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.

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... 🙄

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.

In the beginning I thought that the premise was something psychological or allegoric and the pitch was something in the lines of, Adam and Eve meet Alex Forrest, for those of you that don't know who she is, it is the character of Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, by the end I realized that I was wrong, that there wasn't a metaphor and that the twists and turns were so forced that what could have been great idea didn't go anywhere.

Personally I hate open endings and I find them disrespectful to the audience and frustrating.

Two hours is too much time to invest in a movie without a conclusion or a clear ending.

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.