Quarantine Review
Posted by Jeffrey Harris on 10.11.2008
A horror movie that forgets the horror.
Quarantine
Directed By: John Erick Dowdle Written By: John Erick Dowdle and Drew Dowdle; Based on the Spanish film Rec written by Jaume Balagueró, Luiso Berdejo, and Paco Plaza Runtime: 89 minutes Official Website:Contain The Truth.com
Cast:
Angela Vidal - Jennifer Carpenter Scott Percival - Steve Harris Jake - Jay Hernandez George Fletcher - Jonathan Schaech Officer Danny Wilensky - Columbus Short Yuri Ivanov - Rade Serbedzija Lawrence - Greg Germann
and Doug Jones
*Read with caution. This review will contain slight spoilers.*
This exercise is getting kind of tired. Here was have another "real" movie where the marketing campaign is based around some horrific event where there was no survivors, but lost footage was suddenly found and we finally get to see what really happened to them. Sorry if this sounds cliché but Blair Witch Project anyone? Earlier this year, Cloverfield was released, and although it was the same basic gimmick, the marketing campaign was a much more effective character in itself, and the movie did provide some decent eye candy and an excellent music track while still generally disappointing most audiences who walked out disgusted after the huge opening weekend.
Jennifer Carpenter has a bad start as the lead character in the movie. Carpenter plays Angela Vidal, a Los Angeles TV reporter for a segment called the "Night Shift". Her early scenes where she's doing routine videotaping with her cameraman, Scott (Harris), features her interacting with the firemen while desperately hoping for an emergency call to get some more exciting action for the viewers. Right off the bat, Angela comes off as annoying, ditzy, careless and generally stupid character that you don't care about rather than a legitimate journalist who believes in the integrity of her work. This is the problem with most modern horror films. The human characters are generally the least interesting thing about the movie and are cannon fodder whose grim fates you anticipate rather than dread. Shaun of The Dead in 2004 was a welcome departure from the norm in untintentionally (or perhaps intentionally) shitty horror movie leads.
Angela shadows firemen Jake (Hernandez, still really not breaking out, but hey always those bit anime voice acting roles like Karas, right?) and the lewd Fletcher (the former Mr. Christina Applegate, Schaech) and joins them on a disturbance call to an old apartment building. Tenants were spooked due to an old lady's scream. Upon further investigation, the old lady tenant viciously attacks on the of the police officers already on the scene, and when the people try to leave the building it appears they've been locked in. And then military government types start sealing off the entire building while Angela and the remarkably calm and composed Scott continue to capture this all on their single camera.
Blocked from escape with other infected people around, a vet who lives in the building (Germann) is able to figure out that the disease that's been plaguing the tenants is a new, advanced form of rabies that manifests in humans in minutes and is totally incurable.
Quarantine is the Hollywood American remake of the low-budget, minimalist Spanish horror film, Rec, to which it's faithful fans are quite bristled over. As for this movie, if you got to see the unrated trailer at San Diego Comic Con this year, then you pretty much get all the big money shots, and it basically summarized the whole 89 minute movie in less than 3. Since Sony has been quite liberal in basically revealing the entire ending and fates of most of the characters in the trailers, TV spots, and marketing campaign it takes out just about all of the suspense in the proceedings and makes it even more boorishly predictable. The final shot of the movie is shown virtually in full and saturated into the movie's marketing campaign.
Dowdle as a director does his best to amp up the atmosphere with lots of "you are there"-style shakey-cam and the typical, cheap horror scare jumps that he tends to telegraph. The feeling is that the movie wants to be something groundbreaking and different but it's just rehashed, inferior junk. All the trappings of typical horror movies are there including characters doing the stupidest things possible.
The other problem with the scenario of these movies is they give you this premise of "oh you get this rare, lost footage that shows what happened to these people", except it doesn't really tell you anything else. There's a really lame reveal, if you can call it that, near the end of the movie that's different from Rec but felt remarkably underwhelming. Just like most of this movie.
The 411: Quarantine overall felt like a waste of time. It doesn't break any new ground in terms of plot, story, characters, or style. It's boringly predictable, and very hard to watch. The hardest thing to sit through is Jennifer Carpenter's one-note hysterical that she turns up to 11 pretty early and unfortunately for your ears, does not let up. All this said, horror movie nuts could still very well find something to like and enjoy about this flick. If any good does come out of this movie, maybe it's the interest that comes out in the discussion for Rec and will encourage more people to apparently watch this hidden gem of a horror flick rather than the lame-duck Hollywood remake the studio opted not to screen to critics.
I'm having a really hard time beleiveing that out of -all- the movies that came out this year, this desereved a 1.0
Posted By: Jordan Williams (Registered) on October 11, 2008 at 01:28 AM
I know that's what i'm thinking. it can't be that bad. Maybe your just a terrible reviewer.
Posted By: Guest#4802 (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 02:31 AM
I think your really to harsh on this movie. Just because your not a horror fan. I mean you even said horror neards will find something to like about this movie. Which tells me you didn't go into it not even wanting to see it. So i can't take your Review very Seriously. I just think you put it a 1.0 just for the fun of it.
Posted By: Terrible review (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 02:33 AM
Compared to the rabid fans of REC on the IMDB boards, I'm being quite kind.
Posted By: Jeffrey Harris (Registered) on October 11, 2008 at 02:57 AM
I wonder if the reviewer of this movie should've been required to see [Rec] first. I tend to think so, since some of the criticisms in this review would also be true of the original.
Posted By: JD Koziarski (Registered) on October 11, 2008 at 03:40 AM
To add to my previous comment: Parts of the review imply the reviewer saw [Rec], but most of it, like the description of Angela, indicates he didn't. If you didn't find Angela incredibly obnoxious after the first 10 minutes of [Rec], you weren't paying attention. Sounds like Quarantine kept it close to the original in a lot of ways.
I didn't think [Rec] was anything special anyhow, but a 1? Really?
Posted By: JD Koziarski (Registered) on October 11, 2008 at 03:42 AM
The only thing that I think felt remarkably underwhelming was this review.
Posted By: webbslinga21 (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 08:11 AM
Hmmmm....the premise of the virus sounds exactly like 28 Days later. Human rabies. I'll check it out on DVD.
Posted By: StrykersWeaponX (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 08:40 AM
I will stick up for this review Jeffery. This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen. It takes the title away from A vs.P 2. I have never seen that many people get up and leave in the middle of a movie, as well as openly booing in the middle of the movie. It was stupid and hard to watch. Actually, this review was too kind. I would have given it a zero.
Posted By: Sickened (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 10:22 AM
dude what the heck are you talking about? This was one of the BEST horror movies I have seen in a long time and while the camera made me sea sick at times it was WAY better than cloverfield (which SUCKED big floppy donkey dick) i wouldn't give this movies less than an 8.5
Posted By: sco sco (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 10:51 AM
This is what happens when Hollywood once again makes a horrible remake and takes the zest out of the movie !
Although i must agree that with all the horrible shit out this year Mr.Harris give this a 1.0 ?!
really ? Jeffery really !??
When you gave rate NEVER BACK DOWN ! a 5.0 and Narnia pt 2 a 7.0 me thinks
Vileone you best stick to your crap fest smarkness on the talk tna wrestling boards !
signed
Xian FROST !
Posted By: JH = Bizzare ! (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Can we please, please, god help us get at least one damn movie "reviewer" on this site that doesnt call a movie a flick. It's cheap and makes you sound like a bigger idiot than the "reviews" you put out.
Posted By: guest (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 11:10 AM
This movie sucks,
Sorry that people have EXPECTATIONS when going to see a movie. This deserves a 1. I agree 100% with you Mr.Harris.
Posted By: Kent Baker (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Being a horror fan, it will be very interesting to see how my take on Quarantine differs from yours, Jeffrey.
Posted By: Joseph Lee (Registered) on October 11, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I haven't seen REC. This movie was idiotic garbage. I like horror films if they are good.
I also wasn't reviewing REC, I didn't give REC a 1. I gave Quarantine a 1.
Posted By: Jeffrey Harris (Registered) on October 11, 2008 at 12:36 PM
I doubt it's extremely horrendous, I've yet to see it but I'll reserve my own judgement so far the reviews have been positive to mostly mixed of course Rec fans hated because it's "OMG it's a remake all remakes suck" but most reviews it's pretty faithful to the original. Rotten Tomatoes has it's score at 70%
Posted By: Guest#5122 (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 01:09 PM
This movie is 70% on Rotten Tomatoes with a score from twenty reviews.
Why you ask? The studio decided to NOT screen it for the press. Because the movie sucks and is garbage.
Let's see if the movie can stay as as high as 70% after more than a scant amount of reviews come in.
Posted By: Jeffrey Harris (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 01:25 PM
Well, I'm heading off to see Quarantine now. This is a case of I film I would avoid if the critical reaction was bab, but Rottentomatoes has a 70% positive as of Sat afternoon.
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 01:47 PM
REC was awesome. I bet this sucks. I want to see it, but the lead chick is completely annoying and unappealing to me. Also, she cant act (funny, since shes on Dexter, and that show rocks, and she is the only one on there that cant act also).
Posted By: Saw REC. (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 02:39 PM
Okay, got back from an afternoon show. About half full. Several people left during the movie. I think the film itself was mildly scary, a better film than DIARY OF THE DEAD where Romero tried a similar idea earlier in the year. It had at least 5 audience screams. Characters weren't as good as THE STRANGERS or THE RUINS earlier this year, but they didn't have much material for them to work with either. I'd give it a 6 out of 10.
I asked one of the people in the lobby why they had left and they said they were gonna barf because of motion sickness. I think this is a problem for a certain percent of audiences. Doesn't bother me a bit though, I can ride a dozen carnival rides while eating corn dogs, so it must just be a genetic thing.
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 04:56 PM
Well if Eric says this movie isn't as good as The Ruins or The Stangers then I guess it does deserve a 1.0 because those movies were horrendous.
Posted By: Inresponsetoeric (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 05:11 PM
Saw it last night, and I have to say, giving it a 1.0 is OVERrating it. The problems with this movie could inspire a 15-minute verballized rant. Poor characterization (most of the cast are just victims-in-waiting), plot holes you can drive a truck through, a terminally dull 15 minute intro that establishes NOTHING but 100 different shots of a fire station ... this was excrement. Pure, unadulterated excrement. The "lost footage" horror movies need to stop.
Posted By: Jed (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 06:14 PM
So this is what it looks like when a reviewer gets it COMPLETELY wrong. I commend you, good sir, for putting together the most inept review of a movie I've ever had the misfortune of reading.
Posted By: Anonymoose (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 08:26 PM
Review=Waste of time.
Posted By: dfgsa (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 08:52 PM
I just got back from seeing it, and I must say, I thought it was pretty damn good.
Posted By: Andy (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 09:30 PM
I would put it at a 5. While I do agree with the reviewer on a few points, like Jennifer Carpenter being annoying and nothing new being done, this by no means deserves a 1. There have definitely been much, much worse movies that have come out that deserve that 1 rating.
Posted By: Charles (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 10:11 PM
In my opinion, I thought that Quarantine was a pretty good movie, but then again, I don't like to see horror movies when they first come out in theaters. I give it a 8.75 out of 10.
Posted By: Alex Bailey (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 10:19 PM
a 1.0? REALLY? c'mon. *REALLY??* i've seen some stinkers in my day, but there has to be SOMETHING redeeming about this film. i'm heading out to see it tomorrow, and i'm a HUGE horror buff. in all fairness i'll be sure to check back in and post a follow up as to whether or not i'm on par with your review.
Posted By: hellboysetsfire (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Other than the fact that the 1st Person POV is too much for vertigo and motion sickness the plot was to predictable and left nothing to be expected. Overall, bad movie. Waste not your time.
Posted By: An0nymOuse (Guest) on October 11, 2008 at 11:43 PM
QUARANTINE does pretty well at the boxoffice. 14.3 million opening weekend, which is more than production costs. It is no. 2 behind BEVERLY HILLS CHIHUAHUA, but beat out several more expensive star driven vehicles BODY OF LIES, THE EXPRESS and CITY OF EMBERS, all of which opened in more theatres.
Get ready for QUARANTINE 2.
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on October 12, 2008 at 01:48 PM
When you wrote "the lude Fletcher" in the review, I think you meant "the lewd Fletcher" unless I am not understanding a drug reference you are making.
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on October 12, 2008 at 01:52 PM
Yeah. So I saw this anyway. I wouldnt rate this lower than a 7/10. I really dont get your review at this point, because the movie really wasnt even half as bad as you made it out to be...
Im not attempting to insult you as a reviewer, but I think you were way off base here.
Posted By: Saw REC (2nd) (Guest) on October 12, 2008 at 03:05 PM
I love horror movies and this was def not that bad. Was it a blockbuster of epic proportions, no. I would like to see some other reviews from this guy and see what he gives a 10.
Posted By: MADHOUSE of EXTREME (Registered) on October 12, 2008 at 04:50 PM
this movie was so good!you would really have to set out with the intent of not liking it.this was not an attempt to change movie viewing history, it's just supposed to scare you. and it does.
Posted By: Guest#3576 (Guest) on October 12, 2008 at 05:31 PM
This review is right on the money-worst piece of crap movie ever. I wish I had read this instead of the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I am a big horror fan and this one was the pits. The camera work was overdone to the point of literally being nauseating-my wife had to leave the theater at one point because she was about to puke. Any news cameraman that bad in the real world would be out of a job.
As for the action, it was basically a chain of characters giving each other really bad hickies to the point that they got infected. All very predictable. By the end I just wanted them all dead and my money back.
Posted By: scott (Guest) on October 12, 2008 at 06:39 PM
The movie made money. So what? It's low budget horror trash, one of the most profitable film genres ever. No one is going to care about or remember this movie in several years. It's totally disposable.
What was truly scary about the movie? A bunch of stupid idiot characters you don't scare about. And another pseudo-documentary tone. It brings nothing new or different to the table, and having lame characters doesn't make up for it.
I didn't go in wanting to hate it. I'm not a devout fan of REC. It's just a dumb, trashy horror film with a lot of bad acting, bad characters, and the tired pseudo-documentary style. It was utterly predictable and telegraphed. It doesn't earn any scares. The studio ruins the ending everywhere.
The fact of the matter is, if you saw the unrated trailer at SDCC 08, you didn't need to see the movie at all. And that doesn't take up but about 2 and a half minutes of your time rather than an hour and a half. A less than three minute trailer frankly does better what this POS movie could not.
Posted By: Jeffrey Harris (Registered) on October 12, 2008 at 06:47 PM
It was a terrible horror movie. Does not deserve even a 1.0. However, it was the most hilarious unintentional comedy I have seen in years. The whole theater was laughing throughout the movie!
Posted By: Guest#3378 (Guest) on October 12, 2008 at 08:01 PM
I judge horror movies by how much they scare me when I watch them. I'm a huge horror fan and it takes quite a lot to scare me (the last time I was even midly frightened was when Samara climbed out of the t.v. in The Ring). This movie totally f*cked with my head. I had my hoodie scrunched up into a little ball and I was clinging to it like it was a teddy bear. It terrified me.
I think some people, perhaps including Mr. Harris, go into horror movies expecting it to be something other than a horror movie (or at least hoping it will be). They want to walk away from a movie, having been privy to some deep secret of human nature, or at least great character development and compelling performances. And in that expectation you end up missing the point. Horror movies don't set out to change your life or your way of looking at the world -- they just want to scare the bejesus out of you for 90-120 minutes and have you walk out of the theater feeling like you had a good time. Just . . . relax a little bit. Sit back and enjoy it, and don't try to make it something it's not, because then you'll never be anything but disappointed with what you get.
Although, I will concede that giving away the final shot of the movie in the trailers was a stupid move -- I spent the last half hour of the movie waiting for that to happen, and I found it distracted me from what was actually happening.
Posted By: Shannon (Guest) on October 13, 2008 at 03:38 AM
"No one is going to care about or remember this movie in several years. It's totally disposable."
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. First of all, the audience reaction, as well as critical reaction, is split, with some loving it and many others hating it. This is exactly the type of reaction you'd expect for a flick that will have a cult following.
Second, the movie is making some bucks, so both imitators and direct sequels are likely, and, for good or ill, QUARANTINE will be the film that these imitators will be compared to. So people will still be talking about this film in 2010 and possibly beyond. I think QUARANTINE will probably have a bigger legacy than BODY OF LIES which starred DiCaprio and Crowe and cost 65 million.
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on October 13, 2008 at 11:33 AM
I think I'll agree with the reviews but hold in my defense to horrors. It had good potential if it was more oriented in letting you know what happened or why. Like Shannon, I too am a HUGE fan of horrors. I can't say this was a horror movie, more of a survival with stupid and (very predictable) decisions.
I'll give the movie some kick to the crotch when I say it wasn't supposed to make me laugh. The movie starts to get retarded when you realize that an elderly woman (who was held down by a firefighter) tosses him like salad down an enormous drop. Later on, the movie becomes full of typical garbage. The drunk said it best "If this is breaking out, why don't we split up instead of standing here in a f*cking group?"
When there's a character who gives some obvious answer to a spreading problem, it helps to move the movie forward. Then I sat and thought last night, the little girl who was ill (with the fever) had been sick for weeks. Now, if you remember the virus took hours to get into your system. Of course when the camera-man is staring at the mother who is all full of humanity for her daughter gets her neck ripped up, it becomes quite stupid. Not to mention the police officer who put 2 shots in an old woman and was pulling his gun out to every person rubbing him the wrong way but couldn't seem to toss a 5 year old off of him.
All in all, I'm sorry to admit: It had good intention, but came out on the short end in the delivery. For someone with a lot of compromise and an open perspective, this movie kind of turned out to be a joke. Though I will admit, the upstairs scene where the obnoxious Vidal really makes you mad, was alright. I jumped when the attic creature (which looked like a baby if you ask me) slapped the camera. The rest turned out to be frustrating when you have someone in hysterics alerting something as feral and primitive as a mad scientist in his underwear.
Posted By: Mike (Guest) on October 13, 2008 at 12:28 PM
The movie sucked big hairy moose balls so all you hatin on the review go fuck urselfs!
Posted By: Bubba (Guest) on October 13, 2008 at 12:57 PM
did the dog get it from the rat?
Posted By: guest (Guest) on October 13, 2008 at 03:14 PM
I simply cannot wait to see this movie. I just hope it's half as good as The Happening which is the greatest movie so far this year.
And yes, I'm totally serious.
Posted By: David (Guest) on October 13, 2008 at 03:20 PM
Eric, no one is going to compare knockoffs to Quarantine. Quarantine itself is a remake of an existing movie, and it's basically exactly the same as Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield, though it sucks a lot more.
So what if it's making money now? That's the point. It might make money now, but in several years no one will care about it or remember it.
The tomato meter is getting lower everyday. That's just with a measly 33 reviews. The studio wouldn't even screen it for the critics because it's a piece of crap. Stop acting like this movie has gotten some impressively strong critical reception because it hasn't.
Posted By: Jeffrey Harris (Guest) on October 13, 2008 at 06:34 PM
this movie was fucking awesome and better than all this pg13 idiot teenage horror movies that are coming out nowadays. this movie was in production before REC was finished. THEY BOTH BOUGHT THE RIGHTS TO THE SCRIPT, REC DID IT FIRST, QUARANTINE DID IT BETTER
Posted By: kurt (Guest) on October 13, 2008 at 08:36 PM
the blair witch project was my first thought exactally,my second was is there gonna be a part 2. The people caught this if they were bitten so how did the little girl get it? and her father who ran out to get the antibiotic where was he during all this? what was the lab in the basement? it wasnt horrible but im left with alot of questions- maybe thats what they were going for though hell who knows
Posted By: CE (Guest) on October 16, 2008 at 03:29 PM
The virus could be spread through saliva or fluids. Meaning the virus was in the saliva and/or blood and if that got in your system you could get the rabies. The little girl pretty obviously got it from the dog, who probably got it from a rat because the guy upstairs was experimenting with rats.
The lab was in the top suite. It seemed to be a Satanic cult or a cult trying to bring about an armageddon like plague by developing an advanced form of rabies.
Posted By: Jeffrey Harris (Guest) on October 17, 2008 at 02:20 PM
This is just as bad as Cloverfield. OMFG. Both are hard to watch; badperspective to view, poor actors, radiculous long irrelevant intro (not to mention a waste of time), predictable and simple plot. I can tolerate most horror films, but this is one I can't. It totally deserves a 1 out of 10.
Posted By: Horror Movie Fan (Guest) on October 18, 2008 at 04:49 AM
This movie is proof positive that North Americans will watch any garbage that Hollywood throws up on screen.
NO I havent seen this movie, but I saw the trailer, like, about 500 times. Regarding Vidal, my first gut reaction was this woman is annoying. I also agree completely that the problems with most horror films is that the characters are the least interesting thing about the film and that you anticipate and almost could care less when they croak.
I dont need to see it. Been there, done that. Thanks for the review. It was way more entertaining than this movie could ever be. I love the fact that you were honest enough to give it a 1, rather than bash the movie like a lot of reviewers and then hand it a generic 4 or 5.
Posted By: Geoffrey (Guest) on October 18, 2008 at 10:27 AM
You are welcome. The 1 is mainly because I didn't think it deserves anything higher. I found no redeeming value in it. Just bad from top to bottom. Don't see how that warrants a 4 or 5 at all.
Posted By: Jeffrey Harris (Registered) on October 18, 2008 at 10:50 PM
This movie was ok.. but what sucked about it was me wanting to throw up from the motion sickness i got trying to watch it! What do film producers think is so good about this viewpoint?! i had my head between my knees for half of the movie.. i def wont see this movie or any other movie filmed like it ever again!
Posted By: Anthony Doby (Guest) on October 19, 2008 at 07:56 PM
Why is everyone hating on this movie? I is a better horror film then..lets see..every other film made in the last 5 years. The problem is, its just getting too hard too make audiences scared. Moreover, it is getting harder for people to just sit and enjoy a horror film, without some over analyzing, self richeous critic writing a bad review because the movie delt with rabies and the lead character of the movie was a chick. Just quit reviewing movies and just sit down with a girl or maybe a guy, whatever floats your boat, and enjoy a good film. If anyone reads this post, go see the film and don't let critics f it up for you.
Posted By: Josh (Guest) on October 20, 2008 at 12:39 AM
To tell you the truth, I saw this movie on the 18th of October and it is completely awful. Jennifer's lines throughout the film were very amateur. The screeen shots were weak, shaky and cause me to have a migraine-nearly throwing up half of my popcorn. The ending was the preview shown for the movie! Thanks Sony for a crappy film!
Posted By: Stephanie (Guest) on October 20, 2008 at 10:59 AM
SPOILER ALERT
When the end to the movie is the movie poster AND the only memorable scene from the movie AND tv trailers, you've got a major problem.
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on October 30, 2008 at 12:52 AM
You don't have to opt out of the movie from the review alone. A review is still just one opinion. But whatever. The movie was cheap, low budget horror. It made it's money, and will probably make more on DVD. It's still a piece of trash though.
Posted By: Jeffrey Harris (Registered) on November 03, 2008 at 12:26 AM
If the virus is spread through saliva and body fluids then how in the world did the old lady come, the girl, the dog or anyone for that matter come in contact with it; if the girl was locked away in the room. Is it a airborne virus, perhaps a magical virus that appears like that unwanted relative, or maybe a virus that crawled right up to its victims. shed some light.
Posted By: Curious-not bi (Guest) on November 03, 2008 at 03:12 AM
