Cellar Door

Cellar Door just failed to deliver in my opinion. Even though there's a non-predictable twist it's still not good enough to stand out from the rest in the thriller genre. Director Vaughn Stein must be an avid television watcher as his movie is nothing more than a mediocre tv-movie copy. If you want to make a good movie you firstly need a good soundtrack, certainly not that typical tv-movie piano soundtrack. Just that alone makes your movie look cheap. Add to that some average acting and you have the perfect recipe for a movie that nobody will remember. I have no clue why Lawrence Fishburne would even think in participating even if he has a very small role. He's probably just a poster filler, a name that attracks an audience. I wouldn't waste your time with this one unless you like forgettable Sunday afternoon tv-movies.

The premise for 'Cellar Door' intrigued me. When you name your movie that and then make the movie about the mystery of what is behind the cellar door, then it should be a fun ride to go on and hopefully have a good pay off. Unfortunately the film wasn't as much about that as it had implied, and the ride wasn't as fun as it should've been.

This was more of a regulation thriller with a side story revolving around the cellar door. Now I've got no problem with regulation thrillers - if they're done well. This one however was a bit flat. In fact the whole movie was a bit flat. It was lacking some punch and some X-factor.

I found myself really having to strain to keep my attention on the film and that's a shame. There were a lot of little tweaks that I think could've made this a better experience. 5/10.

I like a slow burner but there needs to be a payoff and here there simply isn't.

There's very little that is tense or exciting. The story goes nowhere really and gives us nothing new. The script is lazy and the result is some pretty tepid central performances. There is so much exposition there is no tension at all.

Laurence Fishburne is a highlight. He's engaging for the time he's onscreen.

I think the intention is for viewers to make their own conclusion, to leave the payoff to their own imaginations. The trouble is the movie just wasn't engaging enough for me to invest so I just left it feeling disappointed.

Following a loss young couple Sera and John decide to move out of the city. They find a town they like but every house they like is well out of their price range. They are just about to give up when they are shown another house. It is large, beautiful and over a hundred years old; the owner invites them to spend the night. When they wake up he has departed leaving a letter stating that they can have the house for nothing... the only condition is that they must never open the cellar door. If they do they lose the house. They agree to the terms and make themselves at home but it isn't long before the subject of what is behind the cellar door is raised, and just how would anybody know if they looked. Tensions rise further when a woman John had an affair with starts harassment proceedings against him at work.

This film turned out to be very different from what I expected. Instead of a horror it is a psychological thriller. Tensions rise nicely as John tries to keep his secrets from Sera and she is firm that they must not break the rule concerning the cellar door... just what can be down there that could demand it remains locked? Jordana Brewster and Scott Speedman are solid as Sera and John and Laurence Fishburne stands out as Emmett, the man giving them the house. The setting; both the house and surroundings give the film a good atmosphere. I can understand why many viewers are disappointed that one obvious question isn't answered but I quite liked that; it leaves the viewers free to have their own ideas. Overall I'd not call this a must see but if the like psychological thrillers it is worth a watch.

I enjoyed this film; well acted and not a horror, more a mystery who dunnit. It is a relatively slow burn, but I was intrigued by the characters and invested in them. The characters, though few in number, were all fleshed out with their own unique quirks and motivations, adding depth and complexity to the story. A score of 7 may be a little high, but so many reviewers giving this a 3 or 4, in my opinion, is rather mean. It contains some blood and a little violence, which is nothing you won't have seen on a BBC production; it is well crafted and unexpected. I don't think anyone who is a Who Dunnit fan or enjoys a good mystery will believe their time was wasted by watching this. Look elsewhere if you are after blood, gore, and supernatural happenings.