(2013-05-21 16:19:28)

Low-budget schlock is just a screaming nightmare

How do things like this get made? Who signs the bottom line and says: "Yeah, go off and do that movie, it'll be a winner!"?Why doesn't anybody stop them and say: "Er, guys, don't you think this hand-held-camera-filming-folk-in-terror thing has been done to death? Don't you think they've seen it all before?"But maybe that's why it still gets green-lighted anyway... "Sure they have, but it's what the kids today wanna see! Cloverfield, Blair Witch... made a fortune! No big names in the cast, everything shot on a cheapo video camera that jerks around so nobody ever sees clearly how little was spent on special effects... let's get on with it!"And so, dear movie fan, we end up with this tired, familiar, infuriating, rubbish low-grade drivel that hasn't got a single original idea in its creatively bankrupt brain.Bunch of folks trapped in a building where zombie-like people infected with some sort of rabies virus keep leaping out at them and - yawn! - ripping great chunks out of their necks.Halfway through this unwatchable tosh, the power gets pulled in the building, so virtually everything shown from that point is little more than odd flashes of light in the pitch black. Small mercy, you might think at that point.However, to "compensate" for the fact we can't see anything any more, the director steps up the scream level. Scream, scream, scream and scream again... our neighbours thought somebody was being butchered in our house when the screaming started up. Hasn't anyone taught the director anything about pace and dramatic tension (to add to his clear lack of knowledge in the originality department)? Who is he anyway? How did he ever get to BE a director?Depressingly, this risible rubbish was at number two in our local DVD stores 'popularity' chart. I can only assume that everyone who buys DVDs these days is a 16-year-old computer-game nerd whose brain has been fried by too many hours slumped over some napalm-death shoot-em-up and who has long since ceased to have any critical function operating in his warped psyche, so the mere sight of a DVD cover with a terrified screaming girl being dragged off into the dark will make him buy the damn thing.If there are any more discerning film fans out there, do what I did with this - watch it on fast forward (believe me, you'll miss nothing at all and it'll save you from wasting two precious hours of your life) and then stick it on ebay and try and get your money back.And don't get sucked in by DVD store offers that sell you total junk at 35% off...

(2013-05-20 20:43:53)

NICE ACTING ESPECIALLY

A documentary style movie that does a pretty job with delivery. Expect low special effects but the story and especially the emotional fear of the actors and actresses is exceptionally well done. WHEN WATCHED: September 2010; MY GRADE: B minus to B.

JoeB131

(2013-05-19 20:28:18)

A truly impressive horror film

Just when you think you've become jaded to horror films and seen it allbefore, you get a little gem like this one. You think the plot's going to turn out to be "Oh, God, not anotherBlair Witch ripoff"', but this movie is more than that, effective inits portrayal of people trapped in a building with the government onthe outside ready to kill them, and their fellows ready to kill them onthe inside. The movie starts (as they often do) with a bunch of establishing shotsof the TV hostess and the firemen doing firehouse stuff. It all seemsharmless enough, until they actually get to what seems like a routinecall, and all hell breaks loose. What makes this scary is that this is all kind of plausible. Someidiotic breeding a new kind of super rabies, lets it loose in thebuilding and slowly, the residents succumb to it.

(2013-05-19 10:42:38)

Effective chiller

No spoilers here. I can't remember when I first heard about this but I got to see it at the cinema and I have to admit that I was genuinely surprised. Being shown from a first-party POV adds to our unwilling involvement. It's tense and claustrophobic and, needless to say, dimly lit. No-one knows what's going on here. We're as lost as the participants in this rapidly-unfolding horror show. And, yes, it does get worse.Really not bad at all but the downside is that it's a remake of a highly interesting Spanish flick called [Rec]. I saw this after watching Quarantine and I have the sinking feeling that had I not, instead of watching what played like Quarantine all over again it might have played like the attention-grabber that it really is.The reality is that Quarantine is a slavish, scene-for-scene copy. Hardly one for the books but worth a look nonetheless.

fertilecelluloid

(2013-05-15 03:15:54)

More human eyeballs infected with this turkey

Terribly repetitive, boring, and irritating horror pic. Shot -- again!-- in the horrible hand-held style of "Cloverfield" and "The BlairWitch Project", it boasts a couple of jumps and dozens of jerkyscuffles in the half dark that add up to a numbing experience. Aliteral remake of "Rec", a film I wasn't too fond of, it is all toldfrom the viewpoint of a cameraman and a reporter (Jennifer Carpenter)who are shadowing some firemen for the night. When they enter abuilding where something resembling rabies has broken out, theso-called "horror" begins. I say so-called because there is nothingscary here. It's just noise and chaos. My first big problem with thisremake was Carpenter's reporter character -- she's arrogant, smug,annoying, loud, and unprofessional. She's not a reporter's backside. Ispent the whole movie wanting her to die. The hand-held, doco-stylehorror film has got to be buried. It has become such a clichГѓВ©. When thefilmmakers of "Man Bites Dog" employed it, it was effective. Thehand-held material was also realistically shot. The professional newscameraman who is shooting this turkey would be pink slipped the momentthe network copped a look at his footage. Why do filmmakers think thathand-held footage needs to look like a drunk is filming it? Emptyhorror movies made by and for ADD-ridden idiots are slowly driving meaway from modern horror films. "Quarantine" should be quarantined forgood so it can't infect another human eyeball.

krsma-1609

(2013-05-14 21:16:57)

Awesome and extremely original movie

I'll be short on this one. This is really,really first horror moviethat scared me for real,and I've seen lot of it. Plot is different,soas the whole movie. Suspense is all around,but you never know whensomething will strike. Movie is all filmed from first person,and that'swhat makes movie original in first place...Incredible,never seenbefore,or at least really different. Oh yes,when I say don't watch thisin the dark,I mean it. This movie gets a nine from me only becausenothing is perfect-otherwise it would be 10,regardless of sometechnical or smaller story mistakes.I will say no more-this issomething that you need to-no you HAVE to see.I watched lot ofmovies,and I'm positively surprised

(2013-05-14 12:50:38)

I think it was good...

This movie tries to make it scary by having a shaky camera on the actors/actresses. With the camera jumping from one person to another, I was not scared, but more annoyed that I could not see what was going on. The light on the camera was annoying as well. Sometimes you could see a lot of the surroundings and at other times it was a 2-3 inch circle of light, but when the infra red lens comes on, it was much bigger. At times it was like watching the movie with your eyes closed. If you liked Blair Witch, then this movies will be right up your alley. Rent this movies first or borrow it from a friend.

mkita-1

(2013-05-13 19:56:30)

Awwwwful

20 minutes of "character development" that was pointless. It was likethey had a good idea, but not enough to make a movie so they justgrabbed a stopwatch and said, "ad-lib for 6:30". To prove the point, onthe ride from the fire station to the building, we were forced to watchthem drive to the scene for over 2 minutes. Wow. I cannot say enoughbad things about this "movie". I have never seen Rec* which most peopleregard in much higher esteem than this trash, and I don't think I canbring myself to watch it after this. This one might actually be worsethan Cloverfield.I can count on one hand the number of decent horror flicks since the80's. Everything about this movie is beyond ridiculous. It's not evenworth watching just to see how bad it is...come on, we've all donethat!

IntegraCF21

(2013-05-05 02:00:27)

Don't waste your money!

This movie is complete garbage! From the shaky camera the whole entiremovie to the over-dramatic bad acting. The main character is soannoying, especially towards the end of the movie. So bad that it makesyou WANT her to die in it at some point. This was more of a comedy forme than a scary movie. But overall the worst thing was the shaky cameraand horrible lighting that made it so you couldn't see what was goingon half the time, it completely ruined the whole movie. I went into thefilm with high expectations, but was completely disappointed with this.Do not go into it expecting more than a laugh and to come out with aheadache at the end. Seriously, don't waste your money on this crapfilm!

(2013-05-04 14:17:06)

Terrible Terrible Predictable

My god half the audience walked out of the cinema white faced.... not because of the horror of the movie but the terrible camera work. MY GOD!!!! People wanted to vomit and it was beyond a joke. For people who say ..... "oh it makes it realistic" RUBBISH!!! This guy (holding the camera) is suppose to be a professional so why cant he keep the damm thing still even when interviewing people or just standard camera filming?!?! The story line is so damm predicable and guess whats best the last scene is not only in the trailer of the movie but also on the front cover of the box. Stupid Stupid Stupid!

drew23

(2013-05-01 18:03:25)

Enough w/the SHAKY CAM.

I wanted to like this & thought the premise & other parts of the storywere interesting. However this film is really mediocre in all respects.I would love for filmmakers to realize that "Shaky Cam" all the timedoesn't work, in fact it ruins what could make a decent film. Maybeonce in while would be fine, but not throughout your entire film, itlooks cheap & makes everyone think you are just trying to hide thingssuch as a lack of a budget. Some of the best films have dinky budgets &they don't have to fall back on "Shaky Cam." Another thing that droveme crazy was that they pretty much wasted Jennifer Carpenter who hasshown her range on the excellent Showtime series "Dexter." She seems tobe the main character but she doesn't really do anything but run aroundlike an idiot. For the last 15 minutes of the film she ishyperventilating so loudly it's not only distracting, it actuallystarts to be laughably bad. A little fine, but that much is sad. As faras good points are concerned the film had some good atmosphericelements & when the actors weren't spitting out stupid lines they wereall actually pretty good. Unless you are a follower & think "BlairWitch Project" & it's "Shaky Cam" is classic material (which it isn't)don't bother with this.

cat-that-goes-by-himself

(2013-05-01 06:08:48)

Never could imagine Rec would inspire *so* bad a remake

Oh man, this lead character became *so* annoying as soon as she startedto scream hysterically. And these residents were *so* dumb. And thiscamera shaking was *so* painful. And the plot was *so* inconsistent.And character development was *so* lame you could not care less whenanyone died. And the 'guy keeps filming' excuse for blurred, out offrame and shaky pictures got *so* stale after about half an hour.Oh man, this was bad acting, bad scenario, unimaginative copy ofcloverfield and blair witch, uninteresting and inconsistent psychology,and a complete ripoff of a pretty decent Spanish movie. And the leadactress really was terrible.

(2013-04-28 21:53:25)

Another movie ruined by unsteady handicam.

I don't think I have ever seen a movie using the unsteady handicam method that I truly enjoyed. It just gives me nausea and motion sickness at best, especially on a 133" projection screen! This movie would've been much more enjoyable without it. Come on Reality TV, true TV cameramen have a steadier hand than that, plus don't professional cameras have shake reduction technology? End of rant.

quinnox-1

(2013-04-28 14:18:22)

Decent horror film, better than the original "Rec"

This was a remake of the movie "Rec", which I have seen and thought wasa mediocre movie.This is a fairly good horror movie, with infected rabid humans standingin for crazed zombies. It has a nice dark and creepy atmosphere andsome good scares in it. The last scene on the top level of theapartment building is the best part and the most intense, where thelast two survivors play hide and seek in pitch blackness from amonstrous being. I have to admit I jumped and found this scene scary.The rest of the movie leading up to this is the standard fare of peoplerunning away and barricading themselves in rooms from zombies, nothingthat original or compelling, but on the whole with good productionvalues, decent acting, and above average camera work.One thing I found annoying was the lead actress kind of overplayed thehysteria angle, and it got tedious listening to her constant moans andsobbing at the end of the film. We get it, she was hysterical withfear, enough already.I was thankful they disdained the played out fad of shaky camerasyndrome and jump cuts that are so popular these days. This remake wasmuch better than the original movie "Rec".

JoeytheBrit

(2013-04-28 10:36:00)

Quick-Fire Remake

Hollywood is on something of a loser with these quick-fire remakes ofcontinental hits. If the filmmakers remain faithful to the originalthey are accused of simply recycling while losing theflavour/atmosphere/intensity, etc of the foreign film; if they try tostamp their own personality on the material they're accused of messingaround with a perfectly good formula for the sake of it. Personally, Iblame the audience: if you can't be bothered to watch a film because ithas a couple of lines of dialogue at the bottom of the screen you'reeither going to miss out on most of the world's greatest films, oryou're going to end up watching the US version, which, more often thatnot, has been made for totally different reasons to those that gavelife to the original.I watched REC, the Spanish horror movie of which this is a remake, acouple of weeks ago, so it was still fairly fresh in my mind – notleast because it was a bloody good horror flick. Quarantine staysfaithful to the original while adding a couple of scenes – presumablyto pad it out to a more respectable running time. The new scenes don'tadd much, but they don't really detract from the story either. The film– like REC – is slow to begin with, but slowly gathers a pace thatgrows increasingly relentless so that, by this film's climax I was asgripped by the plight of the handful of remaining survivors as I hadbeen while watching the original.Some of the shots are practically identical to the original, but thisfilm's biggest departure is in the way it dispenses with theexplanation for the rampaging zombies provided by the Spanish film,substituting instead a mutant-rabies strand that, to be honest, isprobably more believable than the idea the Spanish came up with.Strangely, the American's kept the 'virus' press clippings and taperecorder parts in the final scenes without using them to explain whythe ghoulish freak was living in the cellar.If you don't want to read subtitles then watch this instead of theoriginal – it's almost as good but – guess what – it's not as original!The female reporter here is way more annoying than her Spanishcounterpart (and not half as cute), and falls too quickly into thehelpless female role, but other than that there's not a great deal toseparate them…

zombies_goddess

(2013-04-27 20:13:43)

Not worth the time or money

I did not realize this movie was meant to be a remake, and I have neverseen the other movie... but is it is anything like this, I do not planto watch it in the future.I bought this movie thinking it would be a great film considering ithad such great reviews, and the preview to it made it look much betterthan it is.You never really get the storyline unless you already know what itsabout. There is very little if any foreshadowing, and the whole moviewent by so fast you could barely understand what was going on, and withthe camera shaking constantly, it was hard to tell what was reallygoing on.This could have been a good movie, if more effort was put into it, andmaybe a little less dramatic. Between the main characters screaming andhyperventilating and the shaky camera, it gave me a headache.Basically? If you feel the need to see it, rent it, or borrow it fromsomeone who, like me, was stupid enough to buy it based on the cover.Its not worth the money.

diegoavilarodriguez

(2013-04-27 13:31:02)

whats the big deal

I've gotten a bunch of comments and friends saying that this film sucksand that i should stick with rec, as far as I'm concerned its the samemovie, just a different language, its a shot for shot remake, with afew differences here and there, but in the end its the same thing,Jennifer carpenter definitely best horror film actress (probably givingher to much credit) shes good and she still screams a good as in TheExorcism Of Emily Rose.What can i say? saw Rec first and i thought this film wouldn't frightenme but it did, maybe not in the same scenes but it pretty much scaredwhere it counted.don't bash too quickly just for being a remake, its probably one of thebetter horror film remakes, though an un-needed one its still a goodone

Austin Kennedy

(2013-04-26 18:53:38)

This isn't as good as CLOVERFIELD, but it does a pretty decent job at generating some thrills. Unfortunately, the movie is ruined by Carpenter's distractingly awful performance.

(2013-04-22 11:16:03)

A great start . . . realistic

This movie did have a great start. It started out very realistic where the news media was involved. It climbed up slowly to the peak of horror and I liked that. However, the constant screaming after a while got on my nerves. The quick jerking of the camera (ala Blair Witch) didn't add much to my annoyance either. This was in fact a great movie if you can sit through that. (I have a problem with LOUD places in general) It's worth the watch otherwise.

jamesaepp

(2013-04-21 23:19:32)

Fine....But what kind of ending is THAT?

It proves to be a very good movie......until the last 5 minutes. I'm sorry, but just having the main protagonist die in the last minutejust destroys it for me. I just happened to watch the unofficialsequel, 'Terminal' first. At the very least we had one charactersurvive, and we got to see the final ending of the movie, and were leftwith no loose ends. Everything was told in black and white, short andsweet. Perfect.Maybe I'm still to novice for horror films, but I always thought it wasmore proper to have a formal ending. Some kind of resolution, no matterwhat the odds. That's what I, and another portion of the audience wantto see. To me, surviving against the odds is much more intriguing thandying. For those who don't like it, hey--it's fiction.Thank You.