Watch it at Amazon
118 out of 167 people found the following review useful: Solid Remake, but the original "Rec" was far superior..., 14 October 2008 Author: Slasher_Guy
Quarantine is a remake of 2007 Spanish horror film Rec, which has been receiving amazing reviews from horror fans, including myself. It was tense, terrifying and had great acting. I only saw Rec a few months ago, and would say it's one of the best of the year. Hearing about a US remake so soon, especially one told to be shot-for-shot, was kind of ridiculous. However, the cast for Quarantine was good, the trailer and stills looked cool, so I thought I'd give it a watch to see how it holds up to Rec. Needless to say, Rec was better, but I still enjoyed Quarantine. It was better than the remakes of Shutter, The Eye and One Missed Call, that's for sure.Plot basically tells the story about a young woman who is filming with her cameraman at a fire station in Los Angeles, when they receive a distress call from an apartment. They head out, soon make a horrifying discovery regarding one of the residents and find themselves Quarantined by the government in the apartment building. It's exactly the same plot as the original, but it isn't actually shot-for-shot as there are a few new scenes thrown in there. Good ones, though. The acting was also strong, with Jennifer Carpenter being the lead. Manuela Velaso was better in Rec, but Jennifer did a really good job. I was surprised at the lack of Johnathon Schaech's screen time though, considering he was in nearly every scene in the recent remake of Prom Night. I loved Dania Ramirez and Jay Hernandez too.Quarantine has really good acting, is entertaining from start to the end, but it has it's flaws. The movie was actually a little slow in one or two parts, and some of the characters I didn't really care for, such as the cocky businessman. I am also rather annoyed by the lack of effort from the writer/directors of this film. Drew and John Dowdle are rather new to the business, and not only have they remade a film that is less than a year old, but the direction and writing just wasn't there. They took most of the screenplay from Rec, so if anyone deserves the writing credit, the original makers deserve most of it. The direction, well, was also lacking...because it's a POV movie and a lot of shots are similar to the original, so the guy clearly didn't do as much as a regular director because it's a POV remake. They have also lied to the audiences, saying that they changed the ending. So they are new to the business, remaking a film less than a year old and lying? Stupid. I feel that the actors, and the creators of the original Rec, made this film what it was. The only things the Dowdle brothers deserve credit for are for their new scenes (5-10 mins total, which probably took an hour or two to write) and well, assisting with some of the direction...oh, and also managing to collect huge paychecks for doing very little of what a normal writer/director would do.Overall, Quarantine was an entertaining remake after some of the lame ones we've had this year. It's nowhere near as bad as the haters are thinking it is, which actually doesn't make much sense, because if they loved the original...why hate a shot-for-shot remake? Unless it's because it has American actors, which again wouldn't make sense, as they are very talented actors. If you dislike POV movies though, this movie won't really be for you, so don't be an idiot and go and see it, and then complain about feeling sick...it's your own fault! Rec was the superior film, but overall, Quarantine was a good remake. But like I said before, if anyone deserves the credit for this remake, it's the original writer/directors (for the shots, writing and original - this remake wouldn't be here without them) and the actors of this remake. I do advise you though, don't be ignorant over a movie with subtitles, and check out the original Rec. It really is an amazing film.Quarantine (2008) - 7/10. Rec (2007) - 9/10.
94 out of 161 people found the following review useful: Woah., 21 October 2008 Author: justin_currie from Canada
I went into this movie with fairly vague expectations - however I am a fan of scary movies, and not to mention a big fan of Jennifer Carpenter, could be good times. so lets go.woah.This movie was horribly fantastic! It was a ride, a very scary, very stressful ride, but an awesome one. True, this flick does not stray far from the typical zombie flick concepts, but I thought the execution was above par. The 1st person views, the sense of confinement/hopelessness, and the great acting (especially ms carpenter, extremely believable job of someone going hysterically frantic) One of the key things about this horror is the scares never let up, there is rarely a "breather scene" where you get to relax for any amount of time, it just keeps hitting you and hitting you.haha, phew. I truly enjoyed. check it out. cheers
37 out of 50 people found the following review useful: Not quite as strong as the original, but still very good., 17 October 2008 Author: A_Roode from Halifax, Nova Scotia
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.
32 out of 50 people found the following review useful: trying to review this without comparing to the original, 10 October 2008 Author: iamyourruler2000 from mother's basement
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I have to say, this whole hysteria of America ruining foreign films is laughable. Yes, there are some really bad remakes, but that does not effect the original film. You cannot ruin a film by remaking it as the original film is still the same. If you are angry, you are angry because you feel that people who really deserve the fame and recognition are not getting it. This is a justified reason to be angry, but don't go saying the film has been ruined because that defies all logic of possibility.I must say it's hard for me to review this film without thinking about the original, mainly because it is nearly a shot for shot remake. Obviously this takes away from the suspense and overall fear factor of the film. If you have seen the original, don't expect to experience the same level of terror that you had the first go round. You're going to know what's coming for the most part. If you haven't seen REC, this movie will probably scare you. If you actually have the option of seeing REC first, I would do it because I feel that it is still the superior movie. Of course, if you live in America your local video store won't have it and you'll have to download it illegally, so I guess you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.I actually thought the acting was quite good for the most part. Jennifer Carpenter does a great job playing hysterical women. She did a good job being hysterical in the Emily Rose abomination and she did a good job being hysterical in Dexter. She does a good job being hysterical in this movie as well, so kudos to the producers/directors for making a logical choice to cast her. Her dialogue outside of being chased down by rabid tenants is laughable, but this actually makes sense when you consider the fact she's a reporter for a show no one would watch anyways.The main difference between REC and this movie is the cause of the deranged building tenants. Surprisingly, I thought they made the story work and it played more on "American" fears such as government distrust, terrorism, and viral warfare. The only thing I think they failed on was the choice to use higher quality production. Part of what made REC really scary was the grittiness which gave you the feeling that what was happening was real. Although the camera work is choreographed well, the Hollywood quality takes away the grit and leaves you feeling like you've had a few too many before watching.Overall, I think this is actually a decent remake. The producers and director realized that the story was already awesome and they didn't try to change it. I think if people would calm down and put aside their national pride and cultural elitism, they would realize that these kinds of remakes only help foreign films. How many people knew about REC before this movie, outside of a small demographic of people (imdb is not the 'norm')? How many people know about that great movie now? Lots of people visit these websites looking for reviews, and seeing "REC" pop up everywhere is only good exposure. Hell, if this movie does well you might actually find copies of REC in your local video store, and believe me, I'd be the first in line to buy a copy.
31 out of 50 people found the following review useful: Absolutely Silly but not horrific if you have the slightest clue., 12 January 2009 Author: patchworkworld from United States
btw...although some are calling this a "zombie" movie, there are in fact no zombies in it. Rabies DOES infect humans. The people who have been bitten in this movie are not dying and reanimating and trying to eat everyone --they are supposedly displaying the madness that strikes rabid dogs and running around trying to bite everyone just as the infected dogs will.It's difficult to imagine the reasoning behind some of the positive reviews calling this silly plot line good or effective or even just frightening. If you missed the advertising and aren't aware it's supposed to be a horror flick the beginning won't clue you in. That's actually one of the good points of the film, a fairly realistically done beginning (informational news piece on the life of a firefighter at the fire station) that provides a few glimpses of some of the man characters and allows the development of some liking and sympathy for them before getting to the action. This segment concludes with the reporter and cameraman riding along with the crew on a call involving a paramedic situation (rather than a fire) that even incorporates the nice touch of the cameraman telling the reporter "I can't slide down that pole with this camera!" and the two detouring to a run down the stairs to jump on the fire truck. The only bad points to this part of the movie was that it went on a little too long and it's impossible to believe a professional cameraman can't figure out how to focus his camera. After the news duo and firemen arrive at the dilapidated apartment building things quickly go south. the film is so DARK that the supposed tears all the victims show can't be seen, and the supposed salivating is actually vomit or blood in most cases. This rabies is scary because it causes disease in minutes instead of in "months" (rabies actually takes 3-8 weeks to develop in most people, and that's do to the physical limits of the virus moving up nerves to reach the brain, which cannot be genetically modified). (And yes, a veterinarian would know that...veterinarians know more about diseases that spread from animals to humans than medical doctors do. They have to...they're the ones most at risk to catch those diseases.)The CDC, working with the cops, somehow seals off the building (just after the fire department people and news crew get inside) because a man who lived there took a sick pet to the veterinarian and it "ran around biting all the other animals" who started "showing aggressiveness within an hour". Does anyone reading actually think sick animals run around in one big pen in the clinic instead of being kept in separate cages? Well, maybe the sick dog was running around the waiting room biting all the other animals being held by their owners? And of course not biting the owners.....? The CDC being notified and showing up the entire length of the country away THAT fast? For an unknown disease that only affects animals (remember, they said only the animals were showing aggressiveness)? Without the local public health people ever being called in? Let's not even mention that rabies doesn't usually take the furious form (like 'mad dogs') in humans. But it gets sillier.The CDC comes in wearing moonsuits and start taking samples to see what is causing the problem...with a drill at least 10" long they sink full length in fromt he top of the victim's head! What were they trying to get a sample of, his tonsils? BTW, rabies in living humans can be diagnosed by a sample of cerebrospinal fluid, which only requires a needle and syringe. Oh yeah, and don't forget they handcuff the guy to whatever he's lying on first. at his waist level...so of course he sits up --AFTER they obviously drilled his brain into mush and bites the other CDC guy, unhampered by handcuffs.No end to sheer stupidity yet. The child who owned the sick dog has had a slight fever for hours, but suddenly goes nuts and bites half her mom's face off...and the cop runs after her, kneels in front of her and assures her things are OK instead of shooting her from a distance --and of course gets bitten too. The building superintendent says he has in his apartment the key to a drain cover they can all escape through (in the basement) while standing in front of glass doors they just shut to keep out an infected guy, and gets bitten. The news crew runs up the stairs after getting the key, blathering about finding a way out that way although we all know by then its not possible, find an apartment full of rodent cages and clippings about doomsday cults and turn on a reel-to-reel tape at half speed but can't tell it's voices at half speed. And the absolute corker...the CDC prevent human egress but forgets all about the mice and rats that infest every slummo house in the L.A. area...
39 out of 66 people found the following review useful: Infectious Horror, 21 October 2008 Author: simon-prometheus from Canada
Even at a glance, it is clear that Quarantine has boarded the 'fad' bandwagon it two respects. Firstly, this chiller joins up with the abundance of remakes that choke the gullet of Hollywood, and at an impressively rapid pace I may add, duplicating its Spanish predecessor (Rec) within a year's time. Secondly, it is the successor in a line of films, some from earlier this year in fact, that adopt the hand-held camera technique (which may soon be classified more accurately as a gimmick) to construct a first hand, real time account of events. Yet, despite succumbing to these popular fixations, and the flag of death that is the studios reluctance to screen the film, Quarantine is crisp effective horror.When comparing (Rec) and Quarantine, the similarities are glaring. In fact, the films are almost identical, save a few altered snippets. Which is good in the sense that nothing was lost in translation and although nowhere near as disgraceful as remaking classics or art films, it still begs to ask the question why? Alas, the average viewer does not wish to read subtitles, especially when watching horror, so the update went through. Directed by newcomer John Erick Dowdle he makes the most of his debut. Procuring a larger budget then its inspiration, Quarantine looks better as a whole (despite more frequent incomprehensible shots involving darkness and jiggle cam) and is able to incorporate some effects into the production, such as a continuous and chilling shot of a person being tossed down a stairwell. Comparisons to 2008's earlier films Cloverfield and Diary of the Dead are unavoidable, and remains squarely in the middle; a far-cry from the ingenuity and atmosphere of Cloverfield, but avoids the horrendous acting and scripting of Diary.Mirroring (Rec) Quarantine begins with a reporter, Angela Vidal (Jennifer Carpenter) who hosts a late night television program. On this particular night, Angela and her cameraman Scott (Steve Harris) are doing a ride-along with the firemen of a local station in L.A., including Jake (Jay Hernandez) and Fletcher (Jonathan Schaech). After a tenuous night of boredom and anxiety, they are finally called to the scene of an apparent accident in an aging condo, involving an elderly tenant. Things are not as they seem however as soon after, the CDC seals off the building with the foursome, and the reaming residents still inside. Their reasoning is good it seems, as all hell breaks loose as a mysterious rabies virus rips through the building turning those exposed into zombie-like fiends. The survivors must work together to battle the infected, the authorities and each other.Both films incorporate the inherent problem of the disease itself, which seems to frequently shift in its required incubation period, but is not really a huge impediment for the film as a whole. The opening act which is situated entirely at the station is both surprisingly involving and witty, and works to some extent as character development. The finale is also pulse-pounding, if not entirely inspired, but lacks the sheer terror I felt at the finale of (Rec). When breaking it down, Quarantine's opening is better then the original, and (Rec)'s final act is better then its imitator, so things balance out. Each film boast a superb scene mid to late film, including the aforementioned stairwell plummet in Quarantine and a scene in (Rec]) involving the same stairwell in which the heroes peer down to see the lower floors of infected peering back; eerie stuff. I would encourage horror fans to see both before making their choice, and to be honest I haven't quite chosen myself which is superior. Regardless, Quarantine takes advantage of a ploy that has not yet become stale, and yielding authentic portrayals from its relatively unknown cast and an ominous atmosphere, this flick is infectious to be sure.See all my reviews at: http://simonsaysmovies.blogspot.com
20 out of 30 people found the following review useful: Seriously, I'm don't right reviews or feedback very often, but heed my warning! Quarantine yourself away from this crap, and never speak of it!, 19 February 2009 Author: rubbersoul-1 from United States
Possible spoilers!!!!!!The movie itself may spoil you! The first 20 minutes will sucker you in, the next 10 make you think this could get good! Wait for it----then you waist the next however many are left getting mad, and wanting this thing to end. You feel like your infected. The characters never are able to figure out that the zombies will kill you if you approach them, yet this happens about 10 times in the movie. Apparently they have amnesia, as they approach the infected, "come on buddy come with me, it's gonna be OK". Seriously by the fifth time I heard a version of this, as the zombies attacked the person with the calming voice, I felt like I had never seen anything stupider in a movie. This is pretty much the whole last forty minutes. Please, please don't contribute to this movie by renting it, like I did!
70 out of 131 people found the following review useful: Suspenseful but ordinary, 10 October 2008 Author: track_42000 from United States
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.
16 out of 24 people found the following review useful: Save your money, 19 February 2009 Author: Jonny Heckman from Hummelstown, PA
Oh were to start on this steamer? How about acting, it's bad. It's no surprise either since the acting is always bad in these POV "documentary horror" films. There is a small attempt at character development at the beginning of the film, but once the bodies start piling up it's basically nothing but screaming for an hour.The story is so ridiculous, even more than most current horror films. News reporter goes to apartment with fire fighters, crazy lady kills cop, other cop doesn't kill crazy lady...huh? This movie has the problem that most new horror movies have and that's they make everyone extremely stupid. People pretty much forget about the diseased murderers in the next room, get killed, and turn into diseased murderers themselves. And what was up with the end, everything was calm for the most part and then there's infected lunatics everywhere. *Yawn* Could it get any worse? Yes. The directing.Do you like to go to haunted houses for Halloween? If you do you'll love this movie, because that's all it is. There is no story, no real plot, just a bunch of things jumping out of shadows to make you jump. Well done Mr. Director, well done. Unfortunately we are left without the token "cat-jumps-out-from-area-that's-being-inspected" scene. There are no lights in this apartment complex, it seems as though the light bulbs also caught a disease that killed them.If you enjoy overacting, horrible stories, bad directing, completely predictable scenarios and rip off endings, then you must be a redneck...oh wait, I meant, then you will love this movie. Seriously, the ending completely ripped off Blair Witch Project, the only difference is that the camera sees the monster that is going to kill them. Save your money and go to a fun-house, or go on a roller coaster ride, it'd be better than this crud...which, and I'm not surprised, is a remake.
18 out of 28 people found the following review useful: Booo this movie, 13 October 2008 Author: terrencepatrix from United States
Seriously I'm sick of this genre of movies. Shaky videos found in the aftermath of a horrible situation...enough already. This probably won't be the best review you read for this movie, but for an avid horror movie enthusiast watching with eyes wide open...this movie was just...bad.Simple plot summary. A reality show that features late night careers is showcasing a fire station. They eventually get a call to a complex with an undisclosed issue. When they enter they encounter a strange old women standing there with blood and spit hanging from her mouth and she's growling. Now for the plot...get together a group of people with absolutely no survival or social skills who all happen to be mentally handicapped. Next lock them all into a complex with each other. Mix in a very unintimidating zombie wannabe virus and let them all run around with their arms flailing about. That's this movie.I'm sorry, but this movie was just...stupid and ridiculous. The story is actually really good (I hear it is based of some other movie that I've never watched, but whatever) and could have been executed soooo much better. The acting wasn't really bad, just completely without direction. The gore was there, but the camera was so damn shaky you could never focus on any of the action. The way the people reacted and the ending was just so pathetic it's unbelievable.-SPOILER- Really, if I'm trapped in a complex with some weird virus that turns people into violent monsters...I would not gather together in a lobby. I would gather the uninfected and secure myself behind one of the very thick well locked doors that the complex offers and wait it out. I would definitely not: Try and gather the infected into my arms, put my head near the infected persons face, lock myself in a room with the infected, run after the infected when they go crazy, eat someone, and take off. These people basically offer themselves up on a platter in this movie and it's just pathetic to watch. The end of the movie is so sudden that the audience actually groaned and stomped out of the theater.DO NOT PAY TO SEE THIS MOVIE, it is an OK rent or download but to pay $10 to see it is ridiculous. This movie is more of a 2 but I'm voting a 1 to help offset the idiots who vote this a 8+.
Add another review
