Editorials
Does ‘Resident Evil: The Final Chapter’ Contain the Biggest Plot Hole(s) of 2017?
*Keep up with our ongoing end of the year coverage here*
The Resident Evil film franchise is an interesting creation. Adapted from a 1996 video game, the first installment (released in 2002) had almost nothing to do with the game it was based on (save for the fact that there were zombies, zombie dogs, a Licker and an evil corporation called Umbrella). Nevertheless, it was a financial success (earning $102 million worldwide on a $33 million budget) and a franchise was born. Earlier this year Resident Evil: The Final Chapter, the supposed final installment in the franchise, was released. With a $26.8 million domestic gross, it was the lowest performing film in the franchise domestically (but it was saved by a $282 million gross from foreign markets, making it the highest grossing film in the franchise). Financials aside, Resident Evil: The Final Chapter has the distinction of taking a big ol’ dump on the series’ continuity, making it an insult to the fans that have followed it over the past 15 years.
Before I really dive into this, I want to address one thing: I know you are going to tell me that the Resident Evil films are brainless and I shouldn’t think too much about the plot. Save for the Resident Evil and Resident Evil: Extinction, none of them are particularly good. Fun? Absolutely. High-quality cinema? Not at all. But here is the thing: I don’t care. Even though a film series is pure popcorn entertainment, the creator should still have enough respect for his audience to give them a satisfying conclusion that also makes sense. If Resident Evil: The Final Chapter tells us anything: it is that Paul W.S. Anderson does not respect his audience at all. It pains me to say this, as I have long been a defender of this dumb but fun franchise. It is my guilty pleasure, but I don’t feel guilty about it at all. I actually like all of them except for Resident Evil: Apocalypse, which is a big heaping pile of garbage despite it being the most accurate adaptation of the games.
Resident Evil: The Final Chapter actually has a few plot holes that either retcon or undo information we were given in the previous five films. For instance, the big showdown that was teased at the end of Resident Evil: Retribution (a big battle at the White House) is glossed over, with everyone (Jill Valentine, Ada Wong, Leon Kennedy, Becky) except Alice (Milla Jovovich) dying off-screen between films. This robs the audience of what could have been a spectacular moment in the franchise. Of course, it’s likely that battle had to be skipped because Anderson couldn’t get the actors and actresses who portrayed those characters to return for The Final Chapter, but it’s still a crushing blow to fans, especially since none of those characters are even mentioned by Alice in The Final Chapter.
The series has always struggled with continuity (will we ever find out what happened to K-Mart? Why does Claire never mention Chris after Resident Evil: Afterlife? It’s her brother.), and it’s never really been that detrimental to the overall plot of the films. So let’s get into the major plot holes of The Final Chapter which are detrimental to the series.The big twist/reveal in The Final Chapter tells us three things:
- Umbrella’s founder James Marcus (Mark Simpson) “discovered the T-Virus” to save his daughter Alicia (Ever Gabo Anderson, the daughter of Jovovich and Anderson), who has a disease called progeria that causes her to age rapidly. He recorded every moment of her young life in order to preserve her likeness and spirit. His business partner Dr. James Isaacs (Iain Glen) had Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts) kill him in order to take control of the project. Isaacs then used Marcus’ recordings of Alicia to create the Red Queen.
- The T-Virus outbreak was not an accident, but rather a decision made by Dr. Isaacs (Iain Glen) and the rest of Umbrella to kick-start an apocalypse that would wipe the world clean à la the Great Flood. All of Umbrella’s elite would then be cryogenically frozen and wait out the apocalypse until it was over and then repopulate the planet.
- Alicia Marcus is still alive and wheelchair-bound. Umbrella cloned her and that clone is Alice. Alice was “born” in the shower in the first movie. This means that from the get-go, she has been a clone and that was her first interaction with the world.
On paper, all of this sounds really cool. In fact, if you casually watched the franchise over the years and didn’t pay too much attention to the details, this would be a fairly cathartic set of revelations for the end of a franchise. The Final Chapter brings the franchise full circle and also gives it a heartfelt conclusion by allowing Alice to have the memories of the childhood she never had (Alicia’s memories). Unfortunately, these revelations also ignore or downright contradict things that previous franchise entries have told us.
Let’s start with item one, which seemingly retcons the origin of the T-Virus. In Resident Evil: Apocalypse, we are told that Dr. Charles Ashford’s (Jared Harris) daughter Angela (Sophie Vavasseur) had to walk on crutches when she was little. Charles “found a way to make [her] stronger.” This was the T-virus. Umbrella stole the virus from him and harnessed it to make Bio Organic Weapons. Okay, so who created the T-Virus? It all comes down to semantics. Charles Ashford “found a way” to cure his daughter and James Marcus “discovered the T-Virus” to cure his daughter. If it was Ashford then that means Marcus stole his research, squandering any sympathy The Final Chapter asks us to have for him. If Marcus created it then that means Ashford stole it from him, which also loses any sympathy that Apocalypse asks the audience to have for him. My bet is that Anderson knew the dialogue in Apocalypse was vague (he did write it, after all) and he kept it that way in The Final Chapter so he wouldn’t have to explain it.
Before we move on to items two and three, let’s have a little recap: the plot of the first Resident Evil film follows a Sanitation Team sent in by Umbrella to contain the T-Virus in an underground facility known as The Hive. When they get there, they discover Alice and Spence (James Purefoy), both of whom have lost their memories due to the Red Queen’s defense mechanisms. The leader of the Sanitation Team (Colin Salmon) tells them that they were security operatives for Umbrella posing as a married couple inside a mansion that sits on top of The Hive. They also find Matt (Eric Mabius) who eventually reveals that he and his sister Lisa (Heike Makatsch) were environmental activists who were working to bring down Umbrella. Lisa infiltrated The Hive with the help of a contact from Umbrella, who is revealed to be Alice in the third act. Alice worked with Lisa to bring down Umbrella because she no longer believed in what they stood for. It is also revealed that Spence knew of Alice’s betrayal and stole the virus from The Hive, intending on selling it to the highest bidder. He also released the virus in The Hive, thereby starting the viral outbreak.
Resident Evil: The Final Chapter seemingly undoes all of this (I say seemingly because it’s possible I’ve missed something, but I really don’t think I have).
If Umbrella released the virus intentionally, then what was the point of the whole Spence reveal in the first film? Was he working under Umbrella’s orders to release the virus? If so, why was he going to attempt to sell it to the highest bidder if his future had one of three paths: 1) Live out the apocalypse with the remaining survivors, 2) Become infected and die or 3) Be cryogenically frozen with the rest of Umbrella’s elite and wait out the apocalypse until it was over. In all of those scenarios, money would mean absolutely nothing.
Next (and here’s the big one), if Alice really is a clone of Alicia Marcus and her first moments of life were her waking up in he shower in Resident Evil then that makes everything that happened before that null and void, thereby undoing the entire twist/reveal in that film. It could be argued that Alice was made a clone well before the shower scene, and that she really did have all of those interactions with Lisa. Dr. Isaac’s exact words in the climax of The Final Chapter are: “You have no memory because you have no life. Nothing before the mansion when we created you 10 years ago.” Once again, it all boils down to semantics. Does he mean they created her to be Spence’s fake wife and after a few months she defected to become Lisa’s contact? Or is the film completely ignoring her relationship with Lisa and saying that her waking up in the shower was her first moment on earth? The fact that the experiments being done on other Alice clones in Resident Evil:Extinction always begin with her waking up in the shower seem to support the latter, but the plot of The Final Chapter is so lazily thought out that it could be either one.
Again, I’m fully aware that you’re not supposed to watch the Resident Evil films for their brilliant writing, but you would think that after 15 years Anderson would have had enough respect for his fanbase to offer up revelations that actually work with the continuity he has created. As is the case with so many other final installments in horror franchises (looking at you, Saw: The Final Chapter and Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension), logic and continuity are thrown out the window in favor of mind-blowing twists. It ends the franchise on a sour note for me, which is a bummer considering how much of a supporter of it I’ve been over the years. Oh well, at least it’s better than Apocalypse.
In this day and age, the word “troll” is often used to describe various online nuisances. Yet as abundant and irksome as the modern troll can be, they aren’t usually as fearsome as their mythological counterparts. I’m not talking about the small and gentler versions that have become more common to see in media. No, there are much bigger and scarier trolls out there—and André Øvredal’s movie Troll Hunter is one of the best places to find them.
It doesn’t take long for Troll Hunter (or Trolljegeren) to dump the Blair Witch Project-esque setup and aim for something a lot fresher. The trajectory of the story is augmented by Otto Jespersen’s character Hans, the titular Troll Hunter. The second he comes barreling out of the deep, dark woods and shouts “troll” at the camera, this movie takes a turn into what feels like uncharted territory. Not only subject-wise, but also conceptually.
For fantastical and made-up subject matter in cinema, found footage is a fast way to add a guise of believability. After all, what we accept to be the most crucial aspect of documentaries—the truth—rubs off on pseudo-documentaries, despite our understanding of the pretense involved. That is what Øvredal delivered with Troll Hunter: a movie so convincing that some viewers wondered if trolls really do exist. So, had this been straightforwardly made, it likely wouldn’t have been as effective. Conventional narratives would be more inclined to treat something like trolls as flat out unreal, and never try to convince the audience to think otherwise.
Hans petrifies the three-headed Tusseladd troll.
The viewers, like the characters trailing Hans, are quickly thrown into the deeper end of that extraordinary story. They have to process all this new information while staying on the go. So, although there is no significant amount of meandering, narratively or physically, there is still a good amount of atmosphere, not to mention tension building. It’s never anything frightful, but then again, Troll Hunter isn’t your standard offering of horror; it’s more on the low end of the dark fantasy spectrum. We aren’t ever spirited away to a faraway world—we stay in rather familiar surroundings, as well as dip into those less so. The outcome is a movie where you’re constantly more in awe than in terror.
As fantasy fiction might do, Troll Hunter prefers not to deal with incredulity. There is no time to waste on doubt, as interviewer Thomas (Glenn Erland Tosterud), soundperson Johanna (Johanna Mørck), and cameraman Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen) all follow Hans around, recording whatever this character is willing to reveal about his bizarre job. Of course, the Troll Hunter himself is not an open book; in that respect, the diegetic documentary fails to fully capture and unpack the more interesting of its two subjects. Yes, all those giant, monstrous trolls are indeed incredible, but understandably, your mind wanders to their pursuer. What kind of person signs up for this gig and then chooses to stick with it for so long?
Reviews have called out Troll Hunter for its lack of character development. In regard to Thomas and his fellow documentarians, that criticism is valid, but bear in mind, they aren’t the focus of the story, either. Meanwhile, Hans is a well-crafted character. At least better than first realized. Before he was introduced, Hans had already grown tired of the troll grind. Fed up with that low compensation for his services, resentful of the bureaucracy, and wanting to expose his employer on a large scale, Hans’ discontent is glaring.
Then there are those finer details about the Troll Hunter, such as that indifference to both the natural splendor of his everyday surroundings and the affections of an obviously smitten colleague, that also suggest some level of despondency. So it is fair to say this movie doesn’t feature any sizable growth for its characters; however, the namesake isn’t underwritten. No doubt, putting a real-life character like Otto Jespersen in that role is partly why Hans is so fascinating—maybe even relatable.
Otto Jespersen as Hans the Troll Hunter.
There is always a small risk whenever using the term “mockumentary” to describe a found-footage movie, as the word could imply humor where there is none. In the case of Troll Hunter, the term’s usage is appropriate. Some folks have claimed the English-dubbed version has the more comedic tone, however, the Norwegian cut isn’t exactly humorless. Apart from the trolls’ absurd appearances, this is a movie where the characters nearly choke on the monsters’ farts, and Christians are like walking targets. Hans’ complete apathy towards everything is another cause of laughter. Overall, the comedy is intentionally dry and inconsistent. Unfunny, though? Absolutely not.
In a movie where endemic creatures are maltreated, as well as disavowed from living freely and peacefully, it’s hard not to notice the ecological message buried beneath the story. In addition to that is the unmistakable political satire. There is this whole business about intrusive and unsightly power lines—like trolls, they’re big blemishes on the land—that leads to what is perhaps the movie’s funniest moment. The scene in question is that one where certain electric lines, the ones secretly being used to keep the trolls at bay, go in a loop and don’t actually send power to any residents. Yet the monitors of said lines don’t find this at all weird. So it stands to reason that Øvredal was having a go at those who accept the government’s doings without question.
Looking past the fact that trolls aren’t actually real, this movie is an enlightening source of information. And not just for international audiences; Norwegians, too, get schooled about their homeland’s own mythology. It’s also evident from everything on screen that Øvredal and his crew were enthusiastic about the topic. The creature designs are the most indicative of that zeal; those imaginative yet myth-accurate manifestations are equally amusing and grotesque. One second you’re laughing at their phallic noses, the next you’re white-knuckling during a hairy sequence. Most surprisingly is how well the trolls’ visual effects hold up after fifteen years. It’s not all spotless, but on the whole, they remain impressive.
Vouching for a mockumentary about trolls isn’t easy, but those who do come around and give it a shot will more than likely be grateful for the recommendation. For Troll Hunter is a real find in that vast and varied genre we call “found footage“.
A bridge troll reaches up for food and finds Hans decked out in armor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.