Tuesday, January 1, 2013

New Crap?: REC 3- Genesis

Will this film renew my faith in this series?  Today's film is REC 3: Genesis.  The first thing to know is that this film is...a sequel, I think.  Given the title, you might assume that it's a Prequel.  Of course, Children of the Corn: Genesis wasn't a Prequel either (I think), so that is a flimsy pretense.  Now Haunted Poland: The Origins- that's a Prequel.  It's sure to be utter shit as well, but that's a story for another time.  That time is, of course, when Maynard makes me review it to see if that little vein above my right eye finally bursts.  Where was I?  Oh right, this movie.  Quick history: REC was a movie.  That was probably too quick, huh?  REC was a good movie, making me actually not hate a Found Footage movie.  The sequel...oh god, the sequel.  The film was a Parallel Sequel that explained how the Zombies were actually possessed by demonic spirits.  No, really.  A man bites you on the neck...which makes you get possessed by a demon.  Yeah, I don't like that movie.  So, naturally, I was wary of the third film.  It's set at a Wedding and has, you guessed it, a Zombie outbreak.  I will say this: they don't undo the weird explanation.  Getting past that major issue, I'll try to enjoy the film and give it a break.  As the first review of 2013, my goal is simple: set the bar low.  Expect very little and read on...
There's a lovely Wedding going on in Spain.  Since this is a Horror film, you know that shit is going to go down!
In the early parts, the story is filmed in the usual fashion.  Between the two Cameramen, one of them sees some men in HAZMAT Suits.  It's Zombi 3 all over again!

Actually, a bigger point is that he goes 'Hmm...guys in HAZMAT suits.  Oh well, I'll talk to the Spongebob guy now..."
 Eventually, the outbreak occurs via the Uncle, who was supposedly bitten by a dog that was apparently in the first film.  It's a flimsy excuse, admittedly.

My bigger issue, however, is with the OTHER Zombies that show up, leaping through the windows.  If all of the Zombies were inside of the building in the first two films- which apparently happen during this- UGH-, how the hell did they get here?!?
After the outbreak, they do away with the Found Footage aspect in a way that I won't SPOIL and focus on two stories: the tale of the bride and the husband.  They got separated, so the whole film is basically just them getting back together.
 Instead of removing the demon-possession-via-bite idea, they expand upon it.  In one scene, they reveal that the bitten/possessed appear as demons in a mirror.

I can buy the 'vampires don't have reflections' thing to a certain extent, but THIS is just silly.
 For the Third Act, our heroine busts out a chainsaw...for one scene.  I hope it was worth doing this just for the visual to put on the DVD box!
With Zombies/'Demons' literally knocking at the glass, time is running out for both parties.  Oh and the French girl really is a slut.  Good call, movie!
With blood-spraying and people dying left and right, is there any hope for this pair to be reunited?
Is there any hope?  Will this film hold a happier ending than the first two?  To find out, watch the movie.  The End.
Eh, it could have been a lot worse.  I don't hate this movie, but I'm a bit torn about it too.  First, the good stuff.  The gore is well-done, there's a lot of tension in many scenes and I liked the look of the Zombies/Demons- aside from the mirror bits.  The film drops the more annoying aspect- the Found Footage idea-, but not completely.  They still make use of footage from stationary cameras, even when they could have made some of those scenes more dramatic otherwise.  I won't SPOIL the scene, but I think that you'll know what I mean.  It takes a sad, dramatic scene and makes it a bit impersonal.  The bad stuff is the mixed tone.  I don't mind humor in Horror films, nor do I mind serious Horror films.  This one...is just off in a lot of ways.  There are humorous characters...who die violent deaths that are supposed to be sad.  There are moments- like when our hero passes off his friend dying like nothing happened- that I'm not sure whether they're intended to be funny or not.  Another thing is this film's confusing place in the series continuity.  It somehow starts before REC, continues through the events of both films (thanks to one convenient TV screen) and supposedly ends AFTER both films.  Confused?  All I can ask is this: where did the other Zombies come from?  They explain the Uncle and Aunt...but not the Cirque De Soleil Zombies that leap through the windows like they were part of the Lost Boys.  All in all, I liked the film, but have a mixed opinion of it from my one viewing.  Maybe future viewings will skew my opinion one way or another.  Unlike REC 2, I actually am not horrified by the idea of seeing it again.  Take us away, REC throwback scene...
Up next, I switch to Action for a film featuring a fat, old Action star on the decline and a fit, old Action star on the rise.  Throw in a silly title, plus 'Oda Nobonuga,' and you've got a film!  Stay tuned...


  1. Yeah, I had similar reactions to Rec 2... which was mostly 'bad' only in light of undoing/redoing stuff from Rec 1.
    This new one... I'm sure I'll see it but I'm not in a hurry but I've yet to see an outright negative review.

  2. I have no problem with Demonic possession like that... think 'Demons'. Anyways, I still haven't seen three... I'm worried it might be a letdown. We'll see I guess.

  3. For the record, I love 'Demons' and 'Demons 2.' I actually even own both films. That said...

    'Demons' is kind of its own thing. It's a Meta-Horror film, since there's a film-within-a-film and it somehow affects the world-within-the-film.

    'REC' sets up a variation of Rage Virus Infected. 'REC 2' says that the bite makes a demon soul possess your body. 'REC 3' says that the demon soul is THE SAME DEMON EVERY TIME.

    So yeah, I maintain my issues with this explanation.