Stop Complaining About Zach Cregger’s ‘Resident Evil’
Zach Cregger’s ‘Resident Evil’ should be judged as a movie, not a one-to-one adaptation of its source material.

Zach Cregger’s ‘Resident Evil’ should be judged as a movie, not a one-to-one adaptation of its source material.

Cregger has more than shown that he is capable of making a damn good movie. Did you somehow miss Weapons? Barbarian? And no, I will not accept any of the revisionist nonsense some of you like to pull. Stand on business. Chad Collins, here at Dread, has written a few times about Cregger and his capabilities. He discusses how the anxiety produced by Weapons almost killed him. This should tell you something about the man’s ability to create an atmosphere that gets under your skin.
And yet, somehow, people are already convinced that Resident Evil is doomed because it isn’t a one-to-one recreation of the games. That’s not how adaptations work, and it never should be.
As far as the complaints regarding Cregger disregarding some of the lore and mechanics from Resident Evil? Honestly, I think it is fine. Not everything is going to transition well into film. For example, punching a boulder might be fun and silly in a game, but having Chris do that in a live-action adaptation would just be silly. So what is the issue here? That it is snowing? Modern technology? Is it that he created a new strain of the T-virus? Because we have had so many viruses, parasites, and fungi that even I would struggle to name them all. Listen, we had a relatively faithful game adaptation already this year, and you all hated it (Return to Silent Hill…). I had a decent enough time, but even I’d concede that film’s biggest weakness was fidelity to the source material that constrained its ability to do something unique within the framework of filmmaking.
Plus, Resident Evil has never been particularly afraid of changing its own rules. We have gone from zombies and pharmaceutical conspiracies to Las Plagas, the mold, giant insects, superhuman mutations, bioweapons, cults, vampires, werewolves, and whatever that sludge monster was in Resident Evil 6. The franchise has always been willing to introduce something new when the story calls for it. So why are we suddenly acting like there is a sacred Resident Evil rulebook that cannot be touched?
I love Chris and Leon as much as the next guy, but when Ethan was introduced to the franchise, I was stoked to see a new protagonist, a new perspective, and to see where things went from there. Let Bryan have his chance. I have confidence that Austin Abrams is going to give a great performance. As fantastic as it is to play as a S.T.A.R.S. alum, or an RPD rookie, an average Joe being our lead is a great change of pace. Ethan provided that in RE7 (although he was trained up by Chris before Village, so that no longer applied).

And that is what I want from this movie. Something new. I don’t need another two-hour-long checklist of references where I can say “Hah! I know that one!” or “Oh look, it’s Ada!” No one needs to mention a “Jill Sandwich” for me to enjoy the movie. We don’t need a group of familiar faces standing around the Spencer Mansion discussing the lore and reading files. We already have that.
I want a good movie that feels like Resident Evil. Not just a basket of familiar moments. Resident Evil has always been more than its individual characters, locations, or monsters. At its core, the franchise is about people stumbling into something they shouldn’t be messing with and realizing far too late that they are screwed. Sometimes that means zombies and mutated sharks in a mansion. Sometimes it is a village full of parasite-infected cultists. The point here is that the franchise has always evolved.
That evolution is a huge part of the reason that Resident Evil is still around in the first place. If Capcom had simply remade the same game over and over again, I doubt we would still be talking about Resident Evil decades later. The franchise has repeatedly reinvented itself. Resident Evil 4 completely changed the series. Resident Evil 7 did it again. The remakes have taken those familiar stories and changed them enough to feel fresh while still respecting what came before. So why shouldn’t the movies do the same?
If Cregger makes a terrible movie, by all means, tear it apart. Honestly, I will be right there with you. If it’s poorly written or ugly, if the scares don’t work, the pacing sucks, or it doesn’t actually give Resident Evil vibes– just a regular zombie movie with the logo slapped on there– we will have plenty to complain about. But if it is good? If it is scary, weird, tense, and it feels like Resident Evil despite a few liberties taken? Wonderful. We have a new entry in this beloved franchise. Writing off the movie entirely because you are upset that it diverged from the source content is ridiculous.
You can love all of the original content of Resident Evil and still want something new. That is okay. If Resident Evil is bad, it will be a bad movie, regardless of how closely it aligns with the source material.