Take some bad acting, throw in a laughably inept script, add a crap director and a crap screenwriter, sprinkle some shaky B-movie camera work, waste your entire budget on explosions and what do you have? Resident Evil: Apocalypse.

Mila Jovovich cannot act. This is an indisputable fact. Actually, correct that, she can act when she doesn’t speak and is directed to move around like a chimp a la Fifth Element. When she’s required to act in a film, she is incapable. She’s a pretty girl, an ex-model, but she isn’t going to win any accreditation for acting talent. She looks good, she’s flexible, but acting is not on her resume. It’s nice to see her on screen, but she would probably be more respected as a stunt person.

Paul Anderson cannot direct. He makes half-arsed films, is given a stupid amount of money to make films that are aimed at the very general teenage market; the sort of market that laps up any old crap that is released. Yes, the same folks that will watch his other abomination AVP will probably watch this atrocity. He definitely can’t write screenplays, his history proves it. How is he a success? He makes low-fi crap on a shoe string which attracts the lowest common denominator of film fans. So why did I watch this? Someone has to warn all the innocent people out there!

It’s hard to know where to start. I watch all films objectively, seeing as this is a post-watching review, it’s fair to say that all I dreaded came true. Firstly, the film is directed by one of Anderson’s buddies, the result of which it’s even worse than the original. How? HOW? Well, how about shaking the camera a lot, cutting away from the action and never really providing any form of tension, fear or shock. It’s like watching a film with post it notes on when and where something will happen, with everything being predictable to a tee.

How does it compare to the first film? It’s hard to say which is worse

There are plot holes in this film. Many of them, and there are no two ways about it. The reality is you have to make your sense of the plot hole. You make up your own conclusions, not because that was how it was written to be but because there’s no damned explanation of why certain things are or how they came to be. It’s lunacy, it’s illogical and dumb. Dumb is perhaps the best way to describe this film, but wait, there’s more!

The editing is terrible. Who was the cutter? Was he drunk? Stoned? Hell I could have done a better job sedated! Cut to a shot of a hand, cut to the shot of something blurring, cut to something else. Ok, so what the hell just happened? Did I miss the entire fight? No, because that’s how the Director intended it. You could always wait for the DVD release, used multiple angles and such – oh wait, multiple angles were promised in DVD films weren’t they, but never really took off? Ah well, guess it’s the slo-mo button then. There’s bad editing, then there’s BAD editing. This is below even that.

Sorry, what was that? Horror? I knew I forgot something! I’m guessing this is what they thought when they released the film. This is meant to be a horror film, a zombie flick, but it has less horror than a zombie porn film. Ok, a tad flippant, but it’s the carelessness and irrelevant nature of call it a horror film when the only horror that exists in this film is that it was ever made. I guess it’s explained by the teen rating for the film, which then begs the question, can you have a teen horror? Horror by definition:

1. An intense, painful feeling of repugnance and fear. 2. Intense dislike; abhorrence. 3. A cause of horror. 4. Informal. Something unpleasant, ugly, or disagreeable: That hat is a horror. 5. horrors Informal. Intense nervous depression or anxiety. Often used with the.

I guess you can argue that it matches number 4, which is quite amusing because then it shares its horror with that of an ugly hat! Fantastic, how apt for a film so dire and lacking in any horror whatsoever. People, listen and listen carefully: THIS IS NOT A HORROR FILM, IT IS A BAD FILM.

Mila Jovovich cannot act. This is an indisputable fact. Actually, correct that, she can act when she doesn’t speak and is directed to move around like a chimp

What gets to me I guess is the fact that so many people still flock to see such a crappy film, and films by such a crappy director. What it is it about films this bad that attracts people like flies? Having said that, a Box Office No 1 in America doesn’t mean a lot, as most hyped films hit the number one spot, and one which aims to give teens hot girls, guns, and monsters is bound to be a success.

How does it compare to the first film? It’s hard to say which is worse. The first one was utterly boring, was just as poor in every single way imaginable, but having watched it so long ago most of it fades from my memory, so it seems better. This could be completely wrong if I watch it again, but I wouldn’t punish myself in such a way; because I care about myself far too much to do that again. They are both on par in the mediocrity stakes, however, they seem to have managed to get co-stars that are even worse than the originals; one of which talks like a constipated Stephen Hawking’s with an English accent.

You know what it feels like to be stabbed? Well, I can safely say it’s like a sex orgy compared to watching this film. I wanted to really say, “Hey, this film sucks, but it’s brainless fun, so back and watch it for what it is”, but I can’t. I can’t because watching it is like being repeatedly stabbed in the eye with splintered pencil head.

Just when you think, it can’t get any worse, that the blood gushing from your eye is the worst of it, that your impaired vision is a blessing because you have your other eye; you get stabbed in the other eye with the other end of the pencil where they’ve taken out the eraser part and continue to stab with the metal frame that holds it. Now you’re blind! But wait, you can still hear the movie…

Verdict: Avoid. Avoid. Avoid. Avoid. Avoid. Ad nauseum…