Seriously, this movie is based on a game series that features the worst voice acting ever put in a game (no really, go look up House of the Dead 2's voice acting. Resident Evil 1 is Academy Award willing stuff by comparison), no real plot of any kind, and mindless shooting.
All in all this movie is better than it should be, considering the source material.
"Seriously, this movie is based on a game series that features the worst voice acting ever put in a game (no really, go look up House of the Dead 2's voice acting. Resident Evil 1 is Academy Award willing stuff by comparison), no real plot of any kind, and mindless shooting.
All in all this movie is better than it should be, considering the source material."
Yeah, the voice acting was awful in the games, with a very simplistic plot, but that doesn't excuse making the movie itself a f$cking disaster. There is a way to make a good "HOTD" movie, it just requires time and effort. It could have been a fun B-movie, even a scary one, along the lines of "Evil Dead"/"Evil Dead 2", "Dead Alive" or "Bad Taste", but Boll just didn't care. And saying that "this movie is better than it should be" isn't the mentality one should have, especially if it's garbage. A filmmaker's goal should be to make the best possible product, not just "good enough" or, in the case of Boll's movies, absolute crap.
Plot - there are tons of ways to do a "House of the Dead" movie. For example, perhaps as a serious horror movie about government espionage and the blurred lines between the dead and the living, metaphorically and literally (as far as I know, I don't think there has been a single zombie movie, let alone any horror movie, that has delved into that subject). Perhaps as a horror comedy with a more unique take on its zombies; since in the games they're the result of genetic engineering, this could have led to more creative takes on creature designs/characterizations of said-zombies. That's just naming a few ideas.