Saturday, 20 April 2013

Review: [Rec]3: Génesis (2012)

[REC.]3 Génesis
IMDB rate: 5,2
Genre: Zombie, Religious

I was extremely curious about this movie since [REC.] is probably one of my favorite zombie movies. I also enjoyed [REC.]2 a lot, even though I thought it was less fun than [REC.]. Anyway, I had many different feelings about [REC.]3 coming out, I could be bad, it could be good. First thing that I heard was that this movie is not a hand camera movie, that's not a bad thing but it can look like a completely different movie than the first two [REC.] movies. Second thing was that it wasn't located at the apartment building from [REC.]1 and [REC.]2 anymore. This was already a good thing, because in an apartment building, there are many limits for locations, so with a new location, there would be many more possibilities. 

The action now takes place miles away from the original location and partly in broad daylight, giving the film an entirely fresh yet disturbing new reality. The infection has left the building. In a clever twist that draws together the plots of the first two movies, this third part of the saga also works as a decoder to uncover information hidden in the first two films and leaves the door open for the final installment, the future [REC.]4: Apocalypse.

I think these movies are build up very smart. A zombie outbreak starting in a small apartment building, even though it's completely in quarantine, they didn't reckon for any people (or whatever) that got out early. Following up with a big wedding, where somebody is infected by the influence from the first [REC.] movies. They get the whole park in quarantine, but did they really captured everybody? Following up with a complete apocalypse, meaning that it eventually spread all over the world. So it goes from small, to bigger, to biggest. It's a good set up for a trilogy I guess, but unfortunately they already made three parts. I think [REC.]2 wasn't really necessary to be honest, it's a lot like [REC.] so some of the important stuff of [REC.]2 could have been in [REC.]. It's not that I disliked [REC.]2, because I thought it was a very good movie, but if this would be a trilogy it would have been perfect (if Apocalypse is a good movie). 

This movie started off as a hand camera movie, so at first I was a bit confused since everybody said it was a normal movie. But eventually they made the switch to a normal movie, and it was brilliantly done I think. They dropped the camera, switched from hand-camera to the regular style, and showed how the camera slowly died. Just brilliant. 

This story starts at a wedding, where the zombie outbreak begins. It's a completely different story, but not a bad one I think. There where some parts from the first two [REC.] movies that I couldn't remember anymore, like all the stuff they found in the apartment on the last floor, so that's why some parts in this movie where vague, I have to re watch all of them to fully understand it I guess. This movie was a lot less confusing as [REC.]2. Like the night vision scene in [REC.]2, I have no idea how that was ever possible, and I don't think I will ever find out. That was also the thing I liked the least in [REC.]2, it had some paranormal things in it ([REC.] also had a few scenes), which made the whole movie confusing. If it was just a zombie outbreak, and some people experimenting it would be even better I think. [REC.]3 doesn't have any of the paranormal things in it I believe, you see the creepy anorexia zombie a few times but besides that, it just a normal zombie movie. A priest explains in this movie that the bible predicted a zombie outbreak under 'Genesis' (explaining the title). He also finds a way to fight to zombies by prayer, which is kinda cool.

The ending was a bit disappointing. It seemed to go from a really tough zombie fight to a romantic story, and well... romance and zombies don't go very well together I think (Maybe in Warm Bodies, which was meant for that combination). 

The movie seems to be a completely different movie like [REC.], but it follows up quite well I think. It's a complete fresh look in the [REC.] movies, considering this one switches from action and horror to romance and comedy. The camera technique, people and the location were changed, but that's about it. I think they had a lot of limitations in a hand-camera movie, so I think that's why they switched to a regular movie. 

What you see in the zombie movies from these days are that the zombies are runners. When you know the zombies from Night of the Living Dead for example, they hobble. In the first two [REC.] movies, the zombies where also runners. But this movie changed it, from runners to hobblers. There are a few runners, but most of them are just hobbling to there victims. I thought it was nice to see that this aspect was brought back to this movie. It's a bit hard to explain to the people why these zombies hobble instead of run, but my guess is, very lazy people, make very lazy zombies? No, just kidding. It was just something nice to see in a zombie movie.

Many people dislike this movie, mainly because it's very different from the first two [REC.] movies. But in my eyes it's just a complete fresh look for the [REC.] movies, with this movie, they can make a great fourth part, which I'm looking forward to. It's really up to you if you can oversee the fresh look or not. I thought it was the best decision they ever made while making this movie. 

It's not necessarily needed to watch the first two [REC.] movies, it explains a few confusing things, but that about it. Without seeing the first two [REC.] movies this is still an extraordinary zombie film to watch.

My personal rate: 8/10


  1. Having loved the first two, I was very disappointed by this sequel. A real shame. Nice review though.


  2. Badass review for a badass threequel. I adore the first one, I hate the second one... and I seem to be one of the few who really loves the third one. It's funny, it's gory as hell and I love how they 'throw' away the found footage style :-)


You might also like..