Question: Why was this movie a box office flop?
Question: Why are the officers wearing dress blues in the beginning of the movie? The replacement commander of the 110th has a chest full of ribbons...The black military police officer at the command center. Everyday military officers would be wearing Class A's or fatigues.
Answer: Although it's technically a mistake, it is common in films to show military officers in dress uniforms with medals and ribbons to show that particular soldiers are important. A layperson may not know military uniform protocols but they can certainly tell that dress uniforms with a lot of medals signifies high rank at a glance.
Question: So was there a point to the dressing room scene between Amy Adams and Gal Gadot? She trying to seduce her to get info or was this merely an excuse to get these two half nude?
Answer: It was definitely meant to be a sexy scene, but it isn't pointless. The two were genuinely bonding during that scene and the gradual friendship built between the couples forms a major part of the plot. The sexiness between them also sets up the scene later in the film where the two kiss and Karen discretely passes a knife to Natalie. As an aside, Karen isn't played by Amy Adams, she is played by Isla Fisher. Amy Adams and Isla Fisher share a striking resemblance and are constantly mistaken for one another.
Question: In Resident Evil Extinction, the White Queen says Alice's blood is the cure for the whole infection. So what the heck was everyone doing the whole time? Why act so surprised to find a cure, which by the way came out of nowhere, when you were the cure the entire time?
Answer: In all honestly... this film series isn't one to shy away from ret-conning elements of prior films. ("Ret-con" being short for "retroactive continuity" - a storytelling device in which rules and plot-points are either changed or ignored in later installments.) This just seems to be another example of a ret-con. The idea that Alice was the "cure" all along would have ended the series a lot sooner, and they wanted to make more movies, so they just sort-of "ignored" this idea in the sequels that followed "Extinction."
Answer: This was the fifth movie in the series, and it was not critically well-received. Most reviews felt it was unoriginal and unfunny compared to its predecessors and should probably have been released straight to video. With tepid reviews, audiences probably were willing to wait until it was available on DVD or streaming. Although not as financially successful as its predecessors, it did make around $408.5 million against a $105 million budget, so it did not lose money.
raywest ★