Reviews

I see a lot of horror movies, and also a lot of horrid ones. This one here seemed to be heading straight into the 'pretentious crap on a shoestring budget' drawer at first, but fortunately the combination of excellent cinematography, believable dialogue and competent actors veered it off that dreadful course shortly after. It's a modest American giallo with a plot that's a bit 'out there' and often feels like it's going to spin out of control at any moment, but surprisingly manages to hold onto its wisely used psycho thriller clutch to keep itself together through the slightly bonkers -although not particularly unpredictable- final act.

Tastes might vary but, objectively speaking, this is very far from the cinematic trainwreck that some oversimplifying reviews left by a bunch of jaded spectators would love to make you think it is. There's many overrated stinkers out there with thousands of votes and lots of stars that are just as famous and unfairly praised as this little movie is undervalued and effective.

By the way, to the usual suspects (you know who you are): not everyone who disagrees with your vehement opinions are shills. Have a bit more respect for other people's opinions and intellect, please. Thank you.

What I said up there. I gave this ten stars based on the extraordinarily original twist alone, even if the rest of the script up to that point wasn't particularly noteworthy and also acknowledging that the movie itself would've been a 5-6 for me if it wasn't for the ending.

See, I watch around 300 horror/thriller movies every year and I'm not particularly fond of twists, because I think they're done to death -pun intended-; around 90% of the time I see them coming from the get-go, even sometimes simply by reading the synopsis and picking some clues from the cover art or the trailers. I only truly appreciate twist endings if they're so genuinely original as to justify writing, filming and releasing a movie around them; otherwise, I honestly prefer clear-cut, straightforward narratives, as long as they're well produced and/or developed. Boring twists are boring, frankly, and sometimes even come across as a bit condescending and Dunning-Kruger-ish, specially when they come at the expense of the script's coherence. We see a lot of those, sadly.

So, that said, here we have this little movie: it presents a situation that genre audiences are overly familiar with -too familiar, even, which is never a good thing in my experience- takes that path and runs for the dots that connect it with, apparently -and deceitfully-, little appreciation for imagination or originality. It's competently shoot, acted and cut by reliable professionals obviously used to make the most out of meager budgets, so I think 'meh, but entertaining, so I'll stick with it and follow it to its inevitable 'the apparent good guys are actually the bad guys and the apparent bad guy is really a grief-striken father/husband/brother/whatever getting his due revenge' or 'they're actually dead, the derelict hospital is Hell and the mad doctor is a devilish entity making them pay for their sins' ending and move along. Then, the ending rolls out and I suddenly realize that I've been actually watching one of the most original subversions of a classic literary work of fantasy horror I've ever seen in my long movie-watching life. What can I do after that but saying 'well played!', nodding with a complicit smile and give it that 10 star rating to overcompensate for the low ratings left by every genius out there who thought the ending was stupid, when the opposite is true?

It has a soul, if nothing else, and that soul is firmly planted on a soil made not of the dust of the overdone torture porn subgenre, as it may seem at first, but of that of old Universal and Hammer classics from a glorious past. So, ten it is, for me at least - won't blame you if it isn't so for you.

...hence my note. I'm not a production shill nor an idiot. I'm not comparing this movie to, say, Rosemary's Baby by giving it that rating, but I have no problem admitting that I really felt the urge to try to compensate a bit for the unfair average that it's holding currently - a 4 out of 10 as I write this -. It's a nice, low-budget creature feature made by and for people with a lot of love for 80's horror, and it shows. They achieved a nice atmosphere, cinematography was okay and made good use of the locations, camerawork was competent and, generally speaking, they achieved something that, for my money, is a nice and entertaining creature-in-the-woods flick that held my attention and didn't felt like it was insulting my intelligence.

Oh, by the way, I'm sure that some people will downvote this review just because of what I'm about to say, but I don't care - I'm sure that it might help some people who come in here and look at reviews to help decide what to watch on movie night -: this movie is completely, 100% woke-free. As this is becoming something increasingly rare and, consequently, sought-after by certain people, I'm certain that this PA bit is bound to be helpful for someone.

To the filmmakers, good job and thank you. Please make more, I'm eager to support them as you keep making them.

...although I do appreciate the craftsmanship involved. That, along with Greg Bryk's strong screen presence -which seems to be an involuntary, natural aura that he projects even when his part asks for the kind of overly subdued performance that leaves little room for entertaining theatrics- and Michael Ironside's small part are the sole reasons why I'm giving this a three stars rating instead of the bare minimum that the site allows and my guts were stubbornly insisting on leaving.

Pedestrian, boring and unimaginative direction not only hampers an equally pedestrian, boring and unimaginative script but also exacerbates its flaws: soulless main characters, the most egregious one for starters, who engage in melodramatic and humorless conversations -peppered with an annoying over abundance of tired 'in-show-biz-dog-eats-dog' cliches-, that get increasingly redundant as the movie goes on and its overstretched plot runs out of wind. Meanwhile, a couple of criminally underdeveloped supporting characters meander around aimlessly looking for a purpose that the writers actively deny, which renders their predicament during the third, final act pointless to the emotionally detached viewer.

There's also, as I just mentioned, this dull and tired metaphor about the ruthlessness of entertaining industries running under this trainwreck's rails, but the less said about it the better; except, maybe, for the fact that everything this movie tried to tell, or imply, was better told and successfully implied almost three decades ago in Mike Nichols' vastly underrated "Wolf". A movie, by the way, from which this inferior copycat not only borrows most of its subtext but also dares to steal entire scenes, almost shot-by-shot, without understanding how and why those scenes worked perfectly in harmony with a coherent story, well-paced plot development and fully fleshed characters, both main AND secondary ones. In fact, it's better to enjoy your well-deserved leisure time revisiting -or experiencing for the first time, if you happen to be that lucky- Nichols' "Wolf" than wasting it on this self-important, derivative succedaneous. Don't make the same mistake I did and avoid it as much as you can.

...but I'm rating it accordingly to what it actually is. It's not a nine compared to The Deer Hunter, obviously, but I reckon it's a fair and appropiate note when comparing this decidedly modest film to other cheap-ish B-Z efforts in the horror genre. Just the meta elements and the obvious self-awareness that permeates the whole thing dignifies it enough, in my eyes, to warrant a high rate from me, if only to try and compensate for all the unfair 1s and 2s it's going to get from people who will judge it from its admittedly lackluster cover art without bothering to actually watch the actual film.

Some unexpectedly good and credible performances from certain cast members too, by the way. That caught me and my wife by surprise. I guess we were expecting something so dreadful -we've had a bit too many of those lately, including a couple of high-profile but very overrated productions- that getting instead something actually watchable from a moderately low-standards point of view was kind of a nice and welcome surprise.

Special kudos to Casper Van Dien for getting the joke and agreeing to play along, by the way. We got a couple of good laughs at his expense, but in a good way. That's what B-moviemaking should be about after all, in my humble opinion, and that's what we got here, so, that's were that nine came from in the end. Keep 'em coming.

I'm pretty sure this movie will polarize viewers more than REC and REC2 did a while back. It's bound to be a 'love it or hate it' scenario with just a few cases of in-betweeners, and I was well aware of it even before the theater lights went off. That said, I faced this without prejudice beyond having enjoyed thoroughly the two previous chapters, and even then, I knew about the tonal switch in this new one, so I went in prepared for what I thought was going to be both a big departure from the former installments and a silly romp with a lot of concessions to the box office. I'm glad to be able to tell now that I was partly wrong. Let me elaborate.

The movie takes some time to take off. It may seem aimed to viewers already familiar with the material, so it takes advantage of this by using that time to set the lighter tone of the story and introduce us to the new characters and the group dynamics associated with them. I'd say, however, that this movie may work even for new viewers, and doesn't need any previous knowledge of the franchise to be enjoyed, given it's self-contained nature, story wise. Fans of the saga will appreciate every bit and turn in its fullest, but there's no need to be and 'academic' in order to enjoy the big picture. Which is very enjoyable, IMHO. Anyway, the first act works very well. You could swear you're looking at real people on a real wedding, thanks in part to some fantastic set pieces and a bunch of very capable actors that are very evidently enjoying themselves. We are presented also to the first glimpses of humor there. To those amongst you worrying about this very public and discussed aspect of the story, fear not. I hardly found it over the top, and more akin to 'Shawn of the Dead' -exploiting certain aspects inherent to the absurdity of this fictitious situation in a 'real' world scenario- than to silly romps à la 'Scary Movie'.

Now, about the horror. Yes, there's less, in the classic sense of the word. The element of surprise is lost now if you've already seen REC and/or REC2, so that's normal. There's jumpy scares and the like of course, but even those have a certain air of self-awareness around them. The filmmakers know their trade, as evidenced by their former works and experience, easy to see when they confront those unavoidable conventions with impeccable timing and good cinematography -specially in the exterior shots. There's tense parts, however, that are equally well resolved, and the general sense of flow is successfully achieved with sparse dull moments, if any at all. The story flows at a good pace, maybe too good -and that's my biggest complaint.

I think maybe a bit too much story was put to rest in the cutting room. Not enough to disfigure the final results, but enough to be noticeable. There's no loose ends, or not any that I saw right away -and I tend to see those during my first viewing of a movie if they're blatant- but there's a number of secondary characters cut off from the story too soon, often off-camera, leaving evidence of some more screen time being lost somewhere. Maybe it was me sympathizing too much with them -a sign of good filmaking and acting by the way- or maybe it was a concession to the pace and flow of the movie that forced the hand of the filmmakers. That said, I hope there's an extended version of this movie lurking somewhere, as I'd love to watch it on a future if only to enjoy more bits of Carmen Contreras'-the grandma- excellent work.

About the cast, I found it suited perfectly, to my own surprise. I had certain reservations concerning the actors playing the main characters, Diego Martín and Leticia Dolera, but those prejudices were based on biased visions of each one's previous works and were swiftly put to rest after watching the very first scenes of this movie. They really carry the story, and do a great job out of it. Martín does a great job playing the groom with a knight-in-shining-armor complex, displaying a great comedic timing and a full set of subtle quirks than enriches his character with little nuances that turn a potentially dull role into something much more human and likable. On the other hand, Leticia Dolera does great as the bride, showing lots of versatility when confronting the more emotionally complex situations she's given to work with and also fitting the more physically demanding scenes as well. If you enjoyed her previous work, specially in 'Mad Dogs', then you'll love her turn here. I know I did, and my wife too, and we were both biased against her before watching her work here, so that speaks volumes. The rest of the cast is also excellent, with no weak links. Maybe the youngest actors struggle a bit with their lines, but it's barely noticeable given their limited screen time and nonetheless adequate.

In short, 'REC3:Genesis' turned out for me as a great escapist movie, paired in quality if not in tone with its two older sisters. The script is fun, well constructed for what it is, the dialogue flows with the action, there's mild scares, gore, great direction and cast, and works well both as a self-contained story and as a part of the saga. For a fun night in the movies, you can hardly go wrong if you're a fan of the genre and/or the two previous installments. Chances are, even if you're none, you won't feel bored or intellectually offended for what's on offer here, and this, in my humble opinion, is more than you can ask for in those days of remakes and ad nauseam repeated formulas. Just my two cents.