Quarantine Poster

Quarantine (2008)

Horror  
Rayting:   6.0/10 70.5K votes
Country: USA
Language: English
Release date: 10 October 2008

A television reporter and her cameraman are trapped inside a building quarantined by the CDC, after the outbreak of a mysterious virus which turns humans into bloodthirsty killers.

Movie Trailer

Where to Watch

User Reviews

track_42000 10 October 2008

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.

astroass34 10 October 2008

Fmovies: 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.

moselekm 21 January 2010

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.

Simon_Says_Movies 21 October 2008

Quarantine fmovies. 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 b

austrumubanka 12 February 2009

May be my vote is so high, because I haven't seen the original, however it makes my judgment more objective, because I didn't have to compare anything except other horror movies, which use cheap camera from first person, which seems like is a new trend of all horror movies. And this is the only thing I don't like - may be the movie would not be so capturing if it would be taken in classic style, in other words, in my opinion such technique does not make so much effort from the director to make the scenes scary. On the other hand, due to lack of frame cutting there is very high pressure on actors. Whatever some here comment that they did not like the play of leading actress, I think she was very good, surprisingly good for quite unknown actress. Perhaps many thought that those hysteria scenes were exaggerated, but I'm sure that people in similar situations act exactly so disconnectedly. It seems that Jay Hernandez is slowly gaining his future popularity and I have nothing against it, he has quite good potential.

justin_currie 21 October 2008

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

Similar Movies

7.4
Nope

Nope 2022

6.7
Fresh

Fresh 2022

6.6
X

X 2022

5.2
Morbius

Morbius 2022

5.9
Crimes of the Future

Crimes of the Future 2022

4.7
Choose or Die

Choose or Die 2022

6.1
Men

Men 2022

5.7
Bhool Bhulaiyaa 2

Bhool Bhulaiyaa 2 2022


Share Post

Direct Link

Markdown Link (reddit comments)

HTML (website / blogs)

BBCode (message boards & forums)

Watch Movies Online | Privacy Policy
Fmovies.guru provides links to other sites on the internet and doesn't host any files itself.