--- title: "Resident Evil: Apocalypse: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/resident-evil-apocalypse/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/resident-evil-apocalypse" critics_score: 40 critics_reviews: 11 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004): what the critics said Critics' score 40 from 11 reviews: 1 positive, 1 mixed, 9 negative. ## Slant Magazine Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 11 September 2004. 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 review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/resident-evil-apocalypse/) ## The AV Club — Nathan Rabin Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 14 September 2004. 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 review](https://www.avclub.com/resident-evil-apocalypse-1798199945) ## Empire — Chris Hewitt Fi1m's normalised score 44/100 (inferred from the text). 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 review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/resident-evil-apocalypse-review/) ## Los Angeles Times — Kevin Crust Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 10 September 2004. 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 review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-sep-10-et-resident10-story.html) ## Total Film Fi1m's normalised score 38/100 (inferred from the text). 8 October 2004. 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 review](https://www.gamesradar.com/resident-evil-apocalypse-review/) ## The Times — James Christopher Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 7 October 2004. 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 review](https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/resident-evil-apocalypse-wfpjv80pn5j) ## Time Out — TJ Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 10 September 2012. 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 review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/resident-evil-apocalypse) ## Variety — Scott Foundas Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 8 September 2004. 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 review](https://variety.com/2004/film/markets-festivals/resident-evil-apocalypse-1200531212/) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 20/100 (inferred from the text). 10 September 2004. 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 review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/resident-evil-apocalypse-2004) ## Eye for Film — Keith Hennessey Brown Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 8 October 2004. 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 review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/resident-evil-apocalypse-film-review-by-keith-hennessey-brown) ## Paste — Michael Burgin Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 29 November 2021. 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 review](https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/resident-evil/every-resident-evil-movie-ranked) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/resident-evil-apocalypse.md