IMDb-BEWERTUNG
4,4/10
32.009
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Als ein mysteriöses Mobiltelefonsignal ein apokalyptisches Chaos verursacht, ist ein Künstler entschlossen, seinen kleinen Sohn in New England wiederzufinden.Als ein mysteriöses Mobiltelefonsignal ein apokalyptisches Chaos verursacht, ist ein Künstler entschlossen, seinen kleinen Sohn in New England wiederzufinden.Als ein mysteriöses Mobiltelefonsignal ein apokalyptisches Chaos verursacht, ist ein Künstler entschlossen, seinen kleinen Sohn in New England wiederzufinden.
Jeff Hallman
- Hog Tied Man
- (as Jeffrey Hallman)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
"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-.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stephen King Movies Ranked by IMDb Rating
Stephen King Movies Ranked by IMDb Rating
See how IMDb users rank the feature films based on the work of Stephen King.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesAmong many differences from the source material, in the book, the zombie-like infected continue to have their brains re-written every night and evolve further psychic abilities, including telekinesis, which allows them to fly. This is explained as the infection having unlocked the human brain's latent supernatural potential. This idea is only vaguely alluded to in the film when the survivors of the boys school explain that the human brain is like a computer and that this could be the next stage in human evolution.
- PatzerOn Tom McCourt's advice, Clay puts a cellphone in the fridge to cool the battery down to make the charge last longer yet he fails to do the obvious and turn it off. Also the theory of 'making a phone battery last longer by freezing it' is dubious at most, but the characters may not know any better.
- Zitate
Tom McCourt: Clay, I'm really sorry about your family.
Clay Riddell: Don't be sorry because there is nothing to be sorry about yet.
- Crazy CreditsAfter the closing credits have finished, the catalyst signal from the movie plays for approximately 5-10 seconds, with no image, as if attempting to convert the audience.
- VerbindungenFeatured in FoundFlix: Stephen King's CELL (2016) Ending Explained (2016)
- SoundtracksI am glad, I am very glad, because i'm finally returning back home
aka "Trololo song"
Music by Arkadiy Ostrovskiy
Performed by Eduard Khil
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
Box Office
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 1.323.012 $
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 38 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.39:1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen