Review of Cell

Cell (I) (2016)
1/10
Absolutely Appalling
5 July 2016
Although I wasn't personally a fan of the book, and had little hope for this adaption, the result has been so offensively bad that I just had to give some kind of warning to anybody who is thinking of braving this film.

Cell chronicles the adventures of Riddell (Cusack) and McCourt (Jackson) as they attempt to survive Stephen King's story of apocalyptic terror. These are usually fairly difficult to get wrong in achieving at least a thrill or two. Unfortunately, Cell seems to fail in so many ways that any interest is rapidly exhausted after the first 10 minutes.

Cusack is appallingly emotionless, Jackson has little to offer thanks to the atrocious script, and the acting is generally poor all round. The soundtrack is obnoxiously minimal and dull along with the addition of songs which feel completely out of place. Both the antagonists and protagonists are unconvincing in either of their roles. And the editing is on par with a student's first grapple of an attempt.

What is the culprit behind this? The script, which is devoid of competence and control. From front to back, the film plays like the nightmare it was designed to be, but the sheer absurdity of the characters and the superficiality of the story ensures that most of the horror is effectively nullified. Even the attempts at humour are not dry or cool - they are arid and sterile. And the journey of the film is trapped in an almost episodic rhythm, possibly suggesting that a series of TV episodes may have been more desirable outcome.

As it stands, this inept and absolutely appalling excuse for a film is just so bad that it cannot be understated. Worse for King, it is not improbable to say that it will struggle recovering even 30% of its budget. It seems extreme to rate a movie 1 star out of ten. But the rating of 1/10 exists for a reason - unlike this garbage.
17 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed