Rec 2

Have you ever seen a baseball player during a baseball game? I mean the moment when he attentively watches the pitcher's movement, carefully prepares the bat, and calculates every fraction of a second of his decisive hit - to place the ball, zooming at a terrifying speed, right in your crotch. That's the feeling I had after a few shots of this horror spectacle, which film fans honored on FilmBooster. Not only that but in the following minutes, it seemed that the batter, frustrated by an unsuccessful hit, ran toward me with the bat in hand and delivered a series of painful blows to my most sensitive areas. I have no words for what happened on the television screen - well, no decent words. The expressions that come to mind are usually used when a hammer falls on my little finger or when my foot slides into dog excrement. The absence of any logic in the film characters. A screenplay that could have only been created as a joke or a cruel trick by filmmakers on the audience. A police commando, to be sent on an extremely important mission that reeks of a huge disaster, consists of members whose stupidity surpasses all limits, they must have been cast in a global casting call. The inhabitants of the house affected by the epidemic scream, wildly swing their arms, and without exception, do the last thing that would come to mind when facing a real threat. The constant instructions to use cameras to document what is seen here lack any logic, although this doesn't matter because practically everything lacks logic here. However, this dreadful experience raises the question of how sane I was when I gave the first film a rating of 3 stars. I must have been slightly affected by dementia or influenced by some chemical. Such a decline in quality is not possible between two parts and practically the same crew. Overall impression: triple underscore zero. (03/03/2015)

On one hand, it's nice that it directly follows the first film, but on the other hand, it's nothing more than a repetition of what happened in the first film, except that we mostly see everything from the perspective of soldiers tasked with evacuating the building or, rather, figuring out what actually happened. It’s decent enough, but it's not something that blew me away. (27/08/2016)

If it had been made in Hollywood, I think of how overseas scouts liquidate talent, but Balagueró and Plaza have clearly liquidated themselves. The main trump card of the first film, the nagging feeling that all it takes is a little religious insanity for a similar situation to arise, is demolished by a series of backward explanations that kick logic in the head and destroy all tension. This is helped by stereotypical police SWAT characters, an utterly moronic trio of teenagers, and one absolutely "WTF?!" resurrection. It wasn't boring (although the lack of longer "steady cams" hurts), but it pissed me off (after half an hour permanently), and that's worse. 1 ½ stars for the bloody details. The rest gets both middle fingers up! (25/02/2010)

The first instalment escalated gradually, from zero to full-throttle horror trance that made even the toughest viewers sh*t themselves with fear. The second part picks up where the first left off so seamlessly that the film could be put together in a single whole. On a scale of 1 to 100, the pace of the second part starts at sixty and stays there until the climax, where it increases to eighty. You won’t relate to the characters much, as it’s an action-packed joyride full of 3D shoot-outs, running demons, cynical humor and sometimes too much camera shake, and in places, the characters behave so strangely that you can see that the filmmakers are actually making fun of them. You can feel from the film that it was created only thanks to the success of the first instalment, but at the same time it retains great creative trademarks and works with previous events so that fans do not end up upset or disappointed. Its only goal is to provide entertainment. In fact, it is a similar shift from a serious horror movie to an action flick as in the first two "Whatever" of the Dead Romero movies or Raimi’s Evil Dead movies. Paco Plaza and Jaume Balagueró are men in the right place and they did well in not trying to overshadow the film’s predecessor. I give four stars for the above-mentioned trademarks (in the hands of any other directors, the script wouldn’t stand a chance of getting more than three stars) and I am looking forward to the apocalypse in part three. Hopefully with Plaza and Balaguero. (10/02/2010)

[REC] 2 fleshes out the reasons for the events of the first installment, and that's one of the reasons why the film might downright piss some people off. Personally, I didn't find a problem with it, and *POTENTIAL SPOILER* enriching the zombie horror with elements of exorcist horror didn't seem like a downright bad idea. What sinks the film, however, are the main characters and the hellish lack of logic. They make the film quite confusing at times. Of course, the characters are incredibly stupid, the band of kids with a camera got on my nerves like few things do. Until those three stupid people disappeared from the picture, I honestly suffered. So why the four stars? Incredibly great and unscrupulous gore and at times strong suspense. Fantastically masked creatures and legendary headshots (I had a good laugh at one). And the scene of the shotgun blasting the head off the little boy is awesome. That's why I’m rating the film the way I am. (12/04/2010)