I watched this last night and enjoyed it quite a bit. Had some very effective spooky moments. And those last 15 minutes were incredibly intense. Definitely one of the better horror films we've had lately.

I prefer '[Rec]' by a damn sight.

But 'Quarantine' wasn't as horrible as I expected it to be.

This wasnt a huge bomb in theaters I guess but Its still very sad that something like Quarantine which is the scariest US film I have seen makes less in its total US run than the crappy (and frightless) Friday the 13th made in its first 2 or 3 days. Plus Quarantine had interesting characters and a decent cast.

^
It grossed $40 million off a $12 million budget. Not a huge hit, but by no means a bomb.

Glad to see some people really enjoyed this. Since I really dig the shaky cam first person thing, I decided to rent this last night. What I wasn't expecting was to be freaked out and creeped out - this movie was fucked up and awesome.

Is REC really that much better? I mean, are people just saying that because quarantine is a remake? I want to see it now (REC) but is it just more atmosphere shit that people are bragging about or is it even more creepier? Just asking because I thought quarantine pretty much nailed it.

Also -

ugh. you're part of the problem. [REC] is above and beyond much better.

I would tend to belive that is probably the case, but I will gladly watch REC and judge for myself if it ever becomes easily aquirable in R1.

Actually, your response is typical of what the problem is. I basically was asking what made [REC] so much better and this is what you replied with.

It's true, most people (and myself included at times) will dismiss remakes simply because they are remakes. I thought quarantine was a solid horror film and was pleased to see that it had a nice pace a was tense as all hell.

I'm going to try and get my hands on [REC] tonight and give it a spin to judge for myself but honestly....your response was the typcial "I need to stand up for this movie" response. In no way was I bashing the film at all (especially since I haven't even seen one frame of the film yet - including a trailer...or maybe I have but just forgot about it).

I watched [.REC] last week and it did nothing for me. Actually it did manage to do one thing, annoy me. This "shaky videocam POV will scare you more because it feels more realistic" approach gets on my nerves. Buy your cameraman a friggin steadycam.

I saw this a few weeks back and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm a former news cameraman myself and was impressed with how accurate a lot of what they shot was (standups, walk-and-talks, etc.) and had no problems following the action or dealing with the "shaky cam" because I'm used to looking through a lens and reviewing tape that does that occasionally.

And I doubt that [REC] is truly that much better. As far as this story goes, I think they told it pretty well. I doubt another movie could tell the same story exponentially better. If anything, it's probably just a marginal improvement, but people get hung up on the remake thing.

Plus I think they like knowing it's a remake and telling anyone who enjoyed the movie that the original is better...just to show some cinematic elitism or something.

Watched this recently.

I absolutely loved [REC] and wasn't too happy a remake was already out. After watching the remake, I have to say I really enjoyed it. Some of the kills/death scenes were very fun/creative in the remake.

Might be pick it up if I ever see the BD for under $10

So what did you think? I'm curious as to your opinion because we have the same viewpoints on remakes.

Saw Quarantine tonight. Was ok, but not amazing. Pretty good for one of those trendy shakey cam movies. I'd give it 3.5 out of 5 stars (meaning, I enjoyed it and don't regret buying it used).

The trailer for [rec] was on the DVD and it looked cool (certainly looked like it had much better lighting).

Also want to know if Quarantine is really a "shot for shot" remake of [rec], because if it is, it looks like in the commentary & 10 minute documentary that the directors for Quarantine are taking a lot of credit for this movie.

Just saw it on BD.
I liked quarantine, and the whole first person thing, but the trailer really ruined the ending for me.

Hi!

This is my first message in this forum and I must say to you that my English is very bad (sorry, I'm from Spain).

Anyway, it's sufficient to recommend to you [REC] and the future sequel, [REC]2... Really terrifying!

Quarantine is a remake so equal to the original one that is better directly to watch the original: [REC]

Was I understood?

Yeah, me too. I try and try to avoid trailers, but somehow some scenes still get by me.

SO i ended up seeing [REC] and I have to say I definitely thought Quarantine was better. Everything from the acting, the better extended set-up, more time to introduce and get to know the characters, the scares and by far the ending was superior in Quarantine. The ending in [REC] was pretty weak compared to the horrifying ending of Quarantine. Still both films are very good and among the scariest films I have seen.

Just watched both the original and the remake for the first time thanks to the horror challenge.
I actually give the U.S. version a slight edge in pacing and for a better image of a nightmarish world

But I thought [REC] had a more creepy conclusion. I was correct in thinking that Quarantine wouldn't be able to top the looks of the "Final monster" that was seen in the original, BUT I felt cheated out of the entire mode when that dumb metal song appeared for the end credits.
Had [Rec] ended with the natural, surrounding sounds that was done in Quarantine, then I'm certain I would have a candidate for my most favorite, chilling climax ever for a horror film.

I'm anxious to see how both sequels will go.

Sorry for the late response I fianlly saw rec about 2 months ago.

I like Quarantine a lot more. I thought the pace was much tighter, the ending was done MUCH better than in rec, and the tension and creepiness...was surprisingly more than just a little better as well.

Having said that, REC is by no means a bad movie. I do give the edge to REC in one department as well....the little girl who became infected - that was well done and very tense.

I wasn't going into REC with any bad intentions either - I was excited to see it but again, Quarantine was much more satisfying for me.

I started this in another thread, not realizing this one was here ...

Saw Quarrantine in the theaters (loved it!) and [Rec] on video a few nights ago. I'd give the edge to Quarrantine. I wouldn't call it a shot-for-shot remake, but it wasn't too far off.

Quarrantine, IMO, did a much better developing the characters (even though there were more of them) and giving them a little bit of depth. In a strange twist, [Rec] spent a little more time on -- almost to the point that we were being beat over the head with it.

Acting wise, the edge goes to [Rec]. That could be explaiend by their use of primarily unknown actors who had experience with the jobs they were portraying.

Storywise, I again give the nod to Quarrantine. The "explanation" was not quite as far of a stretch as [Rec], and seemed not to (again) beat the viewer over the head (even thought the reveal was presented in much the same way).

I think it is great that viewers seem to be split fairly evenly on which is better ... with very few flatout dismissing one or the other. Ultimately, you can't go wrong either way.

And for the record ... I thought both Ring and Ringu blew.

I just caught this and thought it was great. Definitely the best of the "shaky cam" movies. This would have been a perfect Resident Evil movie. I liked the acting and thought it was very believable. I even enjoyed the set up in the beginning and thought it was much better then in Cloverfield.

One thing I really don't like about these first person movies is that it always leaves me wanting more as to the background story.

So in Quarantine the guy living in the attic from Boston is part of a cult that wanted to infect the world and experimented with rats but became infected himself?

How is this different then in [rec]? It was some sort of demon possession? That doesn't seem like it would fit too well. What was the monster at the end that everyone is talking about?

I finally saw this last night and thought it was pretty good for this type of film, although as many have already mentioned, whoever cut that trailer should be out of a job. The last few minutes were pretty tense, but I knew what was coming next due to the shot in the trailer...total bullshit.

The way that I followed it is: In [rec] the source is a girl who is "possessed" and the Vatican wants her dead ... the "investigator" assigned by the Vatican doesn't agree and kidnaps her instead ... from there he begins reseach and believes he has isolated a "possession virus." It is really unclear what/who the creature in the attic is -- is it the girl? Is it the investigator? Is it the demon? None of those answers really seem to fit.

One inconsistancy in both movies though is how the virus reacts ... if the creature in the attic is resultant of the virus, why does it seem to have affected everybody else differently? (I suppose one could argue that the virus will "tame" itself over time, allowing the host to gain some semblance of rationality/consciuos thought. The "creature" has been living with the virus for an unknown period of time whereas the residents were recently exposed.

watched this last night and very tense movie, though I almost turned it off during the first 25 minutes which are very boring and badly acted, once the crap starts happening the movie really gets pretty awesome.