For me, a great horror movie produces similar feelings, though the fear is less visceral and the thrill more cerebral. Some of these on-screen simulations have the power to instill us with a sense of dread and despair that lasts long after the movie is over, but most don’t manage to live up to the hype. If the original [Rec] was as ominous and satisfying as my first rollercoaster experience, [Rec] 2 was like the wait in line before it – plenty of suspense but it left me wanting more.

It takes place immediately after the events of the first film as we follow a SWAT team that’s been called to the site of the infected apartment complex. After arriving on the scene they’re told to escort Dr. Owen (a virologist from the Ministry of Health) into the building as they carry out an “inspect and recognition” sweep of the building. It’s clear from the start that these men are doomed as even the SWAT chief isn’t sure who he’s taking orders from; but it doesn’t take long before the true nature of their mission is revealed.

We get a few different perspectives this time around since the SWAT team is equipped with cameras on their helmets, and there’s also a split in the narrative halfway through when we’re introduced to three teenagers who manage to sneak into the complex with a camcorder. These two storylines dovetail seamlessly but it doesn’t really go anywhere.

All of this does little to further the story and it feels more like a novelty trick to cover up the paper-thin characters and shoddy writing, as we see people we know nothing about get killed on-screen. Dr. Owen (played by Jonathan Mellor) was the only character I found interesting but we don’t learn enough about him.

Many of the details about the infection that were hinted at in the first movie are fully utilized here and this sequel uses almost relentless suspense and frequent shocks to keep the viewer glued to their seat. All this builds to a twisted, if slightly predictable, ending but I missed the slow burn and mysterious nature of the first film, which was the best thing about [Rec]. Once the secret behind the infection was revealed, the movie took on a far more sinister tone and didn’t give you a moment to catch your breath before the suspense was ramped up and the film sent you headlong towards the harrowing climax.

To be fair, I don’t think the duo behind [Rec] 2 (director’s Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza) were looking to leave the viewer with any lingering unease but, judging by the enormous critical acclaim they got for [Rec], I guess I was expecting something with a little more substance. Instead, this movie comes off more like a carnival ride, where the cheap fun stops soon after the film ends.

Even though I’d recommend it to anyone who’s seen the first film (which was much closer to the “real” thing), this is more of a crowd-pleaser with some predictable scares and plenty of twists and turns. It’s not as subtle or intriguing as the first movie but the thrills and scares from the first film are multiplied to create a suffocating atmosphere that rivals what we get in many modern horror films.

The desolate London setting is eerily evocative as Colin embarks on a series of bizarre episodes – he survives an attempted mugging, unwittingly ventures into a gruesome cellar in which a nutcase is keeping female zombies captive, survives the violence and brutality of a vigilante gang dedicated to the destruction of his kind, and is eventually kidnapped by a gang who turn out to be led by his sister. Throughout these episodes Price and his dedicated crew ladle the gore around liberally to ensure that Colin doesn’t pull its punches when it comes to scenes of violence. After his initial bemusement Colin is more than happy to join in with his fellow diners, but his attachment to an MP3 player suggests he is not entirely a lost cause. By the halfway stage the film lurches from its meandering episodic narrative structure to suddenly emerge as a highly emotive and touching exploration of familial breakdown. Colin becomes a tragic figure of epic proportions as he pathetically scratches the window to attract the attention of a sister who will soon succumb to the zombie disease. The film then bravely shifts to a flashback which shows all the events leading up to Colin’s fateful encounter with his brother in their kitchen. The narrative comes full circle as Colin trudges through the snow to the flat of his girlfriend, as he finally achieves his placement in a suddenly chaotic universe.

Only on occasion does Price deviate from the perspective of Colin, and these moments are among the weaker aspects of the film. A rather strange scene for example sees a number of people trapped in a house full of zombies, it is a nonsensical scene only there for purposes of graphic bloodletting. Fortunately such concessions to the marketplace are few and far between and Colin generally speaking adheres to its own set of internal logistics. The lack of dialogue, the profusion of poorly lit sequences (the night time scenes especially suffer), and the general poverty of the film may put some viewers off. But the importance of Colin lies in its relationship to the sub-genre it sits in, rather than the means of its production and distribution.

This is a remake of a relatively unknown Romero film of the same name and features an interesting storyline that, no doubt, influenced movies like [Rec], 28 Days Later and even the Resident Evil video games. This updated version wears its influences on its sleeve with several shots that reminded me of some classic sci-fi/horror films and there was also a half-hearted attempt at socio-political commentary, which doesn’t delve as deeply into the climate of paranoia as effectively as it could have (I thought this worked better in the original).

The film begins with an opening sequence depicting a deserted downtown district in flames and foreshadowing the chaos that will come to Ogden Marsh Township – a tiny community of 1,200 in rural Iowa. It then quickly shifts gears and shows the town two days prior with people going about their business, farmers preparing cornfields for the spring, kids riding their bikes (all tastefully set to Johnny Cash’s version of We’ll Meet Again).

It’s at a local baseball game, however, that things start to go awry after a man walks onto the field armed with a shotgun and has to be shot by Sheriff David Dutton (Timothy Olyphant). He initially believes the man was intoxicated but Dutton soon learns that this wasn’t the case and discovers that the local water supply might be contaminated. What caused the contamination and why is it causing people to act dangerously? Dutton finds out that the problem is much bigger than he imagined.

Even though this movie will appear derivative today (how many zombie movies have we seen about a virus infecting a town or community?) it’s still got enough tension to keep viewers engaged. In fact, I thought director Breck Eisner did a great job at pacing the film and having it build towards the climactic finale. A lot of movies today fail to deliver in the end but this was really satisfying.

The script isn’t bad but there were some moments when I thought the dialogue was pretty poor and the performances were similarly hit-or-miss throughout the film (though they did a good job with the casting). Joe Anderson was consistently excellent as Deputy Russell Clank, though. Many horror movie clichés we usually let slide were pushed to their absolute limits (almost to the point of parody), and the way some of the characters cheated death were ridiculous – I’m all for suspending disbelief but towards the end they pushed it a little too far.

If you’re a fan of zombie flicks or are just looking for an exhilarating movie that’ll keep you entertained for an evening this might be worth checking out.

Pontypool (which is based on Tony Burgess’ book Pontypool Changes Everything) relies heavily on its storyline, a great script and strong performances from its cast instead of the more traditional emphasis on scenes of flesh-eating zombies. It isn’t very violent – blood and guts are used sparingly – and the body count is probably the lowest I’ve seen in any movie about the living dead.

But there’s something deeply satisfying about Pontypool and part of it is its concept for the virus infecting the town, which (though a little half-baked) is truly original and gives the film political undertones. The setting of a radio station in the midst of a snowstorm adds to the feeling of isolated claustrophobia, as we watch the crew try and make sense of what’s going on outside; it also calls to mind the paranoia generated by Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds radio hoax. Stephen McHattie deserves a special mention for his excellent performance as outspoken, world-weary radio show host Grant Mazzy.

The film begins with a monologue that will sound like poetic nonsense, with words blending into one another in a kind of stream of consciousness conspiracy theory tirade, but this is an important clue as to what will happen to the town that day.

Grant Mazzy, a hard-drinking morning radio host for the small Canadian town of Pontypool, is on his way to work in the early morning hours of Valentine’s Day, when he encounters a strange woman who keeps repeating everything he says before mysteriously disappearing. Like a true professional, Mazzy decides to use the experience as a topic for his show and poses the question, “When do you call 911?” to his listeners.

But it soon becomes clear that this isn’t an isolated incident and things aren’t quite right in Pontypool. There are reports of a strange “hostage” situation involving drunken ice fishermen and reports of a mob attacking a local clinic. As the show’s producer, Sydney Briar (Lisa Houle), and radio technician Laurel-Ann Drummond (Georgina Reilly) try to verify reports, they begin to find some unsettling facts. The radio station’s weather reporter, Ken Loney (a great voice-acting performance by Rick Roberts), is one of the only reliable, outside sources for the radio crew but even he struggles to find words to describe what he’s seeing.

There aren’t many conventional scares in this movie, but the way director Bruce McDonald builds suspense and an air of mystery during the first hour is much better than any jump-out-your-seat frights he might have served up. The film also has a good sense of humor and the tension between Mazzy and Sydney provides some hilarious moments, like when Grant is told that Ken plays sound effects from his truck to make it sound like the “Sunshine Chopper”. I think it lost some steam during the last half hour and details about how the virus could be stopped were never fully explained, but the apocalyptic ending made up for it.

This is a movie about the power of words – what they’re capable of and how they can be manipulated into something that does or doesn’t have meaning. With the ongoing “War on Terror”, this could be read as a statement warning us of the perils of labeling people and destroying what we don’t understand as a quick fix for a problem we can’t be bothered to deal with any longer. However, all of this is subtly implied in this well-crafted movie and it’s not until the climax that the political angle is made clear.

Pontypool won’t be to everyone’s liking, especially for viewers expecting buckets of blood. But for anyone looking for a zombie movie with brains (that don’t get eaten), this could be the perfect movie for a quiet night in.

Perhaps too much allegorical interpretation has been laid at the doorstep of Romero’s startling debut picture. Within its narrative it also addresses, with no subtlety whatsoever, the question of race relations and the civil rights movement. The lynch mob imagery which populates the second half of the film creates a mood of nihilism uncommon for the horror genre, and the death of the black hero (an inspired casting move) at the conclusion offers only despair and desolation. The zombie disease is a disease of whiteness and part of the terror of this condition is the conformity and mindlessness it breeds. This is vision of a white Middle America controlled by a single impulse, the impulse in this case is to eat. But what it ultimately suggests is a pliable population – one that can be duped and controlled, and in the light of Watergate several years later this emerges as a prescient observation.

In other ways however this film is not that successful. The performances are generally dreadful. Its attitude to gender is far from progressive, offering us two women in extreme positions of culturak cliché. The one is romantic eye-candy, the other in a state of mute catatonia. Romero often finds himself relying all too frequently on Hitchcockian devices, and the sound design is amateurish. For the horror genre this film represented a major breakthrough in screen violence, offering us the sight of internal organs being eaten by blood crazed zombies. It is arguable whether this has ultimately been of benefit to the genre, especially in light of recent claims which suggest modern horror films are all gore and violence and nothing else. However these are minor grievances but ones that need to be aired to provide a little balance. Ultimately this film remains a white hot distillation of cultural anxieties in late 1960’s America, and led eventually to a franchise of five films, that each took a turn to address moments of ideological crisis in America’s history. This first entry remains the most interesting, both at the level of its political commitment, and at the level of its challenging fusion of documentary style aesthetics with the more exploitative aspects of the horror film.