‘Resident Evil’ Took a Different Approach to Video Game Films, and It Paid Off

The reputation of video game film adaptations among gamers has vastly improved since the original “Resident Evil” first hit theaters back in 2002. Gamers have long seen Hollywood’s critically panned takes on their favorite titles as clueless attempts to cash in on their fandom without truly trying to understand it — just look at the reaction to the infamous first “Sonic the Hedgehog” trailer seven years ago.

This weekend’s $108.3 million global opening of Sony’s “Resident Evil” is the latest evidence that distrust has largely dissolved thanks to filmmakers like Zach Cregger, who have a better understanding of the games they are adapting.

The $60 million domestic opening sets both a franchise record for “Resident Evil” and a career record for Cregger and ranks as the seventh-highest opening recorded in September, slotting between the $53.8 million opening of “The Nun” in 2018 and the $70.6 million opening of last year’s Sony/Crunchyroll hit “Demon Slayer: Infinity Castle.”

But even with increased gamer goodwill, Hollywood is still figuring out what works and what doesn’t with video game films at the box office, and Cregger’s looser approach to the world of Capcom’s horror games compared to Paul W.S. Anderson’s “Resident Evil” series and the failed 2021 reboot “Welcome to Raccoon City” was still a risk.

Unlike those films, no attempt is made in this new film to bring in characters from the games like Claire Redfield or Albert Wesker. Raccoon City and the evil Umbrella Corporation are referenced, and several of the monsters that Austin Abrams’ hapless medical courier Bryan fights off are inspired by creatures from the games, but direct references are dialed back.

In lieu of that, Cregger focused on marking Bryan’s gruesome adventure with the signature elements and experiences of playing “Resident Evil” and survival horror games in general, such as trying to get locks open while being chased by creatures and searching through drawers for ammo and survival supplies. Those specifics can bring extra appeal for gamers, but also overlap as common staples of zombie horror movies.

Compare that core appeal of “Resident Evil” to the core appeal of a different video game horror hit: “Five Nights at Freddy’s.” Blumhouse’s 2023 adaptation proudly touts the presence of not only Freddy Fazbear and his fellow living animatronics, but also the indie horror game’s antagonist William Afton, played by Matthew Lillard. References abound to the decade’s worth of lore that the “FNAF” games have built, all to appeal to hardcore fans.

The result was a film that earned a spectacular $80 million opening weekend but was heavily frontloaded with a $137 million domestic total and a $291 million global cume. Given that it was produced on a $20 million budget, it was a huge win for Blumhouse and Universal, leading to a sequel that made $238.5 million last year. But it shows how the “FNAF” team took the approach of catering almost exclusively to the game’s fanbase — reviews for both films were scathing.

Based on opening weekend audience polls provided by studio insiders, the early crowd for “Resident Evil” came in for a more diverse set of reasons. When asked why they bought a ticket, 46% said it was because they were fans of the “Resident Evil” games, 45% because they are fans of horror films in general, and 37% said it was because they were fans of Cregger and his past work.

Though respondents in the poll could pick more than one reason and there is clear overlap — fans of horror video games are almost certainly going to be fans of horror films — the fact that more than a third of respondents noted Cregger as a reason shows that he has built goodwill among audiences, likely making his pre-release press tour describing his adaptational approach a boost to the movie’s box office rather than a hindrance even with the vocal social media backlash.

“Resident Evil” may not have opened as high as “Five Nights at Freddy’s,” but if Zach Cregger’s 2025 hit “Weapons” is a telltale sign, then it may be able to reach much greater heights against its larger $75 million budget. Last August, “Weapons” opened to $43.5 million and earned a 3.48x multiple for a $151.5 million final domestic total, drawing in moviegoers for weeks with its rave reviews, intriguing yet easy-to-explain premise, Oscar-winning antagonist, and dark humor. And it all came against stiff competition like fellow New Line hit “The Conjuring: Last Rites.”

“Resident Evil” will also face competition in three weeks from the Jessica Chastain-fronted Blumhouse horror film “Other Mommy.” But if it matches the legs of “Weapons,” it could join “Obsession” as the second horror movie of 2026 to clear $200 million domestic.

If it does, it will have its filmmaker’s elements-over-lore approach to adapting “Resident Evil,” combined with its gruesome body horror set pieces and Cregger’s trademark dark humor, to thank for it. Rather than go for an adaptation that hews closer to the franchise’s lore, leaving it up to a finite fanbase to carry the box office hopes, “Resident Evil” now has crossover potential, tapping into Cregger’s own fanbase built up from “Barbarian” and “Weapons” as well as that of the games while inviting a larger audience through its more accessible nature.

And as Boxoffice Company SVP/Editorial Director Daniel Loria notes, that second division of moviegoers attracted to “Resident Evil” because of the director attached is still growing. Cregger told TheWrap that plans to return to non-franchise filmmaking going forward (his next is a sci-fi original called “The Flood” for Warner Bros.), and when he does, we could see his status as a box office draw continue to grow.

“Cinephiles and horror fans know who Cregger is thanks to ‘Weapons.’ But while that film was a hit, I don’t think it was the massive pop culture phenomenon that ‘Obsession’ was,” Loria said. “He’s a filmmaker that is still on the rise, and with the way word-of-mouth spreads so quickly with a popular horror title, I think we’re going to see his drawing power only grow going forward.”