En quarantaine

Overall, it was a pretty good movie. It entertained me, and it had zombie-like people (well, it was actually a virus, like in 28 days/weeks later- but still, that concept of zombies is always awesome). The camera was pretty shaky at times, which was a bit much, and at the end, Jennifer Carpenter, as hot as she is, got pretty annoying with the screams, crying, and hyperventilating. Kind of wish she would have shut up near the end.

Pretty good jumps, some decent little gore parts- so overall, not a bad movie. I would probably buy it on DVD. Obviously no movie is perfect, and everyone will have their own views, likes, and dislikes. If you look at all the other past horror movies, this one isn't too shabby. Look, a movie entertains you, then it did it's job. That's why it's called "entertainment." Just because some jackass on the street says it sucks, and just because it didn't get many "stars," doesn't mean it's a bad movie. Plenty of "bad movies" have entertained the hell out of me- in turn, making them good movies- to me, at least.

If you didn't know. This film is another American-Remake. That's right. Once again, American underlings of the film-persuasion lacked any real originality or motivation to write anything of their own, so they chose to massacre an existing one. That isn't to directly say this movie is horrible. But the strange thing you may notice if you educate yourself is that the ORIGINAL had a plot, where as this one, sadly, comes out with little to NO plot.

Now if you like the common films that have no regard to your intelligence or sense of accomplishment that one can get from watching a good film. (Like 'One Missed Call' 'The Ring' 'The Eye' etc). Then you will think I have no clue what I am talking about. However, if you're not a dolt, you will agree and wonder why this movie delivered the higher budget film, but removed the plot.

The film is 85% it's original. However it does take some originality in developing the 'infection' earlier on in the plot, however you really don't get any explanation on much anything. (It's like they teased you with it. Although the tease being a very weak attempt at a conclusion).

Honestly, you cannot grasp the entirety of this film without watching Rec. The same can't be said inversely, but both are enjoyable to watch.

In conclusion if you just want a drive-by horror. Go ahead. If you actually want to have something to talk about with your friends, get Rec and this one and watch them back to back with the gang and make it your own discussion.

There must have been comedians in the projection booth the night that some friends and I went to see a family friendly film. These particular friends tend to watch only light-hearted material and get upset for weeks whenever they see horror films or intense thrillers. They were totally unprepared for a 'Quarantine' trailer and it shocked them all so badly that we nearly had to leave and get our money back. Maybe it was because of their strong reaction that my interest in the film has stayed so high for the past several months.

This week I have seen both 'Quarantine' and 'Rec' the film that 'Quarantine' is a remake of. 'Rec' is not without flaws but it is a very solid and chilling horror film. 'Quarantine' is able to expand on several of the strengths in 'Rec' while falling into a few pitfalls of it's own. Both films are about a TV news crew taping a show about what a night in the life of a fireman is like. A seemingly routine call turns out to be something much more and the news crew is trapped in a quickly quarantined building.

Giving credit where it is due, 'Quarantine' kept me on the edge of my seat for most of the movie. It lures you in with a very relaxed opening ten minutes but once you reach the building and the cop in charge asks why the camera crew is there, the whole tone of the movie changes. The fun and games, the light-hearted banter is gone. We only realize how serious it is though when they enter the apartment of an injured old woman. For me the tension starts with the entrance to the apartment and never lets up. Each new segment that the TV crew starts filming holds potential terror. The set design and the lighting are terrific and 'Quarantine' walks a careful tightrope of character action. So often in horror films the audience is yelling with frustration at what characters on the screen are doing because it all goes against common sense. There is a little bit of that early on but 'Quarantine' does a better job of playing to the characters and their panic. Characters die not through naivety or stupidity as much as they do from inevitability and inescapability. The key performance comes from Jennifer Carpenter.

The film's greatest strength and weakness at the same time, Carpenter is the focus of the camera because of her role as the reporter and it isn't an easy part to play. She is solid for the majority of the film but terror essentially overwhelms her with ten minutes to go and she is reduced to a sobbing, shrieking, shivering bowl of jello. Would I or anyone else be any better in the situation that 'Quarantine' creates? Hard for me to say but probably not. The problem is that there were three primary acting choices for her to make in the final ten minutes: she could play it as a hysteric (which she does), she could play it as numbing down her fear like the cameraman does in order to try and escape, or she could have been so overwhelmed by her fear that she becomes a functional catatonic working on autopilot. Carpenter's choice is probably the 'truest' choice for how people would react. That doesn't mean that it is going to make for good drama. Her transformation from confident and outgoing to hysterical jabbering is so jarring that it feels forced instead of real. The camera man keeps telling her to calm down when they've reached a potentially safe room but she is far beyond the calming down stage and well into the years of therapy one instead. I found it to be just too much and actually pulled me out of the horror and towards comedy instead.

'Rec' felt a bit more organic and gritty than 'Quarantine.' The performances are decent in both but you feel less of a connection to the characters in 'Quarantine.' Many are clearly there to serve as fodder with no attempt to seriously develop them. 'Rec' does a much better job, particularly when the reporter interviews each of the buildings residents. The five minutes spent in filming those sequences gave more of a stake to the audience into the well-being of those characters. That never really takes off in 'Quarantine' and I regret that they didn't follow the lead of 'Rec'. One thing that I thought 'Quarantine' did a much better job of was in plot clarity and how they provided information. The clues to the source of what is going on are much more explicit and come very early in the movie. 'Rec' dropped a few hints for the viewer to put together but relies on the final five minutes to give the major clues about patient zero. What patient zero is spreading is clearer in the remake and I thought the clarity benefited the plot. Of course by the time you find out about patient zero, Carpenter's character is beyond being able to help provide the audience with anymore real analytical power. Don't blink or you'll miss everything you need to know.

I give the slight edge to 'Rec', but certainly recommend 'Quarantine' to horror fans. It's problems aren't severe enough to detract from a very decent effort.

I had high hopes for this movie when I saw the trailer and felt that the movie delivered what it intended to.

The movie itself takes place from the point of view from a cameraman named Scott. The cameraman is shooting a take on what firemen go through on an ordinary day when their ordinary day turns into extraordinary. They get a call to an apartment complex and get locked inside with what appear to be zombie like creatures.

It is a movie that I would place in between the 28 days/weeks movies and Cloverfield. It has suspense (will be great on DVD w/surround sound in the future) but some of the characters lack common sense. The fact that the movie is shot from one camera had some people disappointed since it didn't involve too much of a story as to what is being "quarantined", but that is to be expected.

I would say that the movie could have been a heck of a lot better with a solid story and a bigger climax/plot. It is worth your time to watch, but if you don't like shaky cameras like Cloverfield and Blairwitch Project, then I wouldn't watch it.

The reason a lot of people don't like this just doesn't make sense. Many people complain about the main actresses performance but I thought she did amazing. Many other people complain that its to slow because nothing happens in the beginning, hate to break it to you but thats called developing the characters, something that a lot of horror movies lack. This movie is really good, really scary, and one of the few horror movies that is actually re-watchable. Its such a crime that this has only a 5.9.