Connect with us

Editorials

[Editorial] ‘Resident Evil 2’ Remake, the Importance of Change, and Fear of the Unknown

Published

on

Whether it’s the 2002 Resident Evil remake altering level design and mechanics of the original, Resident Evil 4’s flirting with action rather than remaining purely survival horror, or Resident Evil 7 using the first person perspective as opposed to third person, change is persistent throughout the series’ history. That brings us to the Resident Evil 2 remake, a game that has been criticized by some fans for being too much of a departure, ironic as change instills an element of the unknown which is crucial to any major phobia. That willingness to opt for the unfamiliar is exactly why Resident Evil has remained atop the survival horror pecking order for all these years.

The desire for a Resident Evil 2 remake has existed since the remake of the original Resident Evil made its debut back in 2002. The aptly dubbed ‘REmake’ is a fan favorite, and often a contender in ‘greatest survival horror game ever made’ discussions, though a lot of fans forget why. Stepping into the halls of REmake’s Spencer Mansion is beautifully disorientating for players that are used to its counterpart in the original. A door that used to be opened with a lockpick now requires a key that’s tucked away in an underground passage below a cemetery. Zombies will reanimate as sprinting super-zombies called ‘crimson heads’ if you don’t properly dispose of their bodies by either burning or decapitating them. Perhaps the best change of all is the once unremarkable quest for the square-crank item is bookended with a visit to the infamous Lisa Trevor cabin. Not every puzzle, boss encounter, or sequence of events from the original is changed though, and that’s exactly why it’s such a strong horror game.

REmake is an exercise in misdirection, deliberately toying with the expectations of players that are familiar with the original by intertwining old elements with the new. Just when you think ‘this is a totally different game,’ it hits you with a familiar moment, refining uncertainty into that oh so necessary fear of the unknown that is essential in horror. If it was just a one to one recreation of the original game with better visuals, you would know exactly what to expect, and nothing kills horror more so than knowing what comes next. REmake isn’t just better than Resident Evil due to a visual facelift, it’s also better because Capcom was willing to alter what was there for the sake of making something scarier.

The buildup to Resident Evil 4’s release was filled with nervous energy because it looked like a betrayal of everything the Resident Evil name stood for. There were no zombies, no fixed camera angles, no Umbrella Corporation, and no T/G/X/Y/Z-Virus to be found; we had never seen Resident Evil like this before. Instead was a game that had an over-the-shoulder camera, a slew of weapons we could purchase from a comical merchant, and a hero that could literally suplex his foes. It looked like Resident Evil was having a midlife crisis, trying its best to appease a younger generation keen on action games. But the truth is that, if Resident Evil wanted to defend its title as the king of survival horror, it had to do away with those things we’d come to associate with it in favor of something new.

While it’s true Resident Evil 4 leaned heavily on the action segments, it didn’t forget the intent of its namesake was to make the audience feel fear. The opening village level was akin to that nervous claustrophobic feeling that arises when you’re in a crowd, only this time the crowd is wielding chainsaws and they want to lop off your head. It’s uncomfortable seeing a group of clearly sentient villagers actively work together in an attempt to kill you. Barricade yourself inside a house and they’ll set up ladders and come in through the second floor. Climb to the top of a tower to gain the high ground and they’ll start lobbing Molotov cocktails at you from below. Stay out in the open too long and one of them will grab you from behind and hold you just long enough for one of his buddies can impale you on a pitchfork. The villagers are a relentless swarm that’ll stop at nothing to overwhelm you, and they were all the scarier because they were so far removed from previous storylines or series lore.

This is why the notion that Resident Evil 4 isn’t a horror game has always been disingenuous; it’s just not going for the same kinds of scares the previous games were. Classic Resident Evil was like entering a dark basement, whereas Resident Evil 4 is like sprinting away from an angry dog. The frantic tone and steady pacing keep you on knife’s edge for the entire runtime. That tension instilled much more dread in me than the likes of Resident Evil Code: Veronica or Resident Evil Zero ever did. By the time those titles came out, the classic Resident Evil gameplay formula was losing its magic and became formulaic. There’s only so many times you can use the shield key to open the door and fight yet another giant spider before it stops being scary and starts being routine, and Resident Evil 4 was precisely the sort of shake up the series needed at that juncture.

Just as Resident Evil 4 put an end to the era that preceded it in favor of something new, Resident Evil 7 was poised at doing the same. The series slipped back into that territory where a proven gameplay formula had become predictable, especially with Resident Evil 6 dialing up the action set pieces and leaving horror by the wayside. The king of survival horror barely qualified as such anymore, but thankfully Resident Evil 7 reminded us exactly who sits at the head of the genre’s table.

The move to a first-person camera was the most contentious aspect of Resident Evil 7 upon its reveal. The decision for the change in perspective was probably made due to the success of the indie darling Amnesia: The Dark Descent and also to create a more accessible control scheme. Regardless of the why, it worked out because the game was able to present its horror in an intimate way. There wasn’t an on-screen character that acted as a buffer between the enemy and the player; this time everything was right up in your face. Whether it was Jack Baker grabbing you by the face from behind and twirl you around to face him, squeezing through a tight spot as bugs rained down on you, or peeking behind a corner only to see Marguerite Baker leering back at you, Resident Evil was claustrophobic in a way that it had never been before.

Obviously, first-person horror is not something Resident Evil 7 pioneered but it did do it better than most of its contemporaries. Encounters with Jack Baker are almost exclusively a dangerous game of cat and mouse, where you peek through floorboards praying he doesn’t notice you. Meanwhile, Lucas Baker’s labyrinthine of traps will make you duck under wires and solve escape room puzzles. Even when the game falters during the combat-heavy sections with the Molded enemies, the developers really experimented with this perspective. Capcom could’ve just picked any one of these scenarios and built a game solely around them like most of its ilk, but they never stopped shaking things up.

So when fans criticize the Resident Evil 2 remake for being a departure from the original, I’m quite puzzled as to why that’s considered a bad thing. The most universally beloved entries in the series are the ones where Capcom cast off expectations and opted for something new. REmake altered level design, added new storylines, and tweaked the gameplay resulting in a game that far outshined the original. Resident Evil 4 did away with virtually every trope associated with the series up till that point and it went on to be one of the most well-received games of all time. Resident Evil 7 brought the series back to its roots while simultaneously perfecting the first person horror formula on their first outing with it. Each of these games is distinct from one another in many ways, but their binding constant is that they all tried something new. This new version of Resident Evil 2 might be following in their footsteps, in time we’ll know for sure whether that’s the case.

Resident Evil 2 is a classic, so it’s understandable why some fans are quick to shun anything different about the remake. Thing is, though, that Resident Evil is always at its best when it shakes up an established formula because with change comes the unknown: a baseline for any major phobia. Horror is a lot like life in that there is no growth without change, no reward without risk. That willingness to risk it all for the sake of a good scare is exactly why Resident Evil has remained the at the top of its class for all these years.

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

on

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading