‘Resident Evil’ Breaks a Longstanding Streak for Bob Garver
Bob Garver says Zach Cregger’s new take on ‘Resident Evil’ marks a welcome turning point in his record of reviewing movies based on video games.
For Bob Garver, the phrase “the streak is over” has carried two very different meanings. In his review of 2022’s “Lightyear,” the same opening suggested disappointment: the Pixar release became the first movie from that studio that he could not recommend. This time, however, the words arrive as a celebration. Garver’s review of Zach Cregger’s new take on “Resident Evil” presents the film as a long-awaited change of fortune, marking the first movie based on a video game that he has recommended.
That distinction gives the review its immediate personality. Rather than treating the film as just another entry in a familiar horror property, Garver places it inside his own history as a movie critic and viewer. His reaction is not simply that this particular “Resident Evil” works better than expected. It is that the film has overcome a larger pattern of frustration, one that has shaped his expectations whenever Hollywood turns a game into a movie.
Video-game adaptations have long occupied an uneasy position in popular cinema. They often arrive with an existing audience, recognizable imagery and a built-in mythology, yet those advantages can also become creative limitations. Filmmakers must decide how closely to follow the source, how much freedom to take and how to make the result accessible to people who have never held a controller. Garver’s response suggests that Cregger’s film has found a way through that difficult territory.
The review’s most important point is therefore not a piece of trivia about the franchise. It is a statement about adaptation. A movie based on a game has to function as a movie first. It needs a reason to exist beyond brand recognition, and it must create an experience that remains compelling even for viewers who are unfamiliar with the original material. Garver’s recommendation indicates that “Resident Evil” clears that basic but frequently neglected hurdle.
The distinction between a recognizable property and a satisfying film matters especially with “Resident Evil.” The name carries expectations, whether those expectations come from horror, action, games or earlier screen versions. Audiences approach a title like this with assumptions already in place. Some may want a faithful translation of the game’s atmosphere. Others may be looking for an accessible piece of genre entertainment. Still others may be wary because previous adaptations have not persuaded them that the material belongs on the big screen.
A successful new interpretation has to acknowledge those expectations without becoming trapped by them. The supplied review describes Cregger’s project as a “new take,” wording that emphasizes interpretation rather than simple duplication. That framing is significant. It suggests a film attempting to engage with the property while establishing its own identity, rather than merely reproducing familiar names, images or situations.
Garver’s enthusiasm also offers a useful reminder that critical standards can change when a film makes a reviewer reconsider an entire category. His record, as described in the review, had not produced a recommendation for a video-game movie before this release. That does not mean every previous adaptation failed in exactly the same way, nor does it mean all viewers share his judgment. It does mean that “Resident Evil” crossed a personal threshold that earlier examples did not.
That kind of threshold is more revealing than a generic declaration that a film is “good.” It tells readers what the critic has been waiting to see. In this case, the answer appears to be an adaptation that can stand on its own, command respect as a piece of filmmaking and justify its connection to an established game property. The recommendation is valuable because it comes with context: Garver is not handing out praise automatically. He is describing a departure from his previous experience.
The comparison with “Lightyear” strengthens that context. Garver recalls opening an earlier review with the same phrase when the result was negative. That earlier use of “the streak is over” meant that a trusted studio had finally delivered a movie he could not recommend. In the “Resident Evil” review, the phrase is reclaimed. The same language now describes a positive surprise, creating a sharp contrast between disappointment and satisfaction.
This contrast also gives the review a conversational quality. It does not present criticism as a collection of detached measurements. Instead, Garver lets readers see how one film connects to another and how a critic’s expectations develop over time. The result is a personal entry point into the larger discussion surrounding adaptations. Readers do not need to agree with every conclusion to understand why this release feels important to him.
The broader significance of the film lies in the possibility that it may help redefine what audiences expect from game-based cinema. Each successful adaptation raises the standard for the next one. Viewers become more alert to weak writing, empty references and stories that seem designed only to advertise a brand. They also become more appreciative when a production treats its material as something worth shaping into a complete cinematic experience.
That does not require an adaptation to imitate its source perfectly. Fidelity can mean preserving a mood, a conflict or an emotional relationship rather than copying every detail. A filmmaker may also choose to alter elements while retaining the central appeal that made the original property matter. The challenge is knowing which parts are essential and which parts can be reimagined. Garver’s recommendation implies that Cregger has made choices that work for the screen.
It is important, however, not to mistake one positive review for a universal verdict. Garver’s response is his own, shaped by his tastes and by the long streak he describes. Other critics and audiences may respond differently. A property with a devoted following will always invite competing interpretations, especially when a new film presents itself as a fresh version rather than a straightforward continuation of an established formula.
That range of reactions is part of the appeal of reviewing a familiar title. A review does more than tell readers whether to buy a ticket. It explains how a work fits into a changing conversation. With “Resident Evil,” the conversation concerns the reputation of game adaptations, the pressure placed on filmmakers working with well-known material and the possibility that one film can challenge a critic’s established assumptions.
Garver’s recommendation also appears to carry a practical message for viewers who have grown cautious about adaptations. Skepticism is understandable when a recognizable name has repeatedly been treated as a shortcut to an audience. But skepticism should not become a permanent refusal to be surprised. The positive turn in this review suggests that even a critic with a firmly established pattern can be persuaded when a new version gives him a sufficient reason.
For fans of “Resident Evil,” that reaction may be encouraging without being definitive. The review does not erase the franchise’s history, and it does not promise that every viewer will find the same qualities compelling. What it does provide is evidence that the new film has made a strong impression on at least one critic who approached it with considerable experience watching adaptations. That perspective may help audiences decide whether the film deserves their attention.
For viewers unfamiliar with the games, the review’s framing is equally useful. They do not need a detailed knowledge of the property to understand the central point: this is being presented as a movie that earned a recommendation on its own terms. The achievement, in Garver’s account, is not merely in carrying a famous title. It is in making that title work within a cinematic story and within the expectations of someone who has been difficult to convince.
The film’s director, Zach Cregger, is therefore at the center of Garver’s positive assessment. The review identifies his version as a new take, placing emphasis on the creative approach behind the adaptation. That wording leaves room for the movie to be judged not just by how it handles inherited material, but by what it contributes to it. A new interpretation has to offer a point of view, and Garver’s reaction suggests that this one has found a persuasive one.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/lioness-092126-2-d63842236f1a4df5a12feca54e4ee019.jpg)
Ultimately, the appeal of the review is its sense of genuine surprise. Critics are expected to evaluate films, but the most memorable reviews often capture the moment when a movie changes an expectation. Garver began with a phrase that once introduced a negative verdict. In this case, the words lead to an enthusiastic reversal. The streak is over, not because another game adaptation has repeated old mistakes, but because “Resident Evil” has given him a reason to recommend one.
That makes the film a notable release in Garver’s personal critical record and a potentially meaningful moment for the broader reputation of video-game movies. The supplied review offers no reason to treat the adaptation as automatically successful simply because it carries a famous name. Instead, its importance comes from the work required to overcome that name’s baggage. For Garver, Zach Cregger’s “Resident Evil” has done enough to break through, turning a familiar phrase of disappointment into one of the year’s more welcome signs of progress.