The Cell 2

This movie is awful. If you saw The Cell and were thinking 'Wow AWESOME, gimme more of this', then please don't go see this movie.

In the 'first' movie (I'm starting to think that the relation between the two is nothing more than the name and the first two shots of the second one) the dream scape was immersing, creative and beautiful, sometimes in a creepy way. In The Cell 2, the dream scape is just a cheap effect, a few squiggly lines at the edges of the screen. Story-wise, it lacks any continuity. Instead of having to be suspended in the air, hooked up to some extreme high tech system in weird suites, the main character is half awake while in the back of a plane, holding a personal item of someone involved. Somehow, they took that awesome dreamsurfing equipment and made it some bluetooth dongle stuck to her head. Furthermore, The shots look cheap, as do the sets. The tactics used by the police or swat are not remotely realistic, and quite frankly, make them look like a fart of the antagonist could blow them away. Now all of this would not be ultimate game-breaking stuff, but i just saw The Cell 1 only two hours ago and was hoping for some more psychedelic-dreamy-crime-horror-thriller-sexy-chicks(lopez) movie, but instead, I got ' a shot at the big-time '

Not every director has a huge budget, and there's nothing wrong with that, but somehow this director acquired a ' The Cell ' license and then ran out of money. Now there will never be a The Cell 3. Thx Tim Iacofano.

Im surprised im not seeing this come out as a scifi channel movie, but after going thru the reviews from danlieberman7, cindystrngs, mooreabby70, lisabrnstn782, BillyLopezArt, johnlevitt85, mizzyplum, mer, AllenJones66. Besides the fact theve never reviewed anything before, there was a trait of talking bad about the original, or somehow as a good horror movie point that some kid from high school musical is in the 2nd. I've watched the trailer, and im watched parts from the movie, it was a bad knockoff that defiantly was no where close to the kind or quality of the 1st. The story was horrible, the flashlights on the main chicks head to use for the dream sequences. I wonder if Uwe Boll had anything to do with the production of this movie.

I read some of the other reviews, and at the time I went to see it the votes from other IMDb users were up there (over 5 stars average). I must say I wish I hadn't been exposed to it.

Let's start with the acting. It was so incredibly dry, unemotional, and boring that even if the script was good (which it most definitely was not), it wouldn't have helped. I was not drawn in even a bit by any of the characters in this film, and in a film of this genre you sort of need to be to enjoy it.

Then we have the villain, who was so contrived and boring that it took all of the anxiety and depth away from the film. The so-called "heroes" were an absolute pain to watch as they fumbled over their lines and delivered a performance memorable only for its lack of talent.

The "special effects" were reminiscent of early 90s power rangers episodes, I think that's enough said there.

The actual plot was annoying and underdeveloped. The general idea had some merit to it, but the angle they took with the hero/villain interaction ruined it for me, just too far-fetched for this kind of movie. The direction as well made this feel like a home made film, and not in a good way. It was just scene after scene of amateur shooting. I'm not a film buff by any means, and even I thought it was horrible. They even showed you some "behind the scenes" shots at the end, so make sure you stay tuned through the credits....wow.

You'll notice I gave this film 3 out of 10 stars... that's because the last 10-20 minutes of the film might have warranted 4-5 stars, whereas the first 90% probably 1-2 stars, so I averaged them. Though to be fair I'm not sure if the end was better than the beginning, or if I was just getting excited that it was almost over.

Also of note: I haven't seen the original "The Cell", so no, it's not like I went into this expecting a similar movie to the original, I had no basis for comparison.

Anyway, if you decide to watch this regardless of my warnings above, I'll leave the "I told you so" here for you when you're done. Otherwise, you can thank me later.

A very loose and disappointing sequel to The Cell, Cell 2 stars a Sandra Bullock lookalike as a clairvoyant on the trail of a serial killer named The Cusp. Fifteen minutes into the movie and we know who the killer is. Shot on no budget, this Utah-lensed video makes little effort in the special effects department, in stark contrast to The Cell with its operatic sets and imaginative use of CGI. So it's pretty much a standard criminal pursuit film, and the truth is one can get more kick out of an episode of TV's Criminal Intent. Toward the end, for a few seconds, we get to see our clairvoyant heroine all gussied up. And I must admit I wouldn't mind spending a little time with her. But she is no Jennifer Lopez (or Sandra Bullock) in the acting department, at least not here. Frank Whaley costars.

this movie is another pathetic attempt of making a sequel for monetary reason. it's the couple-ideas-four-coins movie made for satellite TV's needs. if you're planning to see it, you can spend the one and half hour in a different way with no regret. none of the creators of the first movie are involved in this "sequel" and after you see it it's easy to understand why. it's ugly to see once again that producers and money are totally in control of something that should be the sum of all arts, and it's really incomprehensible how can they still think is possible to make a movie without any talented writer. only positive note is for Frank Whaley, whose A-class unexploited talent is anyway not enough to save a D-movie like this.