Michael Ledo I thought the first movie was lousy. I watched this one with extreme prejudice. The movie starts building the characters of 2 stewardesses. Then as they help and greet passengers we get a glimpse of the passenger backgrounds. We already know there is going to be an infection, but who? The co-pilot is sick. He thinks he got it from his dog. There is a woman on board from an apartment building. Her cat is with her. The cat had left the building which she claims is very unusual. There is a man with some hamsters. Another man helps him with the hamsters and gets bit. There is an elderly man who is sick along with his wife, and a woman who has just returned from overseas, and a few others. A man is watching the events unfold from outside the apartment building from the first picture on his laptop. This one picks up where the other leaves off except the action is in an airplane.Once a passenger gets infected and isolated in the restroom, the plane is told to land. It hooks up to a terminal where they are quarantined. Now it is just a matter of who lives and who dies.The first thing I noticed is they got rid of the hand held camera nonsense and had enough money to make this into a regular movie. They still jerked the camera around when an infected human attacked to give you that terror feel. The animal sounds made by the infected humans didn't seem to be real or coming from the people making them. There is room for improvement as they kept the door open for an infinite amount of sequels.Acting was a lot better than the first one. Better story line. Quick and effective introduction of characters before the action starts.MF/F-bomb, no nudity, some implied sex, no real sex scenes.

Stephen Abell This film is a rare creature indeed - A sequel that's better than the original. Let me just state it's a sequel to a bad American adaptation of a Spanish film "REC". I am a fan of the Spanish movies but I have to give respect and credit to writer and director John Pogue for not giving the audience another weak version. Instead of going the religious route of "REC" 2 , Terminal escalates the fear of terrorist attack with a man- made killer virus. This alteration gives both films a more solid footing in reality and puts it into the thriller genre instead of horror.Once again the action takes place in the tight confines of a restricted location. This time we are placed in a small aeroplane then we move to the baggage handling section of the terminal. These settings give the audience the feelings of claustrophobia and the threat of being trapped with no escape, especially in the plane.Pogue does a good job of creating an atmosphere of tension and anguish that keeps the viewers entertained and interested. Where this film starts to falter is in the last third. The story goes out the door as people just run about screaming and killing. The action isn't great and the use of speeding up the film is atrocious and reduces the films strength. To be honest, I cannot explain why this is the case as Pogue does well with the action in the earlier action scenes - the shot of the thundering unstoppable mass of a man barrelling down the aisle of the plane is a great shot and well executed. He is also adept at controlling the flow and pace of the story and interweaving the various atmospheres.Another thing that suffers at the same stage is the acting and characterisations. On the whole, the performances are above average but when the mayhem breaks out the skills disappear. It is actually the last section of this film which reduces the rating. For example, the opening sequence where we're introduced to the stewardesses and the pilots it a solidly realistic and interesting scene, which even introduces a thread of tenseness: Whereas, towards the end of the film there's a scene where two characters are on their way to possible freedom when they have to face the possibility that one of them is infected; a previously strong and logical character is suddenly overly emotional and illogical. This sudden flick-of-the-switch change once again diminishes the film's potency.This is a well crafted, acted, and filmed story. It's well worth a watch, especially if you enjoyed the American version of "REC"; it even works as a stand-alone as there are references to what happened in the previous movie as this story is set in the same timeline. Remember: If you're a fan of the Spanish movies then you have to realise this has nothing to do with them and follows a different and alternate storyline. Though I won't watch the original Quarantine again I may watch this once more... even though it may be in another ten years.

pr65 I'm not sure why this film has such a low rating on IMDb. There are, in my opinion, some truly terrifying scenes helped by some convincing acting and perfectly decent special effects. The 'affected' humans are excellent. It's a horror film, and I've seen plenty of horror films from bigger studios and with bigger budgets that are not frightening in any way, and are forgotten five minutes after you've finished watching them. OK, two minutes afterwards...It's grim, dark and unrelenting. If you like the Walking Dead (also grim, dark and unrelenting), then give it a try.I might have to check out Quarantine 1....

Wizard-8 I thought that the first "Quarantine" movie was just okay, so I was not expecting that much with this sequel, seeing that it was released straight to DVD. Though I watch straight to DVD movies all the time, I know all too well that more limited budgets make it harder for these movies to stand up to their theatrical predecessors.Actually, I didn't find this movie too bad. Though low budget, it doesn't really look that cheap at any moment. It's well photographed and effectively lit. It helps that they actually filmed on a real airplane, and apparently at a real airport where most of the movie unfolds. It moves at a brisk pace, so there are no dull spots. And there are a few intense spots. This movie doesn't reinvent the wheel, but horror genre fans will find it an agreeable way to pass the time.