[I have to say, this movie was intense. It started off kind of slow, but once they reached the apartment complex, the pace picked up considerably before dropping off for a little bit, and then hitting hard again non-stop to the end. My adrenaline was constantly pumping, my heart going fast, and I even jumped a few times.]
This still holds true. In fact, the fire station stuff seemed to be even longer in this version, though there was a lot more comedy this time around to get through it. However, whereas the original bounced in pace, this one never really slowed down much after it hit the apartment complex.
one of the movie's major downfalls is that it focuses primarily on the
intensity and not the characters. The only characters I really had any
kind of feeling for were Angela and [Scott]. There are a few
introductions to characters during the middle slow part of the movie,
but not enough to really get a good feel for them. You know they're
just there to raise the body count. The movie would have been much
better had they extended the incredibly short length of the movie (it
clocks in, without credits, at less than 80 minutes) in order to focus
more on character development.
If you haven't figured it out yet, this movie is shot in a similar fashion to The Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield, and Diary of the Dead (except it was out before the latter two). But as I said, it didn't have the same character focus that, say, Cloverfield had. I didn't care about [Scott] in the same fashion that I cared about Hud. But enough about the characters.]
This was remedied slightly in this version. However, while Quarantine does have the brief interview section that the original had, it's much shorter and doesn't get around to all of the people within the complex, making for even fewer times to get to know the other characters. But on the other hand, I felt for the fireman Jake and the policeman, as well, which I didn't feel in the original version. Also, the cameraman Scott (Pablo in the original) is actually shown quite a few times, unlike in [REC], where he's not shown at all. I felt this made for more of a personal connection, letting us at least see him a couple times (like with Hud in Cloverfield).
[The visuals of the movie are really good. There are some cool shots and angles, and quite a few less-is-more approach shots, in which you only see quick glimpses before the camera pans away, or you only hear noises. There are some great uses of the camera, as well, such as the night vision and the camera light (much like in the subway scene of Cloverfield). Though there was a rewind/fast-forward sequence that didn't make sense, because as far as I'm aware (though I could be wrong), you can't record yourself rewinding and fast-forwarding.]
My favorite scene from the original (the upper window into medical room sequence) made it into this version, so that made me really happy, though I think it was filmed better in the original. Also, I was incredibly happy with the fact that the one scene goes toward the whole rewind/fast-forward scene (just like in the original), but then doesn't show it and just cuts to the next scene. It's like they listened to me on that point! Overall, I think the camera work was pretty equal to the original, though this version didn't mind showing more gore and whatnot, and it never cut away as quickly.
[As for the zombies, they look really creepy from what you see of them (like I said, quick glimpses). Though they're almost more like The Infected from the 28 _____ Later films, except I would moreso argue that these are actually zombies, unlike the ones in those films. The origin of the zombies is somewhat attempted to be explained, but isn't fully done so, which I think is nice. Movies that try to explain their monsters sometimes end up hokier than they would have been otherwise. Instead, it leaves it more up to speculation.]
As I said, you do see a lot more of them in this version, though only by a little bit. And here's where I have my biggest comments. The entire explanation was changed for this version, and I find that very intriguing. In the original, it was a very religious explanation from what was shown, which was very little. In this version, a lot more explanation into what was going on was given, and it was totally scientific instead. So I think the switch from religion to science in the adaptation from Spanish to American is highly interesting. And because of this switch, the zombies are totally different. They start like something from one of the 28 ______ Later films, but then become more zombie-like (with the whole dead and coming back to life thing, which doesn't happen in the aforementioned films). But they still act more like The Infected, and the reasoning isn't too far off from those, either. So it's really odd, but it works.
[The acting is done really well, mostly from the lead actress, [Jennifer Carpenter]. I really didn't notice many (if any) parts that really brought me out of the movie due to poor acting.]
I'd have to change this up for the new version. Jennifer Carpenter started to get really annoying towards the end. Her constant freaking out and screaming and whining started to really bug me. There was also one poorly acted part from the main police officer. Otherwise, the acting was well done. I'd say the best performance went to the man behind the camera, Steve Harris.
Overall, it had some parts better than the original, and some parts that the original did better. I'd still recommend both, but for a few different reasons. I think they build off each other. Though they end exactly the same way, and the trailer does, indeed, completely ruin the movie. I mean... completely. Other than that, it was a pretty intense movie, and I was pretty engrossed by it the entire time. So yeah... fun stuff.