Cell (I) (2016) User Reviews

forgettable, but not necessarily terrible

[Quinoa1984 · 5/10 · 21 February 2017]

Considering I went into Cell with abysmally low expectations, it turned out to be not too bad. Not that this necessarily means that it's all good, but there are some good things I can say about this. I'm pretty sure, from what I've heard about the book (at best it's liked but not loved, sort of a middle-tier King work, not one of his triumphs but not a failure either, something fun he could knock off in a month or two as one of those 'hey this is happening in the real world, I'll use it for one of my spooktacular stories' things) that this actually makes for an accurate assessment. It's a standard-issue zombie-ish story of people being infected and going bugf*** insane, only this time King (who also gets a screen writing credit) adds a kind of bird-pulse-hive-mind thing that only gets explained enough to move the plot along.

Maybe in the book it was explained more or better; here, it seems like some weird and borderline lame (or just lame) device to keep us sort of on our toes, like, 'oh, hey, this time they're *not* vomiting blood on one another or eating brains, and any gunshot can kill them, not just the head, gotcha, thanks.' But more lame than that is the generic story thing of 'well, my son and ex are somewhere, and I'm gonna go find them' when, naturally, it's not going to be pretty or something he likes when he finds out (that he being Cusack, who is doing the best he can with fairly weak-tea material). Meanwhile, Samuel L Jackson does his best Ken Foree (intentional or not) from Dawn of the Dead, and is a reason to see the movie - even in the midst of some mediocre writing or plotting, or moments that can make one groan, he's there to work and it's not something to be embarrassed about on his resume.

As for the action, it's... fair. I guess I may be tired of seeing action shot with the shutter off (that's when the camera has this function that makes it go, oh, nevermind, you know it when you see it), and I think Tod Williams is a competent director of action but not one who can make things as thrilling as it should be. By the time you see one character go to a door slowly - not in this, I mean in any other movie you've ever seen in your lives - you've seen them all, and this has a lot of that. And while at one time I felt apprehensive about Eli Roth being the director, as he was attached for a period of time after the book first came out (his movies tend to be Dumb with a capital, sometimes double, D), now I'd be curious as to what he might have changed or made more visceral or f***ed up.

Cell goes through the motions, has some decent atmosphere, and a couple of those strange touches that I'm sure come from that primordial cavern that is King's sub(or regular)consciousness - such as the whole aspect of how these beings screech and them come together (which is a fascinating sight to me), or Stacy Keach having the whole football stadium of infected asleep listening to the... is that the yodeling from that Christopher Lee mashup from LOTR online(?) But there's not enough of it to make it stand out; while I haven't seen enough of it to make a full comparison, my gut tells me this is, to the lay-person, Walking Dead lite, with some good actors doing their best and only rising to meet the absolute minimum required.

... okay, maybe the ending is a little terrible, but my rating still stands.

Big screen bore

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 28 May 2018]

CELL is the big-screen adaptation of one my least favourite Stephen King novels. I do like the subject of zombies but in the hands of King they ended up being ridiculous. This film version gets rid of some of the dumber elements from the novel - the levitation scenes, for example - but is still in no way good. Things are at their best in the early outbreak scene, which suffers from shaky camera syndrome a bit but is generally exciting if you can ignore the odd dodgy CGI shot of an exploding plane and the like. John Cusack, looking tired and bloated, is a poor choice of lead, while Samuel L. Jackson is purely on autopilot here and has none of the fire-and-brimstone charisma you see from him elsewhere. The film gets worse as it goes along, lacking suspense and saddled with unlikeable characters and cliched situations, until it ends on a scene which made me laugh out loud at the inept cheapness of it all.

Intense start but lazy end

[voyou-703-655350 · 5/10 · 10 June 2016]

This variation of the zombie apocalypse borrows from films like 28 Weeks Later or Kaufman's Invasion of the Body Snatchers. That is to say, it relies more on psychological tension than on graphic violence (but still contains some graphic violence.) The first act is pretty good, intense, sharp, adopting a fast pace that dispenses us of the genre's clichés. That won't last as it will turn into standard fare. Finally, in the 3rd act, the writer completely drops the ball and doesn't even bother ending his story properly. He just takes the easiest way out and deserves some boos for it.

Bad storytelling is enough to make a movie bad and a rating low. Here however, I balance it with the impressive beginning and the excellent visuals. Also worth mentioning is Samuel L. Jackson who, for the first time in 20 years, portrays a human being instead of his perpetual annoying caricature.

Worst Adaptation Ever

[joshuakyte-60400 · 1/10 · 11 June 2016]

First... I did not know anything about this awesome, and I can't say that enough, awesome book becoming a movie. I have had to read this book at least 10 times over the last few years and some of my most favorite life quotes came from this book. So when I saw this as a movie and John as the main role I knew it was going to be amazing. I mean if I could cast the main character myself it would be John.

BUT... Well, if the director had made a movie out of the book, it would have been amazing. If the movie had any of the most notable and required pieces of the plot it would have been amazing. If the director had even read anything to do with the book, even the dust jacket, it would have been amazing. But he didn't, he didn't, he didn't.

SO... The movie sucked. I don't like to use that type of "language" when reviewing anything, but there is no other choices here. Everything about the movie was wrong and I gave it a lot of room, a lot of space to make errors and not flow the same. Because ultimately you want to be surprised by the movie. You ultimately want the director to make it his own just a little bit, put his spin on something and have it shine even more. And I did, I watched the movie to the very end. Checked behind the credits and everything. And now I wish I would have gone on for the rest of my life without knowing this movie existed.

IF... Now one might think by my review that had you not read the book, you might have liked it but sadly that is not true. This is not only the worst adaptation of a book ever, but it is also just poorly put together, scripted, acted, and there is no redeemable quality anywhere.

Such as... The sound effects were horrible, the video tried to be dark and creepy, but it was just bland. There was very little action or scare factor other than some BOO moments from the "zombies type people." If you didn't see something coming from a mile away it is because it made no sense. The ending was a little baffling on how horrible it was. I mean I am actually trying to think of one thing. Just one that I can say and would take this movie from a 1 star to at least a 1.5 star. But I can't. I can't think of a single thing that I can look back on and say that was cool/nice/awesome/not terrible.

Lastly... So I will leave you with this. I am actually praying that I reach you before you watched this movie. I am hoping one of your not nice friends didn't play a prank on you and made you pay for this movie. It is my desire that this review has reached you before you have wasted one single heartbeat within the vicinity of this horrible, horrible film mistake. And I thank you for reading my review and I am sorry to those that I did not reach in time.

Joshua Kyte

What Book Did They Read ???????

[carlcasso · 1/10 · 11 June 2016]

I remember reading this book and thinking what an amazing Movie it would make. With the right cast and script I knew this could be a winner. I waited for someone to make it and finally they did.

We were getting John Cusack and Samuel L Jackson. How could they not make an amazing movie.

I waited eagerly to view this long anticipated adventure and thought the day would never arrive when I could get the chance to see it.

Then I did.

Firstly it has very little in common with the book I read. the book is very clever and draws you into the story. The movie is not clever and the story is thrown at us.

In The book we care about all the characters. In the movie we don't.

I have to admit I walked out before the end. I just couldn't take anymore.

Why oh why did they not just stick to the books narrative.

I know you have to cut corners but they didn't cut corners, they invented new corners that had nothing to do with the story.

I love Stephen King and have read all of his books but I'm tired of seeing them butchered by Movie makers who just don't understand the story.

Save your money. Don't even bother renting this movie.

Watch TV instead.

Y'know what's missing? The correct mood and the correct pace

[muratmihcioglu · 29 August 2022]

Watching it right now on Rai2, dubbed in Italian.

At first I thought it was some kinda B movie despite the big names (maybe Samuel L. Jackson and John Cusack have taken the path of Nicolas Cage?) and the level of production. Then, to my surprise, I discovered this was a Stephen King adaptation, and not the brainchild of some wannabe King.

Something's extremely off. Hard to put a finger on it at first look, but the director seems to have forgotten to set a particular mood and pace for the material in hand. This is so rushed it fails to be taken seriously. Even less credible an outcome than Zombie parodies.

And to top it: I believe it requires some kind of special talent to have Samuel L. Jackson as a lead in a movie and still not even manage to make the outcome even moderately entertaining.

I may not even make it till the end.

Not terrible and this is worth seeing, but I just feel it could have been so much more than another in the line of zombie movies

[cosmo_tiger · 5/10 · 30 August 2016]

"Quite a problem these cell phones have caused." Clay Riddell (Cusack) has just landed and is talking to his wife about getting together with his kid again. When his phone dies he begins to look for change when all of a sudden he hears screaming and everyone in the airport falls to the ground. What happens next is unthinkable and now, in a type of post apocalyptic world Clay and a small group of survivors try to make it back to his family, before it's too late. I had no idea what to expect from this movie. I liked the fact that it was a Stephen King book, though I never read it, and the idea of technology leading to some sort of downfall is scary in its possibility. All of the excitement started to slowly fade away when the movie fell into what it really was… another zombie movie. The symbolism of cell phones turning people into zombies wasn't lost on me and the movie did have a message in that sense, but it essentially became just another generic zombie movie. Overall, not terrible and this is worth seeing, but I just feel it could have been so much more than another in the line of zombie movies. I give this a B-.

28 missed calls later.......

[FlashCallahan · 3/10 · 7 July 2016]

Even though 1408 wasn't the best King adaptation made, the presence of Cusack and Sam Jackson gave it that little bit more class than it should have had.

Now even though Cusack has gone by the direct to DVD route just of late, and Jackson stars in almost every film ever made since Pulp Fiction, it was always on my to watch list from the moment I heard it had been green lit.

A desperate New England artist searches for his son following the broadcast of a mysterious cell-phone signal that transforms people into rampaging maniacs.

In time, he and two other survivors attempt to find safety as society disintegrates.....

It starts off interesting enough. Almost everybody in the opening scene are talking on mobile phones, which is feasible seeing as the scene is set in an airport. Luckily for Cusack, his phone runs out of juice just as the signal reaches others phones and turns them into extras from 28 Days Later.

This opening scene is really tense, and if this was the foreshadowing the rest of the film, it could have been one of the surprise horror films of the year.

Then we leave the airport, meet Jackson (who is still in his Kingsman glasses), and the film goes downhill rapidly from there.

It's main problem is that it's lazily written (by King), and although we follow the small group of survivors as they meet other random survivors, they have no characterisation about them, apart from the odd trait, and it soon becomes as tiresome as the films lighting.

Stacey Keach has an interesting cameo, but without giving too much away, his character and his motivation just reminded me how the Martians were killed in Mars Attacks!!

Cusack and Jackson are as watchable as always, but even they struggle with the cliché riddled script, and cannot inject the much needed tension that the opening scene provided.

I haven't read the book, but I've read various sources that much of the film is very different to the source material, and the final ten minutes might be very baffling to some, as it could be very easy to lose concentration during the more boring parts of the film, of which there are many.

It's a shame, because this could really have been a good solid horror, but instead it reminds you just how great 28 days later is and just how Cusack and Jackson are so much better than this.

One of the biggest disappointments of the year.

Especially after the opening scene.

For Us, It's a Horror Film. For Our Grandparents, It's a Documentary

[DVDExotica · 5/10 · 14 June 2016]

Okay, people are going to tell you that this movie is dumb and corny and frustrating. Don't listen to them. Admittedly, they're absolutely right, but don't listen to them anyway.

This movie is the closest we're going to get to a sequel to Maximum Overdrive from Stephen King, and it's actually pretty close. Instead of a bunch of disparate stragglers surviving in a world where humanity is overrun by machines being controlled by an alien force, we get a bunch of disparate stragglers surviving in a world where humanity is overrun by people being controlled by an alien force. So it also dips into Walking Dead knock-off territory, where everyone who uses their phone basically becomes a fast zombie; but on the plus side, this still has a lot of King vibes in it.

Do you ever think about horror movies after seeing them and realize, if you view the film from the evil supernatural side of things, its motives make no sense? Like, "if the demon spirit wanted to possess the little girl before anyone could figure out what was going on and stop it, why did it spend the first 45 minutes terrorizing the babysitter and attracting needless attention to itself?" Well, this movie is like that: if you think about whatever mysterious intelligence is behind what's happening, what it decides to make the people it controls do doesn't really add up. But this movie goes the extra step, where you don't even have to do the thought experiment and shift perspectives to see that this movie regularly makes no sense.

It's like King wrote down his dream and these people filmed it. And that's kinda cool if you're prepared to view this film like Kurosawa's Dreams or Fulci's The Beyond. If broken and contradictory logic is going to bother you, you're going to be kicking a hole in your monitor. And for all the fun King brings to his work, there's also his usual flaws. In this case: hokey characters. DJ Liquid? The "you're cute" lady? The King Of the Internet? But it's also kind of charming in a "King's our lovable grandpa who writes these crazy stories" kinda way, and this film gets past them easily enough with plenty of fast paced action and shocking violence.

Other pros: Sam Jackson and John Cusack give their roles more weight than the script deserves. You actually care if they survive and worry for them in a way most lesser films don't manage. Stacy Keach shows up for a bit of fun, too. The story's also ambitious, playing with big ideas and isn't afraid to get pretty dark and cynical, which is nice to see in a more mainstream horror film with a name cast.

Other cons: Most of the down to Earth effects are fine (zombies, gore), but it tries to depict some very big things that clearly just aren't in its budget. There's a scene right in the very beginning where an airplane explodes, which they really should've left off-camera, because it really looks super fake. And some shots in the film's climax look like a cartoon.

Look, this is a heavy-handed movie for technophobes. Everyone who uses their cellphone turns into a mindless zombie. Characters walk through a brand new movie theater with a giant sign advertising "now with digital Projection," and then immediately into a drive-in movie lot. Keach gives a big dramatic reading to the line, "you can't stop progress, but you're never too old to fight it" before firing a bow and arrow. There's nothing subtle for miles around, and I'm sure we all know someone, probably older, who'll applaud the scene where people throw their smart phones into a fire, thinking finally someone else understands that change and technology are evil.

But for the rest of us, it's a pretty amusing, entertaining time so long as you're willing to not question anything it throws at you. Fast paced, loads of thrills, our protagonists walk around with armfuls of weapons and ammo; and yet the film takes itself seriously enough that it never starts to feel like a bad joke. Silly sure, but earnest. All it needed was a rockin' AC/DC soundtrack.

Disappointed Book Reader

[shaddixauth · 6/10 · 11 June 2016]

When I first read Cell many years ago, I instantly thought it could be transferred to an amazing movie. (And funnily enough, even cast the same actors in my eyes for both Clay and Tom.)

However, the final product for the big screen was such a let down.. Though the scenes they took from the book were fairly accurate, they cut out at least 40% of the content. (Most of which is integral to the story telling and explaining what has actually happened.. The Raggedy Man / Red Hoodie Guy being one major oversight.)

I feel like if you hadn't read the book to begin with, you'll probably find yourself getting lost too easily.. There was a severe lack of pacing simply jumping from scene to scene and some changes which in my opinion were for the worst.

Overall I did still enjoy the movie, has a fairly unique concept and some very disturbing imagery, but had I have not read the book prior I don't think it'd be getting anywhere near 6/10 from me.

SUMMARY: GO READ THE BOOK INSTEAD, AN ABSOLUTELY AMAZING READ.

Absolute garbage. Possible contestant for worst movie ever.

[callumhuscroft · 1/10 · 1 August 2016]

I'm not talking about it being just a bad adaptation either, the book wasn't exactly King's best work, it was just his jab at a zombie story. However, even a King book that isn't great by his standards is still a good book. He always writes a good narrative and he always has some good and fleshed out characters that grow on you throughout the story.

The characters in this movie aren't fleshed out, and they don't grow on you at all. The book was heavily driven by dialogue and through the viewpoint of Clay, the protagonist. There was very little in the way of good dialogue in this movie, there was practically nothing in the way of character development.

The plot moved way too quickly to be good, as if they were just checking a list of locations from a list. As a result, the plot felt like a convoluted nightmare where it was impossible to care. I won't spoil the ending but if you watch it, just know it's perfectly normal to feel angry.

The movie also had a level of technical ineptitude I thought impossible, with shitty CGI and worse sound effects.

I could write for hours and hours about how bad this movie is, but that would be a bigger wall of text than I've written already. Watch at your own risk, but if you want an enjoyable apocalypse story just read the book instead.

If you're gonna watch, get a few shots of vodka down you first.

A movie based on the book, rather than an accurate adaptation

[Azuria-Vita · 8/10 · 13 June 2016]

I must say I don't really understand the negative reviews. I've read and loved the book, but I was always aware that the movie was not going to be an exact copy of it. Yes, people who expected it to be will be disappointed, but don't spoil the fun for others who just want to see a good movie - because it is still a good movie in itself. Giving a movie a bad rating just because it didn't meet your personal expectations is kind of stupid. You should always try to see the movie and book separately. Some scenes, when translated to a movie screen, just don't come out the same way. What sounds amazing in a novel doesn't need to look fantastic in theaters. And that's coming from a writer.

Of course, it is a lot harder to make you feel for the characters on a screen than when you read about them in detail. I still felt for the characters. I like that the movie changed a couple of things, but still kept stuff that will remind you of the book (Alice's white dress, the ice cream truck etc....) Some of those book references were used in a different way, but it made me smile. The new ideas were pretty unique and I don't want to spoil the experience. I think the most important parts were still well performed and - last but not least - it was entertaining, interesting, different, suspenseful. 8 Stars - I take two stars away, because some improvements could have been made.

Might be more of a psychological thriller

[tin-B · 7/10 · 10 June 2016]

First off, this is NOT a zombie movie. I don't know what the book was like, but the movie is not zombies, it is people who are being manipulated by a cellphone signal to be violent, and nothing but violent. We get a glimpse at the end as to what is really going through their minds while being controlled.

This was an excellent movie but for one thing, it doesn't actually explain why it all happened. So, with a few other clues scattered around, I am pretty sure it is a psychological breakdown of one person. In either case, the ride is fun and with good performances. If you must have all questions answered, and don't like the idea of one person having a breakdown, it will not work for you.

Was not expecting this bad a movie with John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson

[singhpoojadec · 1/10 · 10 June 2016]

There is nothing that has not be seen before including poor camera work ,irritating sound effects and aimless story telling. I could not go past 40 minutes of this movie and I have seen all earlier Cusack movies. The cell phone triggering some sort of RF wave induced madness is a novice idea and the execution is amateurish as best. What sucks is the fact that it appears as if Cusack was intentionally directed to ham all the way and Jackson was made to overact. A B movies by any standards. A bad attempt at making a modern zombie movie. Better pass on this or wait for the time when a Day is 25.38 hours with margin to just waste on this movie.

A decent film, despite itself.

[Nixon_Carmichael · 5/10 · 13 June 2016]

I am not a purist when it comes to adaptations, and I didn't hate this, at the same time I didn't love it.

It almost would've worked better as a miniseries.

Cell is a quasi zombie story by Stephen King, circa 2005, it's basically the thing Kirkman ripped off while developing The Walking Dead. The novel is a lumbering, melancholy at and times humorous take on the zombie genre and the mass market emergence of mobile communication devices.

The filmmakers do their damnedest at placing it into a modern timeframe, but it's almost too well adapted. While I'm not against changes and remakes, they almost would've been better off just sticking to the material and going all in.

Either way, I don't hate, it's just that the noncommittal to either the source material or the new take left the movie in a sort of state of limbo.

Overall, I'm glad I saw the film, I just wish it was willing to pick a side and just run with it.

Wow. This is really terrible.

[I_Ailurophile · 1/10 · 20 March 2021]

I had low expectations. And still 'Cell' fell below them. I try to avoid 1-star ratings because they feel so very unfair, but this deserves it.

It's been a very long time since I've read the Stephen King novel, and I recall to a certainty only bits and pieces. Some things got lost in adaptation; the movie adds or changes some things, too. None of this matters, because King's own screenplay, co-written with Adam Alleca, dispenses with all subtlety.

From the moment the opening credits begin we question what we're watching - every name flashes on screen as white text in a big, opaque, black box. Sure, at this point the visuals are just exposition, shots of people on cell phones, but immediately we question the film-making prowess of those involved.

In the middle of trying to call his son and estranged wife, John Cusack's character loses battery life on his cell phone just in time to watch a mysterious signal apparently alter the brain of everyone who uses theirs.

From there 'Cell' mostly becomes a blase zombie movie, with the chief difference being that these zombies are slightly less noticeably monstrous in appearance than those in the average horror flick. Most of the dialogue is altogether pointless; it matters only in instances when characters speculate on the events they're witnessing. Those sparse scenes when characters get a brief moment to relax are embarrassing to behold. We get intermittent shots of characters walking through the wasteland of what used to be civilization, as though no other movie has done this. Action-packed moments of zombies charging are edited in such a way to suggest inhuman speed. How very exciting.

Usually when an actor with a recognizable name appears in something as bad as this, we readily make jokes about rescinding past awards, or refer to such titles as "paycheck movies." John Cusack has a very long list of credits to his name. Samuel L. Jackson certainly does, too, to say nothing of Stacy Keach, who is lucky enough to get his payday after only a very brief cameo. What are they all doing here? When I first started watching I thought to myself, "You know what? They're at a point in their careers when they can do literally anything they want. Good for them." But now that I've seen 'Cell,' I don't think I have the will to be so generous. Even when characters aren't drinking in a brief quiet moment, the cast so half-heartedly spit out such pointless lines of mundane triviality that we have to question if they agreed to appear in this movie only if they could be on set face-down drunk.

Personally I feel like Isabelle Fuhrman puts in the best performance of the film, which makes me feel bad that she somehow got wrangled into this. Yet of what I recall of King's novel, by comparison she is given much less to work with in her character here. She deserves much better.

I was able to maintain suspension of disbelief well enough when I read the book long ago, but seeing the plot play out on screen is an entirely different matter. The most basic idea underpinning the narrative is one thing; every notion added on top of it as the film progresses strains credulity ever further. I'm reminded of the 1999 TV movie 'Fatal error,' about a computer virus that evolves to transmit to humans.

When at last the climax rolls around as unconvincingly as possible, with Cusack's character abruptly departing on his own, we're treated to a scene at once wholly unbelievable yet also so unexciting as to utterly drain 'Cell' of its own juice. This is the only part of the film that really feels like a King story, as our protagonist beholds an otherworldly vision and a veritable monolith. I don't mind that the ending, like other details, was changed from the book; I do mind that it falls so flat that even if the rest of the movie were worth watching (it's not), its conclusion would render it inert.

As ever, I try to remember that no one sets out to make a bad movie; maybe if I don't like something, I'm just not in the target audience. But on the other hand: If the omission of nuance in the screenplay seemed incidental at the start, we're forced to reconsider that belief during the scene in which Cusack and Jackson drive a massive diesel truck over a football field full of "recharging" "phoner" zombies, spraying them with petrol, while Mr. Trololo himself, Eduard Khil, sings his Internet-famous version of "I am very glad, as I'm finally returning home." Maybe the filmmakers really did set out to make a bad movie. Maybe 'Cell' is one big joke, and this scene is to impart to audiences that we're the target. I'm not sure any more.

Outside of Fuhrman, the most redeeming part of the movie is the fluffy white cat that briefly appears on screen early on. After the beginning scenes of the film, its purrs offer a brief respite that in hindsight were probably supposed to prime viewers for the mindless onslaught we endure for the next hour. Good try, kitty.

'Cell' certainly isn't the first story to play with the notion of an electronic signal fundamentally changing people, but if this were to in any way represent the standard, we could only hope it is the last. I cannot in good conscience recommend this movie, neither as a King adaptation nor on its own merits. Watch it if you're curious. But don't say I didn't warn you.

A bizarre horror/thriller destined for cult status

[eddie_baggins · 4/10 · 17 July 2016]

Over the many year's movies have existed there's been a large number of questions raised by movies with answers non-forthcoming. These are questions that have been at the forefront of many a coffee date discussion, movie club forum or family dinner. Questions like who exactly is/was the "thing" (The Thing), is it a dream or reality (Inception), what was in the briefcase (Pulp Fiction) and now with this long completed and finally just released Stephen King adaptation we can add why exactly was John Cusack's in danger graphic novelist Clay Riddell so keen to pop on his beanie in the midst of a do or die cell phone lead apocalypse?

It's a question we may sadly never have answered and probably the only thing that will stick with you once Tod William's (where has the director who made The Door in the Floor gone?) film reaches its credit sequence, as this adaptation of one of King's least regarded books is one of those films just waiting to join the likes of The Wicker Man remake as a film that's just so bizarre and random it's hard to know who did and why they decided this was a film the public wanted.

In all its random glory however, if I was being totally honest, after all the negative press and jokes being made at its expense, Cell is not nearly as bad as it could've been when watched with the right mindset.

A seriously daft idea that induces a large amount of unintended laughter, Cell has its fair share of "what the" moments and it's a little sad seeing the likes of John Cusack (although he seems to have sold his movie soul some time ago now) and Samuel L. Jackson act through some insanely bizarre situations; I truly can't even begin to explain a scene involving a field of sleeping cell phone zombies, the film actually has some decent scenes and ideas that make this a B grade experience you can sit back and laugh at or with and an experience best watched with a room full of friends all up to witness a film that should never have made it to the cold light of day.

Through the history of movies we've been treated to King adaptation gold, from experiences like The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, The Shining and The Mist, Cell is certainly not one of those and is certainly not a film of cinematic virtue but it's an experience that deserves to be seen as even if you hate every minute of this oddball ride its likely you've never seen anything like it before and if you solve the beanie mystery, please let me know.

2 troll lol lol's out of 5

Just terrible in every department

[stuart-seed · 1/10 · 16 August 2020]

On my first viewing I only managed 30 minutes before turning off this absolutely horrendous excuse for a film. The camera is all over the place, the sound editing is woeful (the scene in the tunnel, what were they thinking?) The acting hammy, Samuel you need a new agent, John you're on a downward spiral pal. So after my first encounter I read a few reviews on here and decided to buy the novel as lots of folk were recommending it over the film. Anyway, the book is bonkers and not one of Kings finest, let's just leave it at that. Once the book had been finished, tried the film again and I managed to limp to the finish line and what a waste of time that was. This is in the top 3 worst films I've ever seen and I'm no spring chicken. Horrendous from start to finish.

Complete hunk of crap...

[vmxgroove · 1/10 · 6 August 2016]

Hard to believe that John Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson and Stacy Keach would lend their names to this truly ridiculously stupid movie. I like Steven King but this was total rubbish. Plot holes that you could drive a truck through. Since they had the budget for these really good actors, I don't understand what happened here. It made no sense at all. I even tried to look at it as an art piece. Well, it was a piece alright. I piece of wet turd... The acting was good but everything else really sucked bad. The story could have been good. Its a good concept but the way it was written destroyed the whole thing. The red hoodie kid looked like the guy from Pet Cemetery! Hahah, another Steven King flick. Its sad to see actors that I really enjoy at the end of their careers. This was painful to watch. I can't imagine why they took this project. I sure hope the money was good. Poorly written, poorly directed and poorly executed. No wonder this one never made it to a theatrical release. Not even zombies would enjoy this movie...

decent film, why the terrible reviews?

[elainemoonchild · 7/10 · 15 June 2016]

I don't normally watch films that score under 6/10, but John Cusack, Samuel Jackson, Stephen King..??? Has to be worth a watch. I quite enjoyed it. Typical zombie apocalypse movie, with benefit of great actors and Stephen King screenplay. It wasn,t great, but it wasn't terrible, really can't understand dreadful reviews. It was entertaining, had a start, middle and an end, it all made sense...maybe people have scored it low because of the people involved? Expected more? I don't know. Certainly doesn't deserve such a low score. Watch it, make your own mind up,but I found it perfectly entertaining, and with movies of this genre, what more do you want? It's never going to win an Oscar, but it wasn't made to do so.

Wow.. just wow. WTF!

[KissMyAss31193 · 1/10 · 19 August 2016]

This is a horrible film. It makes literally no f***ing sense whatsoever. Do watch! So the premise is John Cusack is at an airport and all of a sudden a signal administered through cell phones turns people all kinds of crazy and murderous. And that's where my understanding of this film ends. Initially it's pretty damn funny watching some fat guy with his pants around his ankles beat the living sh** out of some teenage girl but I doubt laughter was the emotional response expected of me. If you are at all familiar with movies or the process of making one you will have a blast watching this! It's comedy gold. Every second of the acting feels forced. Only Sam L. Jackson kind of blends in, though that's mostly to the fact that he basically just hags out. The editing is really off-putting. Really. The camera work is kind of okay but overall there doesn't appear to be any cinematography. They should have called it On The Fly. The scrip is terrifyingly stupid but then has those tiny glimpses of dedication. What happened!? There is not a single second of suspense or anything that could even scare off a toddler. The action-sequences are so incredibly boring and confusing, which is a weird emotion to feel in the first place, but it also shows such a disgusting lack of effort. If you want to see a good movie. Don't watch this! If you want to see a bad movie. I dare you!

Too many naysayers

[BarehandsBradshaw · 8/10 · 18 February 2021]

Is this film the greatest ever made? No. Does it deserve to be lambasted the way it has been? Absolutely not!

As somebody who has both read the book and watched the movie, I found the film to be highly entertaining. The most disappointing aspect to the film in my opinion, was the over acting of the infected (as seems to be the case in a lot of the lower budget movies of this genre). The main characters were both interesting and believable. I've read a review on here of how somebody deemed the movie the worst interpretation of a book ever filmed, and then complained that movie had a harrowing ending, but if anything, unlike a lot of movies, the movie stays true to the book right to the end. I would recommend watching this with an open mind, without carrying any negative criticism aimed towards it from reviews on here, and making your own mind up.

Fairly enjoyable despite the issues

[UniqueParticle · 6/10 · 5 May 2020]

This movie is super weird and not what I expected but in a good way. I love John Cusack he seems different than he was which is unfortunate and Samuel L. Jackson is awesome! There's definitely better Stephen King adaptations than Cell! I like the way it was written especially the scene when they plan to use a gasoline truck to burn a field of zombies and the bit where Samuel talks in a diner. Awesome for what it is, neat concept.

Well it's a Stephen King movie.

[maxsloan-37584 · 2/10 · 28 June 2016]

I'm a big Stephen King fan and have read many of his books, but Cell was one I had never read. When I heard of it, the concept sounded kind of neat but I just never got around to it. After seeing the movie though, maybe I was in the right not reading it.

They're some good King movies(Shawshank, Green Mile, e.t.c), and countless laugh-out-loud terrible ones. Cell is on a completely new level of crap. Clay (John Cusack) is an artist waiting at an airport to fly home to see his family. All of the sudden, everyone in the airport receives a strange sound from their phones. This turns then into crazed maniacs that know practically nothing except death. They're not technically zombies, they only beat and kill people. In all the chaos, Clay runs into Tom (Samuel L. Jackson). The two decide to stick together to find Clay's family.

The only redeeming thing about this movie is the acting is just barely passable.

Most things in this movie just make 0 sense. Clay's paintings of a man who is basically a prophet is the guy behind all of the chaos which they never explain. The crazed people are only active in the day, and at night they recharge just by laying there. You can't expect the audience to just understand what's going on just by one piece of dialogue.

THE CGI AND EFFECTS SUCK SO BAD, MY STICKY NOTE BALL ANIMATION LOOKS MORE REALISTIC THAN THIS GARBAGE! How were these effects allowed! The first 10 minutes a plane crashes and it is the absolute worst! It looked like it ran at 15 fps. It's inexcusable and makes me regret being born.

In the end is it the worst movie ever?: No. Is it one of THE WORST Stephen King movies?: YES TIMES TEN. And with all the terrible King movies, that's saying a lot.

technology apocalypse

[clarenceabba · 1/10 · 2 July 2016]

This movie had absolutely no scope. What a pathetic attempt to turn a great book into a movie. When the pulse event happens at the beginning of the movie, the director fails to show that the event is global. We should have seen it happening around the world, it's important to know that the whole world has come undone. After having waited so long for the movie, I can't believe what we got. Stephen King should be ashamed to be associated with this garbage, it's shocking that he co-wrote the screenplay. Lamest Stephen King movie ever. While the concept of the book is brought forth through the movie, it's in a way that has very limited vision. The look of the movie is so dark that it's hard to see what the hell is going on. This book needs to be remade into a movie that doesn't suck. The movie I imagined in my mind when I read the book is an immense movie with an awesome soundtrack, not this sad outcome. How could a movie this bad even get made? It really sucks.