Add this factor to the unrelenting tension and first person perspective, and you have two films that will utterly thrill a very very small demographic. There’s nothing that really pushes the boundaries of its given rating for veteran terror aficionados, but the uninitiated may be startled at how consistently gruesome things are.
Rec 1 2 series#
That said, even if you disapprove of the direction the series pivots into, if you’re going to jump the shark, do it with a jetpack right?Ĭontent-wise, these films are hard R for a reason. I personally think the twist is a brilliant bit of genre smashing, but understand that it may upset genre purists. Not only does it throw in this bit of flair at the end of the first movie, but the second fully commits to the idea and expands on it in every possible way. What starts out as a straight-forward, by the numbers tale of horror, goes in a completely different direction than expected at the end of the first film (something the remake ignored completely).
Having a break in between the two really does the excellent atmosphere build-up a disadvantage.ĭespite the thin characters, the series does something really interesting in terms of overall narrative. This is partially why I recommend viewing both in one sitting, REC 1 ends on a high level of tension and REC 2 starts at that level and builds on it. This is not to say the REC films are slow, they trot along at quite the brisk pace, but once the narrative takes off running, it never lets up. The films make up for this by being masterclasses in tension-building, layers of unease and atmosphere are carefully applied over the course of both movies.
Rec 1 2 movie#
The camera is, for a movie of this type, relatively restrained and not nearly as nausea-inducing as it could be, though those who simply can’t stomach much camera movement in general without feeling ill should be warned that the experience still has that unpolished edge that makes first person films so divisive.Ĭharacters as a rule are not deeply developed, and moments when exposition or character building is attempted often rings hollow and comes off as a bit trite. The overall style is first person perspective, yet the story goes to satisfying lengths to justify the cameras being used in the situation, so it generally doesn’t come off as obnoxious as other films who use this camera style can be. Let’s start with things common to both movies, then we’ll go into what makes each film individual. REC 2 begins the moment REC 1 ends and intercuts unseen events that took place in parallel with the first film while continuing where it left off. The benefit of viewing REC 1 and 2 together is that they are amazingly well connected, they feel more like two chapters from the same book rather than two separate stories. There are direct-to-video sequels to Quarantine, but none of them are remakes of the sequels to REC 1.for.some reason. There is literally NO REASON to watch Quarantine while REC 1 exists. Now Quarantine and REC 1 are very similar in premise and general execution except Quarantine boasts terrible acting, a severe downgrade in camerawork, and they simply forgot to include REC 1’s memorable and unique twist in the third act. REC 1 has been remade in the United States, albeit very poorly, as the movie Quarantine. As far as REC 4 continues the story but isn’t really essential viewing like the first two. REC 3 is a VERY DIFFERENT kind of movie than its predecessors and would best be viewed and reviewed as a separate entity. There’s something lurking in the shadows and escape seems impossible, what results across these two films is a terrifying, gripping, and inventive thrill ride.įirst things first, there are four REC movies and yet I’m only reviewing the first two. A television crew, a group of tenants, and a team of firefighters are cut off from the outside world one night.
0 kommentar(er)
