Critics’ reviews

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)

11 reviews from 11 publications. Critics’ score 40: 1 positive, 1 mixed, 9 negative.

Back to our review of Resident Evil: Apocalypse

40
Positive
1
Mixed
1
Negative
9
Slant Magazine
11 September 2004
75*

Witt’s rambunctious sequel is equally excessive, idiotic, and enjoyable as the first film, with a superficial broads-and-bullets extravaganza that proudly wears its stupidity on its sleeve. The critic singles out the adrenalized techno-metal score, Jovovich’s sultry intensity, and Witt’s muscular action choreography as elements that keep the brain-dead film heartily alive.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
14 September 2004 · Nathan Rabin
65*

The sequel benefits from low expectations as a follow-up to a mediocre video-game adaptation and ultimately delivers enough B-movie thrills to be worthwhile. It takes too long to ignite but peaks with strong action sequences featuring Jovovich battling the monster Nemesis and a clever cynical twist at the end.

Read the full review →
Empire
· Chris Hewitt
44*

The sequel does nothing to improve on the original and is undone by its first-time director's poor handling of action and plot. Alice remains kick-ass but the film lacks any emotional connection to its characters.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
10 September 2004 · Kevin Crust
40*

The film plays so much like a videogame that viewers will reach for a joystick, but without an interactive element it offers only a few glimmers of undead fun and the ever-watchable Milla Jovovich. The director provides visual razzle-dazzle but the pace deadens when zombies are offscreen.

Read the full review →
Total Film
8 October 2004
38*

The film is tedious and inept in marginally different ways to the original, with a worse script despite slightly better direction. It is a soulless, scare-free zombie drone that exploits its fanbase.

Read the full review →
The Times
7 October 2004 · James Christopher
30*

The critic calls this the deeply inferior sequel to the first film. A corrupt biotech corporation unleashes zombies in Raccoon City, forcing Milla Jovovich and Sienna Guillory to fight their way out amid exploding skyscrapers.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · TJ
30*

The critic finds the setup efficient for delivering sub-Lara Croft-style action but deems the execution by Witt uneventful despite the body count. Prospects for a follow-up leave the heart plummeting.

Read the full review →
Variety
8 September 2004 · Scott Foundas
30*

The sequel is calamitously uninspired and borderline incoherent, lacking even the fleeting pleasures like humor from the first film. The critic singles out the first-time director's underlit and overcut action sequences as a major flaw.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
10 September 2004 · Roger Ebert
20*

The film is an utterly meaningless waste of time with no reason to exist beyond profit, a dead zone lacking interest, wit, imagination or entertaining effects. The critic singles out the boring zombies and spectacularly shallow characters for complaint.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
8 October 2004 · Keith Hennessey Brown
40*

The critic finds the sequel unnecessary and mixed in focus between superhero fantasy and survival horror, criticizing it for being full of shocks but disappointingly light on actual horror, with sanitized violence and an awkward narrative.

Read the full review →
Paste
29 November 2021 · Michael Burgin
30*

The film is muddled and frenetic even by the franchise’s standards, with much of the action shot in darkness and rain that renders jump scares less effective. It benefits from the addition of game characters like Jill Valentine and Carlos Olivera along with some Nemesis action.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate