Quarantine L.A. (2016)

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

This "film" is nothing more than a script of "what not to do while acting". I love Quarantine 1 and 2. I love the Rec films, but this Quarantine LA film is enough for you to wish a zombie infection happened and the actors of this film went first. I'd say the actors were flat, but I am curious if they even had a pulse...or a comprehension of how people even talk. The acting was garbage. The lighting was stupid (you have a light in front of the actor hanging from the ceiling, but close up shots you shine light from the side only? The director is licking-windows special). The film is the prolapsed rectum of the whole series. Gross. Unwatchable. Garbage.

It felt like you were watching it play out in real time.Good for some things,not this. They want me too say more It was as boring as watching Paint dry. Had no real connection to the characters Nor did I care about them. William F looked an acted like a crazy old coot,not a surgeon. The Boobs,well they were boobs for no reason. The infected looked like a bunch of fools at a backyard Halloween party looking for something to do. Have I said enough,it wasted our time,don't let it waste yours. It was a story idea that would've been something,Had the story more meat. I was hoping for it to be better than the M.M. show. If there were only something good to say about it I would,but I can't think of...oh wait it ended.

When people talk about the "good old days" of film they are referring to one of two periods in film history. The first is the classic era of black and white where lighting and shadows were the draw. The second is the time period of the 1960's- late 1970's when movies had you use your imagination to decode what the camera didn't show you, allowing you to draw your own conclusions to what was happening (Think Texas Chainsaw Massacre). What Infected brings to the table is along the lines of the second period of film. We are told little of the infection and are open to draw the conclusion on whether it was truly man made or a natural event from that was harnessed for mass scale testing. In today's market where the "zombie" genre has been so diluted by over marketing and goreification (Walking Dead, George Romero remakes) that most films of the genre almost forget to focus on the people and the personal aspects of the survivors. What Infection does is almost make the virus an afterthought to bring the perspective of the survivors to the forefront. The survivors do fall into the stereotype roles, soldier, child, medic, shady stranger, fool, but the writing does the roles justice. Each character is written for their role wonderfully and the writing does not stray from these types. In the homeopathic era of the 'monster' film it is always good to see that people remember what the genre should be and are still willing to take risks to keep it as fresh as possible.If I had to give a comparison to other movies I would have to say it falls into the area of the Steven King TV movies where a lot of what was going on was done through imagination and dialogue.

I saw this movie at the premiere in Los Angeles. It was excellent with a new twist on the whole zombie thing. The acting was good as well. I loved the prisoner, Jared Quinn especially the Monk like coat he wears. There are no "Old Cobblers" in this movie, that's another movie with the same name. I've seen both movies and this one is much much better. This is my first review, but I just felt that I had to tell people what I saw in the film. The movie also highlights government corruption in the event of an epidemic. The film really makes you wonder how you would survive in Los Angeles if this really happened. Who is more of a threat, the Infected or the Strangers you are with?