<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>resident evil</title>
<link>http://www.cinemaroll.com/tags/resident evil</link>
<description>New posts about resident evil</description>
<item>
<title>Seven Movies You Should Never Put Yourself Through</title>
<link>http://www.cinemaroll.com/Action/Seven-Movies-You-Should-Never-Put-Yourself-Through.109672</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[<p>I am not talking about camp movies from the 1950s like “Plan 9 From Outer Space”, but movies of the past few years that have somehow merited public attention.  But when you consider the list of movies I've come up with, you will realize “bad” seems to be a little generous.  Please enjoy my scathing, one paragraph reviews of the following films.</p>
 <ol>
<li>
<h3>AVP (Alien Versus Predator)</h3>
Putting the galaxy's foremost killing machines in a brawl with one another seems like a great idea, in that it's like seeing the damage a train can do to a skyscraper.  Yes there will be destruction and mayhem caused by both parties, but at the end of the day it all proves to be rather pointless.   Although I usually admire films that deliver what they promise just by its title (my personal favourite being “Elvis and Costello Meet Frankenstein”), the movie seemed like a large waste.  A movie driven by violent action instead of an actual plot never really seems to impress me.</li>
<li>
<h3>AVPR (Alien Versus Predator: Requiem)</h3>
 Given my opinion of the above, you can imagine my disappointment and mild outrage when I learned there would be a sequel.  And although I am ashamed to admit that I actually watched it, I believe I can redeem myself by giving it such an arrogantly scathing review.  First of all, however, when one consciously says to themselves “I want to watch AVPR” you are clinically retarded.  Second, this movie suffered the same problem as the first: plot driven by random action sequences.  You can easily save yourself the pain of this movie by watching AVP.  It features flat and completely unlikable characters.  My personal favourite (and by “favourite” I mean the one I loved to hate), was the “bully” character who seems to have been based on the villain of every 80s movie ever made.</li>
<li>
<h3>Resident Evil: Extinction</h3>
Resident Evil 1 and 2 weren't exactly Oscar worthy performances, but you can tolerate them because they were fun and shared a similar attitude felt by the games in that they take themselves so seriously yet their scripts seem to be written by 12 year olds.  However, Resident Evil: Extinction, the third in the movie franchise, was in no way worth the time or money.  On some levels the concept of adding zombies to “Mad Max” seems to work so long as it stars Bruce Campbell.  The problem was that Resident Evil doesn't.  Now I may be a bit bias here, but I am a huge Evil Dead fan and will watch anything Bruce Campbell stamps his name on simply because he adds a wonderful camp feel to everything he touches, which is by no means an insult. However, with Milla Jovovich the movie seems a complete failure.  The script is so obviously tacky and poorly written you would expect that she could have a sense of humour about the fact she is a telekinetic/pyrokinetic human/zombie hybrid-clone (don't tell me you didn't see that coming).  At least Bruce Campbell had the sense to liven his character up with phrases like “groovy” and “hail to the king, baby” even when he had to lob off his own hand and replace it with a chain saw.</li>
<li>
<h3>The Descent</h3>
 If you don't remember this movie then (1) you are very lucky and (2) it doesn't surprise me.  But recently I was in the mood for a claustrophobic mysterious thriller and spent 15 minutes trying to remember the name of this film, remembering its general plot only.  It should be mentioned at this point that I am the kind of person who will willingly seek out movies I know are bad so I can hate them, then relay my hate of these movies through clever and witty remarks to my friends so I will become more popular.  Shallow: yes.  Enjoyable: sometimes.  Logical: no. In any case, stay away from this movie at all costs.  I'm sorry but when you can't even remember how many characters there are, or any of their names, or even identify the main character when they're standing amongst their friends in a cabin, you have done something to lose your viewers.  Essentially, several young women, half of whom are apparently British, the other half apparently lesbians, decide to go spelunking in an unknown cave and come across human-like monsters that live there.  There was so much wrong with the movie that I began to take it personally, believing that it hated me.  As much as I would like to spend the time to explain to you how much I hate it and how much is wrong with it, that would take more time than is worth being given to this piece of shite.</li>
<li>
<h3>The Highlander Sequels</h3>
I don't know why specifically these came to mind.  The first Highlander was bearable, namely because I'm a fan of Sean Connery.  Actually, that was the sole reason why this movie was bearable.  In any case, Highlander should have stuck to its goal and ensured there can only be one.  If you don't get that reference then that disappoints me.  The other two films, and the series they created out of them (if I remember correctly), were monumental flops.  There is no need to do a sequel to a movie that claims once there is only one highlander, there can be no others thus immediately discrediting any plot the sequels might have had.</li>
<li>
<h3>Any Movie That Came Out With A Sequel<br /></h3>
Many Years after its Original These are  movies that had sequels which came too late.  For example: Blues Brothers 2000, Caddy Shack 2, and Basic Instinct 2.  Movies such as these are doomed to failure because they are released when the window to do so is long gone.  Public affection for a film won't last forever, so releasing a sequel to a movie 13 years after it was released is pants-on-head retarded to say the least.</li>
<li>
<h3>Spider-Man 3</h3>
I am a total nerd, if you haven't already noticed, if not from this article then from one's past.  So imagine my disappointment when I came out of this….thing.  Spider-Man 1 and 2 were great movies, some of Sam Raimi's best.  Granted they were no Evil Dead, but they still had Bruce Campbell.  Spider-Man 3 started shaky when he began a self-narration sequence.  I was immediately embarrassed for both Toby Maguire for having to do that, and for me, for having to listen to it.  Luckily he made a decent recovery and the first hour or so of the movie was actually good.  Unfortunately, the instant Peter Parker began dancing in the street, acting and dressing and looking like an emo kid, I lost faith.  I had hoped the movie would not have gotten any worse than that, but I was wrong. I cannot forgive the horrible error of casting Topher Grace as Eddie Brock/Venom.  Nor can I forgive the writer of the screenplay for having Venom write “Come out, Spiderman” in a web.  I could go on, but as you may have already noticed, I am getting lazy (see numbers 5 and 6).  All-in-all, the end of that movie completely ruined it, and the Spiderman franchise.  This could only mean they will do another, of course.</li>
</ol><a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?x=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinemaroll.com%2FAction%2FSeven-Movies-You-Should-Never-Put-Yourself-Through.109672"><img src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?x=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinemaroll.com%2FAction%2FSeven-Movies-You-Should-Never-Put-Yourself-Through.109672" border="0"/></a>]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:55:03 PST</pubDate></item>
</channel>
</rss>
