Cellar Door

Cellar Door starts with an intriguing premise, hinting at a mysterious horror story full of suspense and deep-rooted tension. However, it soon becomes clear that the film's potential remains untapped. What begins as an atmospheric buildup, luring the audience with the promise of dark secrets and spine-chilling moments, gradually devolves into an uninspired, drama-filled soap opera with no real stakes or satisfying resolution.

The movie's singular rule-"Just don't open the cellar door"-is paradoxically both the center of attention and a total misdirection. One would expect that such a warning would be pivotal to the story, propelling the plot with intense anticipation. Instead, it plays no significant role at all, leaving viewers scratching their heads. How does a film build its entire narrative on a concept that never materializes into anything meaningful? The result is a frustratingly aimless experience with no payoff, no tension, and an underwhelming narrative arc.

In the end, Cellar Door fails to deliver on every front, leaving audiences with more questions than thrills and a lingering sense of wasted time.

John and Sera are looking for a fresh start after Sera miscarries. The pair struggle to find a house in their price range, but their luck changes when they're told to visit Emmett, a wealthy man in a beautiful house. Emmett offers the couple the house, on condition that they never go into the basement.

I thought this started off pretty well, I enjoyed the first half an hour or so, I loved the suspense and intrigue, that whole question of what's in the basement, unfortunately it tails off badly.

The second half of the film is poor, it just didn't fit, it went from being an intriguing thriller into a bizarre and clunky slog, I could almost believe the story of the cellar, the Alissa storyline....never in a million years.

What is going on with Laurence Fishburne, he seems to be signing up for the most random films, films that let's be honest, aren't quite at his level.

Jordana Brewster and Scott Speedman were both pretty good, they made a cute couple, they worked well together.

A decent start, shocking second half.

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.

A lot of people gave this movie a really bad review. However, even though the movie is a slow burn it was very watchable. I liked the characters, the filming style was pretty good, loved all the piano music. The storyline did seem okay. Had a few twists and turns and a little bit of who done it. Seemed the movie had a message to tell. But the ending. Well could've been better! Nothing much else to say. It's sad that Imdb still requires us to type a really long review or it doesn't get approved! What is wrong with short and sweet? Who really wants to read a really long review? Getting to the point is perfect!

I cannot believe that I watched that movie twice. First at the beginning of November and today again. I watched it and thought: "Kind of familiar." Well, I continued to watch it.

After the movie wrapped up, I was like: "Dang, I watched it already."

It's how forgettable this movie is. Oh my God, I was so dumb wasting the same amount of time twice. It's a very bad movie. Forgettable, basically background noise. I wouldn't wonder if my troglodyte-brain sees that movie in the "what to watch"-list and I choose that movie again at the beginning of January.

It's really bad. And I cannot believe how dumb I am for watching it twice... 🙄