Quarantine L.A.

This isn't the worst but it's far from good. The music is so loud and overwhelming that you can't hear the dialogue at times. The actors had no chemistry with each other and were very stiff in delivering their lines. With more time and rehearsals this could have been a decent movie!

Really just a waste of time. The acting is incredibly stiff, I even found myself prompting the actors with their lines, it's so predictable. The score is incredibly cheesy and obviously put together by a student filmmaker. The timing is horrible, the actors lines being delivered too soon or too late in almost every scene. Glaringly obvious mistakes and bloopers throughout. I was going to point some out but I'd be here all day. The story did not flow, make any sense or engage the audience. I actually found myself rooting for the 'infected' just to kill off some of the more disappointing leads. I honestly think that the positive reviews on here are planted by the friends/relatives of the actors and producers because it's just that bad. Wooden acting. Poor score. Mediocre story. Don't bother.

This is a solid 3.5 spectacular! That's it actually worked on my computer the whole time. This short sited attempt at a good zombie movie fell short because there's nothing here to watch. Generic setups back stories and flashbacks.

This "film" is nothing more than a script of "what not to do while acting". I love Quarantine 1 and 2. I love the Rec films, but this Quarantine LA film is enough for you to wish a zombie infection happened and the actors of this film went first. I'd say the actors were flat, but I am curious if they even had a pulse...or a comprehension of how people even talk. The acting was garbage. The lighting was stupid (you have a light in front of the actor hanging from the ceiling, but close up shots you shine light from the side only? The director is licking-windows special). The film is the prolapsed rectum of the whole series. Gross. Unwatchable. Garbage.

When people talk about the "good old days" of film they are referring to one of two periods in film history. The first is the classic era of black and white where lighting and shadows were the draw. The second is the time period of the 1960's- late 1970's when movies had you use your imagination to decode what the camera didn't show you, allowing you to draw your own conclusions to what was happening (Think Texas Chainsaw Massacre). What Infected brings to the table is along the lines of the second period of film. We are told little of the infection and are open to draw the conclusion on whether it was truly man made or a natural event from that was harnessed for mass scale testing.

In today's market where the "zombie" genre has been so diluted by over marketing and goreification (Walking Dead, George Romero remakes) that most films of the genre almost forget to focus on the people and the personal aspects of the survivors. What Infection does is almost make the virus an afterthought to bring the perspective of the survivors to the forefront. The survivors do fall into the stereotype roles, soldier, child, medic, shady stranger, fool, but the writing does the roles justice. Each character is written for their role wonderfully and the writing does not stray from these types. In the homeopathic era of the 'monster' film it is always good to see that people remember what the genre should be and are still willing to take risks to keep it as fresh as possible.

If I had to give a comparison to other movies I would have to say it falls into the area of the Steven King TV movies where a lot of what was going on was done through imagination and dialogue.