Samuel L. Jackson et John Cusack prennent les armes dans ce thriller apocalyptique de Stephen King sur un mystérieux signal qui reprogramme l'esprit des utilisateurs de téléphones portables ... Tout lireSamuel L. Jackson et John Cusack prennent les armes dans ce thriller apocalyptique de Stephen King sur un mystérieux signal qui reprogramme l'esprit des utilisateurs de téléphones portables dans le monde entier.Samuel L. Jackson et John Cusack prennent les armes dans ce thriller apocalyptique de Stephen King sur un mystérieux signal qui reprogramme l'esprit des utilisateurs de téléphones portables dans le monde entier.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Hog Tied Man
- (as Jeffrey Hallman)
Avis à la une
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stephen King Movies Ranked by IMDb Rating
Stephen King Movies Ranked by IMDb Rating
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesAmong 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.
- GaffesOn 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.
- Citations
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.
- Crédits fousAfter 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.
- ConnexionsFeatured in FoundFlix: Stephen King's CELL (2016) Ending Explained (2016)
- Bandes originalesI am glad, I am very glad, because i'm finally returning back home
aka "Trololo song"
Music by Arkadiy Ostrovskiy
Performed by Eduard Khil
Meilleurs choix
- How long is Cell?Alimenté par Alexa
- What is the title of the poem recited by Samuel L. Jackson's character in the office of open air cinema?
- What is 'Cell' about?
- Is 'Cell' based on a book?
Détails
Box-office
- Montant brut mondial
- 1 323 012 $US
- Durée1 heure 38 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39:1