Rayting:
4.3/
10 25.7K votes
Language: English
Release date: 10 June 2016
When a mysterious cell phone signal causes apocalyptic chaos, an artist is determined to reunite with his young son in New England.
Similar Movies
5.2
Morbius 2022
5.6
Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City 2021
6.9
The Trip 2021
5.6
Nekrotronic 2018
1.6
Krampus: The Devil Returns 2016
5.2
Mercy Christmas 2017
5.1
Secret Santa 2018
1.7
Krampus: The Christmas Devil 2013
User Reviews
This sounded promising but several issues combined to spoil it. First of all John Cusack was acting like he was fulfilling a contractual obligation rather than trying to play a role, then we had the confusing editing/direction which made the film feel as though it was made from off-cuts and finally there was no explanation (as far as I can recall as I lost interest) for the phone attack. It ended up as a very poorly-resolved zombie movie. We were really disappointed as it could have been so much better.
Fmovies: 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.
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.
Cell fmovies. 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.
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
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.