Review: REC 1 & 2

Dir. Jaume Balaguero & Paco Plaza (2007 & 2009)

A television crew, a group of tenants, and a team of firefighters are cut off from the outside world one night. 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.

First things first, there are four REC movies and yet I’m only reviewing 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. As far as REC 4 goes...it continues the story but isn’t really essential viewing like the first two. 

REC 1 has been remade in the United States, albeit very poorly, as the movie Quarantine. 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. There is literally NO REASON to watch Quarantine while REC 1 exists. There are direct-to-video sequels to Quarantine, but none of them are remakes of the sequels to REC 1...for...some reason.

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. 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. 

Let’s start with things common to both movies, then we’ll go into what makes each film individual. 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. 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. 

Characters 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 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. 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. 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. Having a break in between the two really does the excellent atmosphere build-up a disadvantage.

Despite the thin characters, the series does something really interesting in terms of overall narrative. 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). 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. I personally think the twist is a brilliant bit of genre smashing, but understand that it may upset genre purists. 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?

Content-wise, these films are hard R for a reason. 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. 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. Where the remake goes for cheap cg effects and compositing tricks, REC 1 and 2 are old school to the bone and feature practical effects and creatures so gruesome that even the most hardcore of viewer will squirm a bit here and there. The first film in particular shows a creature that almost defies practical implementation, yet is the result of an actor with a visibly apparent medical condition and fantastic prosthetic effects. It’s this level of tangibility that really elevates both films.

Both films are not reliant on jump-scares, relying instead on genuine scares and mounting atmosphere to sell the terror. This is not to say, however, that jump-scares do not exist. They aren’t plentiful, never feel cheap, and only ever exist as a payoff rather than a replacement for a proper fright. These startling moments serve to punctuate the rising feelings of claustrophobia and panic over the course of these two films, rather than attempting to be the meat on the bones themselves. 

REC 1 is probably the most elegantly constructed of the two films. It’s pace is pitch-perfect and the characters are thin enough for the plot to rocket along yet have enough character to give the audience people to root for or against. Our point of view is constrained to a single camera, and our protagonists have excellent reasons to keep filming the events that follow. The plot twist is expertly delivered and the movie ends with a bang, leaving the audience desperate to know what happens next. This sort of ending, without the second film on hand however, could actually be seen as pretty terrible. I can’t really fault the movie for it’s ending though as the first two REC films were shot back to back, implying this is how they are meant to be viewed. 

REC 2 begins with the music from the end credits of the first, playing on the radio in our opening shot. It’s a small detail, but it shows how dedicated to their own story the filmmakers were. The second film is the one that pushes the story further, but also makes more missteps than the first. Our base of characters is expanded, and the new characters are fleshed out much more than our returning characters from REC 1. Unfortunately, I personally found about half of these new characters to be generally annoying human beings and I suspect I’m not alone in this. Fortunately, we don’t spend much time with this group of people. Our cameras are expanded as well, with half the new characters having helmet-cams, adding some fresh life to the first-person view of the first movie. Depending on how you felt about the twist in the first film may color how much you enjoy this one. At the end of the day though, REC 2 has some neat genre tricks up its sleeve that you simply won’t find anywhere else. Much like REC 1, the ending isn’t as solid as viewers may hope, but it feel like a much better place to close the narrative and allows the audience’s imaginations to run wild with the possibilities.

Bafflingly, REC 3 does not continue this story-line but has it’s own story to tell with all new characters. REC 4 picks up where 2 leaves off, but as a whole, REC 2 leaves off in a place I personally find to be a satisfying enough close to the series.

Should you see REC 1 and 2? If you are in the mood for a bizarre, claustrophobic, terrifying, unique, gory, white-knuckle of a thrill-ride, REC 1 and 2 are prime candidates for your next double-feature adventure! If unrelenting tension, moderately realistic and pervasive gore, and first person cameras put you off, these are very much so not the films for you.

-Josh Evans