Resident Evil finally received a new live-action adaptation in 2026, this time directed by Zack Cregger, director of Barbarian and Weapons. Unlike previous productions, the new movie does not directly retell the story of Resident Evil 1, Resident Evil 2, or any other specific game. Instead, it presents an original story set within the franchise's universe, following Bryan, a medical courier who becomes involved in a biological outbreak in Raccoon City.
Cregger himself had already explained that he did not want to simply reproduce a story that the games had already told, choosing instead to create his own narrative within the Resident Evil universe. The problem, however, is that there is an important difference between creating a new story within a franchise and actually capturing the essence of Resident Evil. And this is precisely where Zack Cregger's film begins to stumble.
Resident Evil Requiem - PlayStation 5
R$ 279,90
Buy
Resident Evil 4 Artbook Deluxe: Remake & Collector Edition
R$ 66,09
Buy
Resident Evil Generation Pack - Nintendo Switch 2
R$ 549,00
Buy
A Different Vision of a New Apocalypse
Zack Cregger's Resident Evil presents a very particular vision of a new biological outbreak. The film contains recognizable elements from the franchise, such as Raccoon City, mutant creatures, resource management, weapons, ammunition, and a structure that, at times, resembles a video game campaign.
However, when we look at the film as a whole, it becomes clear that it moves quite far away from what traditionally defines the series. This does not mean that an adaptation needs to simply reproduce the events of the games, but there is a difference between telling an original story and leaving aside fundamental elements that help build the identity of Resident Evil.
The franchise built its identity precisely through the combination of horror, exploration, resource management, grotesque creatures, and a constant sense of vulnerability. The problem is that, although the film presents some of these concepts individually, it pays little attention to exploring them consistently. Perhaps the clearest example is the Umbrella Corporation itself: even when the protagonist visits a laboratory, we find almost no symbols, references, or visual elements reinforcing the presence of one of the most important organizations in the entire franchise.
This becomes even stranger because the film did not need to become a direct adaptation of one of the games. It would have been enough to use these elements to establish a stronger connection with the original universe. The presence of Umbrella, documents related to the outbreak, references to biological experiments, or even recognizable creatures from the games could have helped establish this identity without limiting the director's creative freedom.
In the end, the film seems more interested in building its own interpretation of a biological apocalypse than in exploring what made Resident Evil such a recognizable franchise. And this may be one of the adaptation's biggest problems: there are not enough references to remind the audience that they are watching a Resident Evil movie.
The Positive Aspects of the Film
The Opening Minutes Work Very Well
One of the film's greatest strengths is found precisely in its opening moments. The sequence involving the protagonist, the accident, and his arrival at a residence manages to create a genuine sense of isolation. There is an interesting progression in the way the character begins almost completely defenseless and has to find resources to survive.
The scene involving the first infected also works well within this concept. I prefer to use the term "infected" because the creatures presented in the film are very different from the classic Resident Evil zombies.
The encounter with the dog is also one of the moments when the film manages to convey a feeling closer to survival horror. The threat is not immediately presented as something enormous, but rather as a situation that progressively becomes more dangerous.
This is when viewers familiar with the games begin to imagine that the virus presented in the film may not necessarily follow the pattern of the T-Virus.
The nature of the creatures opens the door to comparisons with different biological experiments from the franchise, recalling concepts that the series has already presented at different points, such as the parasites (Las Plagas) from Resident Evil 4 or the organisms (Uroboros) from Resident Evil 5.
The Infected Child and the Acid-Spitting Monster
Among the best scenes in Resident Evil 2026 are the moments involving the infected child and the acid-spitting creature. These sequences manage to create tension and, most importantly, present visually distinct threats.
The problem lies in the way some of these situations are resolved. At certain moments, the script creates an extremely powerful threat only to find a relatively convenient solution a few minutes later.
The acid-spitting monster scene is a good example. The creature is presented as a significant threat, but the protagonist's behavior during the confrontation is not entirely consistent with the situation established by the film itself.
Weapon and Ammunition Management
Another positive aspect is the way the film handles weapon and ammunition management. The protagonist starts with very limited resources and gradually expands his arsenal. This progression creates an interesting gameplay feeling, as if we were following a video game campaign and watching his inventory expand.
This is one of the production's best features because the film manages to turn a mechanic typical of the games into a narrative tool.
There is even a brief first-person sequence that attempts to visually recreate an experience similar to playing a Resident Evil game. It is brief, but it demonstrates that Cregger understands the cinematic potential of video game language.
The Protagonist and His Transformation
For anyone familiar with the narrative structure of Resident Evil, the transformation does not come as a major surprise. From the moment the character is bitten by the dog, there is an obvious clue that the infection will have consequences.
What is interesting is following the progression toward that moment. The character begins as someone unprepared for the situation and gradually takes on greater responsibilities. The audio recording, for example, works as a small form of personal development within the story.
This type of device also connects with a recurring feature of the games: documents, recordings, and messages that help build the context as the player progresses.
If the film receives a sequel, the protagonist's transformation could even be used to develop a recurring antagonist.
The Biggest Problem: The Progression of the Threat
In the early stages of the outbreak in Raccoon City, the scale of the threat does not seem to match what is being presented.
The film introduces creatures that appear to be at a much higher threat level than traditional zombies, but there is no sufficiently clear progression preparing the protagonist to face these situations.
In a Resident Evil game, this evolution is usually built gradually and has been developed throughout the franchise. The player starts by facing relatively simple threats, learns to manage resources, and as they progress, encounters increasingly dangerous creatures.
In the film, this escalation happens much more abruptly. The result is a kind of narrative schizophrenia: the threat seems enormous in certain scenes, but the film itself immediately diminishes that feeling with a joke or a comedic line.
The Excessive Comedy Hurts the Horror
Resident Evil has always had absurd moments, eccentric characters, and even unintentional humor. However, there is a difference between acknowledging the absurdity present in the franchise and turning practically every tense situation into an opportunity for a joke.
The excessive use of lines like "Fuck" and other comedic moments from the protagonist ends up breaking the tension that the director himself had established. This is especially problematic because the film presents some creatures that could work very well within a body horror approach.
When a threat is visually disturbing and the following scene immediately turns it into a joke, the impact is reduced.
Some positive reviews of the film interpreted this mixture of humor and horror as a deliberate characteristic of the franchise, while others specifically highlighted the loss of narrative strength during the final stages.
Raccoon City Feels Too Empty
The script establishes that everything happens within just a few hours, but the scale of the disaster does not seem to correspond to the size of the threat being presented.
We would expect to see a Raccoon City consumed by chaos, with people trying to escape, survivors hiding, infected people scattered throughout the streets, and different groups of characters attempting to survive.
Instead, many areas seem empty. This also hurts the perception of the apocalypse's scale. If the goal was to show a city collapsing, it would have been important to present more victims, survivors, and different consequences of the outbreak. This is unfortunate because Raccoon City itself is a fundamental part of the games and a pillar of the franchise, and seeing it reduced to a generic city is one of the film's weakest aspects.
The Creatures Could Have Been Much Better
A franchise like Resident Evil has one of the largest galleries of monsters in video games: Zombies, Cerberus, Lickers, Hunters, Tyrants, Nemesis, and countless other B.O.W.s are part of the series' visual identity.
The film, however, chooses to develop its own creatures. This would not necessarily be a problem if these creatures were memorable. The problem is that many of them do not have the same visual impact as the franchise's classic monsters.
At times, the threat even seems much larger than the zombies themselves. Destroyed rats that apparently merge into a large mass, tentacled creatures, and masses of bodies create a type of horror very different from what made Resident Evil recognizable. These are interesting ideas on their own, but they ultimately seem as though they belong to another universe.
Is the Film a Good Resident Evil Adaptation?
This is the most important question. As a horror film, Resident Evil has its qualities. As a video game-inspired experience, it also works in several moments.
But as a Resident Evil adaptation, I believe the result is quite limited and frustrating. Cregger himself made it clear that his intention was not to directly adapt a story from the games. The film is an original story set within the franchise's universe.
This decision allows for creative freedom, but it also creates an unavoidable question: if you are using the name Resident Evil, what needs to remain for the work to still have the franchise's identity?
It is necessary to preserve the combination of horror, exploration, resource management, vulnerability, and tension that defined the series and to better utilize the visual elements that make this franchise unique. It is not enough to put the name on it and explore elements common to any generic horror game and call it Resident Evil, because it isn't.
What Could Have Been Done to Make the Film More Faithful to the Games?
The film did not need to adapt Resident Evil 2 again or necessarily include Leon, Claire, Chris, and Jill in the story. An original story could have worked very well.
But some elements could have been used to bring the production closer to the identity of the games:
- Classic zombies: use traditional undead creatures as the primary initial threat.
- Gradual progression: start with simple enemies and increase the threat as the protagonist progresses.
- Exploration: create interconnected areas and encourage the discovery of resources and documents.
- Resource management: maintain limited ammunition as a fundamental element of survival.
- Classic B.O.W.s: introduce recognizable creatures from the franchise instead of relying almost exclusively on original monsters.
- More survivors: show different people trying to escape Raccoon City.
- Less comedy: allow horror scenes to remain uncomfortable for longer.
- More atmosphere: explore corridors, hospitals, police stations, laboratories, and other environments with a stronger sense of isolation.
Interestingly, some of these elements remain present in the franchise's current identity. Resident Evil Requiem, for example, combines different perspectives and gameplay styles, while Capcom continues to present survival horror as a central part of the series.
Resident Evil Requiem Shows Another Path
Resident Evil Requiem was released in the same year that Zack Cregger's film arrived in theaters, and Capcom itself continues to present the franchise as an experience centered around survival horror.
The game also alternates between different perspectives and gameplay styles, showing that the series can evolve without completely abandoning its roots.
For this reason, there is an interesting irony: while the video game franchise continues to find ways to modernize its formula, the film could have taken much more direct advantage of that identity.
For those who followed the promotion for Resident Evil Requiem, some of Capcom's promotional productions even demonstrated that it is possible to bring the atmosphere of the games into live-action without necessarily turning the experience into a horror comedy.
Did Paul W. S. Anderson's Resident Evil Respect the Games More?
The first film directed by Paul W. S. Anderson, Resident Evil from 2002, is also not a direct adaptation of the first game's story. However, it uses much more recognizable elements from the franchise, including the Umbrella Corporation, the underground laboratory, the viral outbreak, and creatures directly associated with the games.
For this reason, even though it is a production quite different from the games, it can be argued that Resident Evil: Apocalypse preserves some fundamental elements of the universe more clearly.
Cregger's film has an important advantage over Anderson's production: it attempts to better reproduce certain gameplay sensations, especially the progression of resources and the survival structure. Positive reviews also highlighted precisely this characteristic.
But that does not automatically mean that it is a more faithful adaptation.
Has the New Film Become the Best Live-Action Version?
Zack Cregger's film certainly has more sophisticated direction in some respects and demonstrates a greater understanding of certain video game mechanics.
On the other hand, it also moves quite far away from the visual and narrative identity that many players associate with the franchise. Therefore, I find it difficult to say that it has definitively become the best live-action Resident Evil adaptation.
For me, the film works better as a horror experience inspired by the structure of the games than as a truly faithful representation of the franchise. And this is precisely the production's great paradox: it is possible to recognize Resident Evil in its structure, but it is much harder to recognize it in its essence.
Is Resident Evil Still a Horror Franchise?
There is an ongoing discussion among fans about how much Resident Evil has always been a franchise about comedy, action, or horror.
It is true that the series has absurd moments and that its identity has changed significantly over the decades. But interpreting the early games simply as comedies ignores the context in which they were released.
The first Resident Evil, released in 1996, helped popularize the survival horror genre by combining exploration, limited combat, resource management, and a horror atmosphere. PlayStation itself describes the series as one of the franchises responsible for popularizing the genre.
The fact that the franchise incorporated more action later does not erase this origin. The Resident Evil community has been divided for many years between different interpretations of the series, especially after the changes introduced by Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil 5, and Resident Evil 6. But that does not mean horror is a secondary element of the franchise's identity.
In fact, the very existence of games such as Resident Evil 7, Resident Evil Village, and now Resident Evil Requiem demonstrates that Capcom continues to explore different ways of returning to horror.
Conclusion: A Good Horror Experience, but a Limited Adaptation
In the end, Zack Cregger's Resident Evil is an average horror film that contains some genuinely good sequences. The direction is competent, the framing is interesting, some creatures work very well, and the progression of the arsenal conveys a curious sense of gameplay.
The protagonist also undergoes an interesting evolution, and his transformation opens possibilities for a potential sequel.
The problem is that all these strengths are accompanied by an inconsistent narrative, underdeveloped supporting characters, a strangely empty Raccoon City, creatures that often seem to belong to another universe, and an excess of comedy that weakens some of the film's best horror scenes.
It is unfortunate because Zack Cregger demonstrates that he has the ability to deliver an excellent Resident Evil film. His framing, tension-building, and command of horror show that there is a director capable of doing it.
Perhaps what was missing was precisely trusting the identity of the games more. With classic zombies, a more coherent progression of threats, less comedy, more exploration, iconic creatures, and a more consistent survival horror atmosphere, this same director could have produced something much closer to what fans expect from a Resident Evil adaptation.
My rating: ⭐⭐⭐☆☆ (3/5)
What did you think of the new Resident Evil movie? Did Zack Cregger manage to deliver a good adaptation of the franchise, or did the film move too far away from the games? Would you like to see a sequel to this universe, or would you rather see Capcom try a new adaptation several years from now? Share your opinion in the comments!
