Editorials
[Editorial] ‘Resident Evil 2’ Remake, the Importance of Change, and Fear of the Unknown
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.
On July 13th, 2026, the world lost one of its brightest stars.
Beloved New Zealand actor Sam Neill passed away from pneumonia after a long battle with stage 3 lymphoma. The multifaceted movie star will be remembered by mainstream audiences for his iconic role as Dr. Alan Grant in Steven Spielberg’s 1993 masterpiece Jurassic Park, as well as powerful turns in A Cry in the Dark (1988), The Piano (1993), and Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016), and prestige TV series The Tudors and Peaky Blinders. But horror fans know him as one of the genre’s most surprising Scream Kings.
Through a handful of memorable starring roles, Neill spent the 80s and 90s bringing life to a wide variety of characters and finding humanity in the most unusual leading roles, regardless of how heroic or villainous.
The Final Conflict (1981)
After a decade on the stage and screen in New Zealand and Australia, Neill made his international debut as Damien Thorn in Graham Baker’s The Final Conflict, the third installment of The Omen franchise. Now a 36-year-old businessman, Damien is fully aware of his devilish parentage and hell-bent on world domination. But rather than a hooved and horned monstrosity, Neill’s Antichrist is a suave businessman who leads his followers in an expensive suit and seeks to bring about the apocalypse through deceptive altruism rather than grand proclamation.
Despite his austere demeanor, the man’s true evil knows no bounds. When a prophecy foretells the second coming of Christ, known in the film as “the Nazarene,” Damien commands his followers to commit widespread infanticide, murdering all baby boys born on a specific date. He seduces a high-profile reporter while transforming her teenage son into a bloodthirsty disciple, then uses the child as a human shield. This tricky role allows Neill to demonstrate his trademark versatility, easily charming the outside world while dropping his suave mask of normalcy behind closed doors. Though certain aspects of The Final Conflict are admittedly dated, Neill’s performance feels eerily prescient. He’s mastered the heinous portrayal of a politician willing to sell his soul for power that will ultimately bring about the end of the world.
Possession (1981)
Though Andrzej Żuławski’s Possession is often remembered for Isabelle Adjani’s stunning depiction of a woman on the edge, Neill delivers an equally unhinged performance as Mark, a spy returning home from a lengthy assignment in divided Berlin. Upon discovering that his wife Anna (Adjani) wants a divorce, Mark desperately tries to hold his family together even at the expense of her sanity. Filmed the same year as The Final Conflict, Neill dives headfirst into this visceral role, managing to evoke sympathy for the distraught father who becomes ever more desperate to regain control. Inspired by his own divorce, Żuławski resists blaming either party for the separation, instead showing the chaos and heartache that comes in the wake of a family’s dissolution.
Once considered to replace Roger Moore as the next James Bond, Neill has fun with the international spy persona as Żuławski’s plot grows increasingly bizarre. But the skilled actor never lets us forget that Mark is a flawed human being struggling to keep his life from falling apart. A second character emerges in the film’s mesmerizing climax, allowing Neill to lean into full villainy with a glassy-eyed stare that chills to the bone. Now a cult classic, Adjani and Neill bounce off each other’s seething rage, creating one of the most effective cinematic duets in the history of horror.
Jurassic Park (1993)
When Steven Spielberg’s creature feature first hit theaters, Neill was by no means a household name and hardly a traditional leading man. Without the swashbuckling swagger of Harrison Ford, the mega-watt smile of Tom Cruise, or the chiselled jaw of Brad Pitt — all famous action stars of the era — Neill felt like an unconventional choice for this massive role. But he perfectly captures the essence of Grant, an aloof academic who prefers dig sites to fancy fundraisers and social events. Despite an aversion to children, the dinosaur expert finds himself tasked with saving the theme park’s youngest survivors who gradually break down his emotional walls. Grant’s transformation into a courageous caretaker is a landmark deconstruction of traditional gender norms wrapped in the guise of a rugged outdoorsman.
Neill proves to be the perfect action star, effortlessly navigating Spielberg’s stunning set pieces without losing the character’s relatable hook. But perhaps the film’s most touching moment is Neill’s childlike wonder at seeing a dinosaur for the first time. Stunned to speechlessness, he channels the audience’s wondrous joy when Grant first spies a real, live Brachiosaurus. But he seamlessly weaves this infectious awe into serious concerns about the creature’s existence, amplifying the story’s prophetic messaging. Jeff Goldblum may utter the film’s iconic warning, but the duality of Grant’s performance perfectly illustrates the scientific imperative, reminding us that just because we can doesn’t mean we should.
Neill would go on to lead Joe Johnston’s 2001 sequel Jurassic Park III, in which Grant is again tasked with saving a child. In 2022, he would appear in Colin Trevorrow’s legacy sequel Jurassic World Dominion, which merges the franchise’s two distinct eras while bringing the carnage onto mainland shores. Despite turning in strong performances, neither film is able to top the magic of Spielberg’s original or Neill’s captivating performance as the stoic leading man. But his nuanced depiction of Alan Grant inspired a generation of would-be paleontologists and quiet kids who could now see themselves as courageous academics capable of surprising strength.
In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
After catapulting to worldwide fame, Neill returned to horror proper to lead John Carpenter’s mind-bending In the Mouth of Madness. We first meet John Trent (Neill) as he’s dragged, kicking and screaming, into a padded cell. An unknown stretch of time later, he recounts an unbelievable story while covered in protective crosses scrawled into his skin — and the cell’s walls — with black crayon. A private investigator, Trent has been tasked with locating Sutter Cane (Jürgen Prochnow), a world-famous yet elusive genre author whose work has been driving his ravenous readers to disturbing acts of random violence.
A love letter to fans of horror fiction, we delight in watching Trent explore literary easter eggs that lead him down jarring rabbit holes. A late-night road trip takes Trent and Linda Styles (Julie Carmen), an editor for Cane’s publishing house, to a tiny New England hamlet teeming with darkness. While investigating an ominous cathedral on the outskirts of town, Trent realizes that he’s somehow been transported into the author’s interdimensional story and become its unwitting protagonist.
Neill serves as a skeptical everyman and the audience’s conduit through this bizarre tale of literary monsters that find a way to burst through the page. An often overlooked Carpenter film, In the Mouth of Madness spirals into insanity, but Neill keeps us grounded throughout each outlandish twist. A shocking conclusion leaves us gaping at our screens and contemplating our own relationship with horror fiction. After all, does free will truly exist? Or, like Trent, are we merely pawns in someone else’s monstrous creation?
Event Horizon (1997)
One of the scariest movies ever set in space, Paul W.S. Anderson’s Event Horizon builds upon the heroic image Neill established for himself in Jurassic Park. Dr. William Weir (Neill) is a physicist temporarily joining the crew of the Lewis and Clark to assist in their latest rescue mission. Seven years after vanishing without a trace, a spaceship called the Event Horizon has suddenly reappeared near Neptune’s orbit. As the creator of a top-secret gravity drive designed to facilitate faster-than-light travel, Dr. Weir has been sent to explore the ship and find out what happened to its missing crew.
Still haunted by his late wife’s suicide, Dr. Weir is a sympathetic figure, particularly in comparison to the harsh Captain Miller (Laurence Fishburne) who commands the crew of the Lewis and Clark. But Weir’s desperation to return to the infamous ship hides a sinister secret that leads his fellow astronauts to the threshold of hell. Neill’s talent for playing the everyman pays off in spades as the formerly sympathetic widower transforms into a disciple of this frightening dimension. Resembling a long-lost cenobite, Weir claws out his own eyes and prepares to drag the crew into a world consumed with sadistic pain.
Daybreakers (2009)
Neill returns to his Omen roots in Michael and Peter Spierig’s action-packed film as a secretly sinister businessman. But rather than the Antichrist, Charles Bromley (Neill) is a proud vampire convinced of the species’ superiority. With human blood in short supply, Bromley Marks Corp. is working on a synthetic substitute to prevent the human race from impending extinction. While hematologists perfect the formula, Bromley oversees disturbing fields of humans chained to massive machines that systematically harvest their blood.
Neill chills in this sinister role with vampiric yellow eyes, a pale complexion, and subtle fangs. But more upsetting is the fact that he honestly doesn’t believe he’s wrong. Once diagnosed with cancer, Bromley was delighted to find that vampirism would totally reverse his illness and grant him the gift of eternal life. He begged his daughter Alison (Isabel Lucas) to turn alongside him, but she has rejected her father’s controversial choice and is now hunted by his bloodthirsty goons. In a heartbreaking moment of clarity, Bromley brings his daughter to the brink of death, then turns away in disgust when she will not embrace his undead lifestyle.
Daybreakers is a surprisingly thrilling exploration of survival and sustainability. Similar to a plot Damien Thorn would hatch, Bromley’s ultimate plan is to placate the vampire population with synthetic blood while allowing the human population to replenish itself. With a larger stock, he plans to sell authentic humans at a premium, hunting these poor souls to season the meat. Bromley rejects a cure that would reverse the vampiric disease, choosing to enrich himself over saving the world. The strangely captivating villain’s end is a cathartic nightmare and fitting punishment for a wealthy man who places himself above everyone else.
In the Mouth of Madness
While the world may remember Neill for his signature role as a gruff but compassionate paleontologist going head to head with a raging T-Rex, horror fans may picture the versatile actor maniacally rocking back and forth in a filthy Berlin apartment, commanding a boardroom of corporate vampires, disappearing into the darkness of a haunted spaceship, sermonizing to satanists, or giggling over popcorn in a deserted movie theater. Or perhaps you have another favorite role in the beloved actor’s stellar career. But whether he was playing a hero or villain, Neill brought undeniable humanity to every role, redefining our idea of masculinity and the very nature of goodness vs. evil. By bringing such disparate characters to life, Neill challenged audiences with a variety of complex roles, asking us to examine the humanity of each character no matter how flawed or virtuous.
You must be logged in to post a comment.