to see “Airbender” in 3D, I swore off conversions, and by the time “Afterlife” came out, I’d all but forgotten how cool a well-made 3D movie looked. However, I knew its director, Paul W.S. Anderson, had used the next generation of the technology Cameron developed for “Avatar” while filming the “Resident Evil” sequel, so I went in hoping for a good experience.
Five minutes in, I was grinning like a schoolboy who’d just kissed the prettiest girl in class.
Let me get two things out of the way. First, “Afterlife” is not going to win any awards for writing. Anderson, who penned the script, devised a simple plot populated with stock characters. In addition, his dialog is primarily expository. But while the storyline might not be “Gone With the Wind,” it is lucid. This is actually a step forward for the series, which to date has consisted of incomprehensible slop.
At the outset, Alice, the hero of all four films, breaks into an underground facility run by The Umbrella Corporation, which three movies earlier had accidentally unleashed a virus that turned nearly every human being on Earth into a gut-munching zombie. Her primary target is what I’m assuming is the CEO of the company, although Anderson never makes that clear. After he escapes, Alice continues her search for a place called Arcadia, a disease-free haven for survivors.
As Alice is soaring over Los Angeles in a tiny prop job, she spots a small group of healthy individuals on the roof of a prison. From them, she learns Arcadia is in fact a large ship coasting just off the shore of L.A. Unfortunately, a few hundred thousand undead stand between them and deliverance.
As I said, the story for “Afterlife” is no literary masterpiece, but it does provide Anderson with plenty of opportunity to have fun with his new 3D toy.
Second, none of the actors in “Afterlife” will be thanking the Academy at the next Oscar ceremony. Their acting isn’t so bad it ruined my enjoyment of the film, but there are awkward bits. That said, I enjoyed the performance of the actor who played the CEO, as he seemed to be doing an intentionally bad impression of Mr. Smith from the “Matrix” movies.
What makes “Afterlife” worth seeing is the 3D action. Like Cameron, Anderson has figured out how to use the technology to produce a great looking movie. Rooms are brightly lit, sets take advantage of the added dimension and people and props are placed in a way that gives the viewer interesting things to see in the foreground and background. Anderson holds his camera still, too, instead of shaking it like a baby rattle.
I also appreciated Anderson’s frequent use of slow motion, as it allowed me to soak up his sleek visuals, whether he was throwing an oversized axe at me, leisurely panning through an airplane the moment before it crashes into the side of a mountain, or following Alice and several dozen zombies off the roof of the prison. Anderson is a master of the money shot, and “Afterlife” is packed with such scenes.
Anderson is a hack, too, but I don’t think he cares. Why else would he blatantly copy and paste scenes from the “Matrix” movies? He borrowed so many shots from “The Matrix Reloaded,” including one of Alice diving backward through a glass window as she fires her gun, that he shouldn’t be surprised if he gets a call from the Wachowski Brothers.
To tell the truth, I didn’t care, either. I was having too much fun. The story was all right and the acting was clumsy, but the 3D was crystal clear and the action well choreographed, and that was enough for me. I’ll probably pay to see “Afterlife” a second time before it leaves theaters and hits DVD, where it won’t shine nearly as brightly.
Email David Laprad at dlaprad @hamiltoncountyherald.com.
|
|