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.
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.