A few weeks ago, our own Jonathan Barkan wrote an article ranking the Resident Evil films, and he selected Resident Evil: Apocalypse as his favorite film. He ranked Resident Evil: Extinction third, stating that “it was actually quite a sharp decline that [he] feel[s] lost the feeling of the games and the spirit they held.” That is all well and good, but I couldn’t disagree more. Extinction is actually the best film in the Resident Evil franchise (Apocalypse is the worst). It may not be the best adaptation of the games, but that is different from being the worst movie (and the subject of an entirely different article). 

I’ll get the bad out of the way first. Resident Evil: Extinction is not a perfect film. As is the case with pretty much every film in the franchise, there are logical inconsistencies aplenty. Where is Jill Valentine? If Alice’s blood is the cure for the T-Virus, why doesn’t she just surrender? Why does L.J. fail to tell anyone when he is bitten by a zombie (thereby becoming the Rain/Peyton of Extinction). The plot hinges on a simple Macguffin: Alaska. How do so many people get on the helicopter at the end of the film? Why does Alice keep introducing herself at the beginning of the movie?

A lot of the acting (from the villains specifically) is cringe-worthy. Jason O’Mara’s Albert Wesker is so bad that you immediately understand why they recast him with Shawn Roberts in Afterlife. A pre-Game of Thrones Iain Glenn fares slightly better, though his pronunciation of the word “flesh” is enough to make you turn off the television. Really, if this entire office scene were cut, Extinction would be all the better for it.

I’ll be the first to admit that giving Alice superpowers was a bad move. It doesn’t fit with the franchise or the games that inspired them (the first few games, anyway). Given that the opening moments of Afterlife rid her of those powers immediately shows that screenwriter Paul W. S. Anderson agreed. Giving Alice powers was a dead end for the franchise so he copped out and got rid of them. It’s also a pretty lazy plot device.

Extinction sort of drops the ball with its conclusion as it becomes clear that Anderson is merely trying to set up another sequel (none of the Resident Evil movies feel like actual movies….they just feel like episodes of a TV series). Claire and the other survivors supposedly fly of to Alaska while Alice wakes up all of her clones. It’s an inspired setup, albeit one that is undone in the opening moments of Afterlife, once again making Extinction feel pointless in hindsight. Still, that final Tyrant boss fight is mighty fun to watch.

On to the good! One thing that immediately sets Extinction apart is its daylight setting. It feels more like a Mad Max movie than it does a Resident Evil movie, which is a big part of why so many fans dislike it. The problem with the first two Resident Evil films is that they eschewed everything about the video games that made them so special (characters you cared about, actual horror, etc.). The first film worked as a prequel to the storyline introduced in the games and the second film is a cheap imitation of the games. Extinction is another beast entirely. Directed by Russell Mulcahy (Highlander), Extinction changes everything about Resident Evil in regards to its style. About 90% of the film takes place in the daylight, with the desert being the primary setting.

Many fans were turned off by the setting of Extinction and it’s understandable why. It’s simply not Resident Evil. Nothing about Extinction feels like a Resident Evil game or movie. It feels more like Mad Max with a female lead (or, you know, Mad Max: Fury Road). While it is understandable that this would not appease fans, it actually helps Extinction to stand out as the dark horse of the film franchise. It’s sort of the Halloween III of the Resident Evil franchise, and that helps it to stand out from the crowd. Sure, it’s different, but why hold that against it? Extinction is a post-apocalyptic film that happens to have zombies in it. It feels dirtier than the rest of the films in the series and that works to its advantage. People just hate it because it’s a non-Resident Evil movie that happens to be called Resident Evil: Extinction.

There are some outstanding set pieces in Extinction that rival any of the set pieces in the first two films. The crow attack, while a bit silly, is still the most memorable sequence from the film. The sojourn into Las Vegas provides a memorable backdrop to one of the more frightening attack sequences in the franchise’s history (seen in the below video with a fan-made score). The aforementioned final battle with the Tyrant also makes for a fist-pumping climax, complete with references to the first film and a Chekhov’s gun laser hall. Also, we finally get a Tyrant in Extinction, and he doesn’t disappoint. The creature design on Dr. Isaac’s Tyrant creature is much better than the stiff Nemesis rubber suit.

Extinction was given a similar budget as Apocalypse, but everything about the production value is better. Makeup and gore effects are more realistic. The fight choreography is improved. The editing is much better (you can actually tell what is going on during the fight scenes) and save for the aforementioned villains, the acting is a huge step up from Apocalypse. Anderson wrote a better script with Extinction as well. Where Apocalypse felt like a hollow “Greatest Hits” of the Resident Evil games, Extinction actually tries to build a world within the film. It’s not trying to check off a list of things to include from the games. It wants to be its own film, and that is commendable.

One aspect that Anderson gets right in his script that he failed to do with Apocalypse (and to an extent, the first film) is create actual characters. While some do get the short end of the stick (looking at you, Chase the cowboy), many actually get to be fleshed out in a way that Apocalypse didn’t allow them to be. We learn more about Ashanti’s Nurse Betty in her two or three brief scenes than we ever learned about Jill Valentine in the entirety of Apocalypse. When Betty dies, it means something. When L.J. dies, it means something. When Carlos dies, it means something. Anderson upped the pathos in Extinction and that is why the film works as well as it does. They are all given little moments that allow the audience to connect with the characters (not a lot, but more than any other film in the series).

Claire Redfield’s caravan has a sense of community that was not present between the characters in the first two films. Could you name any of the characters in the first film besides Alice, Rain and Matt (if you even remembered Matt to begin with)? Extinction benefits from actually trying to flesh out these characters. I’m not saying that the film is a deep look into the lives of its characters or is even the poster movie for character development, but it tries to do something that the other films do not. It sure as Hell does it a lot better than Apocalypse did.

Resident Evil: Extinction is a terrible adaptation of the video games. As a film, it’s far from great. It is, however, pretty decent. It is definitely the best film in the franchise, offering characters you care about, exciting set pieces, higher production value, etc. It’s a shame it isn’t appreciated more among fans of the films. That Extinction is seen as the beginning of the decline of the Resident Evil film franchise is lamentable, since it was actually crawling out of the hole that Apocalypse dug for it. You don’t have to agree with me, but go back and re-watch Extinction one of these days with a new perspective. Watch it simply as a film, not a Resident Evil film. You may find yourself enjoying it a lot more than you did before.

If anything, at least we get to hear Alice call the Red Queen a homicidal bitch.