revware_2000

I rewatched this for the first time in almost 2 decades, and found it still holds up in many ways despite some technical glitches and weak jokes. I credit the film's watchabl-ness to the following; 1) Leisurely pace. The narrative is pulled off onto tangents by the wealth of talented actors in supporting roles. The director seems happy to allow them to do this, and it benefits the film. 30-40 minutes could easily be cut, and 3 minute scenes could easily be reduced to a single line of dialog - but where's the fun in that? Viewer's who commit the time will get to see pretty much every actor interact, whether the scene is necessary or not (Buttons and Rooney, Dale and Reddy, etc.) 2) Catchy Songs. With a few exceptions, the songs in Pete's Dragon mostly reflect the quasi-lounge feel of Burt Bacharach numbers. Each number is mounted as a "showstopper," with dance and dialog breakdowns that contribute to the running time. However, unlike most modern musicals, the songs are integral to the plot.

3)Solid Ham in supporting roles. The veteran performers chew scenery like James Bond villains without ever failing to take the proceedings seriously. Winters especially gave me the creeps.

I agree with the harsher critics of this film. Resident Evil: Apocalypse is not even an entertainingly bad film. Bazooka Joe comics have a better sense of narrative flow than this.

Screwing something up this bad takes real effort - given that this franchise has a ready made plot, ready made characters (with back stories)and as fans of the game series know, ready made homage to Romero camera set ups that aren't as jumpy and distracting as those in the movie. It's a sad day indeed when a video game has longer scene takes.

I suggest fans of the genre skip this one, check out any other zombie film they can think of, then write Anderson a letter begging him to keep his ape-like mitts off genre films forever. Anderson might have his talents, but given his track record this summer (A v P, RE) horror films ain't one of them.