Stephen King adaptations are some of life’s certainties. Fans can always expect a new one each year, which is a good thing since the best-selling author tends to tell some of the most exciting stories. 2008 was the last time a 12-month window passed without a new Stephen King adaptation. Every other year has had one… some good, some bad, and some totally underrated, according to the author himself. One film King feels deserves more love is Cell, starring John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson.
In Cell, struggling artist Clay Riddell (Cusack) suddenly abandons his wife and son to pursue his dream of publishing a graphic novel. A year later, he tries to contact them to tell them about his success, only to learn that a mysterious signal is turning cell phone users into zombie-like killers known as “The Phoners.” Clay vows to rescue them. While on his mission, he befriends Tom (Samuel L. Jackson), a train conductor.
Stephen King Is Baffled by ‘Cell’s Poor Reception
During an interview with Yahoo Movies, Stephen King answered a question about which past adaptations of his work he feels have been overlooked. The author mentioned Dreamcatcher as a movie that shouldn’t have been given such an intense whipping, although he added that he would need to watch it again to be totally sure. He then mentioned Cell as the movie he feels is totally underrated. King said:
“I frankly never understood why people didn’t like Cell, because to me that was a terrific, eccentric movie with some really eccentric, strange performances in it. John Cusack at his best, and Samuel L. Jackson is terrific. “
Despite being a Stephen King adaptation and starring two of the greatest actors of all time, Cell was surprisingly given a straight-to-video release. Upon hitting the market, critics gave it harsh reviews. It’s 11% Rotten Tomatoes score makes it one of the worst Stephen King adaptations, but is it really bad? Critics feel it’s devoid of suspense and that it relies on zombie clichés instead of capturing the themes laid out in the novel.
King is right about the performances. Jackson is good here. Not Pulp Fiction good, but good. He’s the kind of actor who brings out the best in his co-stars, and Cusack gladly loses himself in the tag-team magnificence. However, as good as the performances are, King understands that Cell isn’t a perfect sci-fi thriller. He added, “But I’m one of the people where the worst movie I ever saw. I thought it was f–king great! ” He continued, “So, you know, even things like Robot Monster when I was a kid, I thought, “Oh man, that’s great! “
‘Cell’ Rings Quietly At Times, But It’s Still a Watchable Sci-Fi Thriller Movie
Cell has one of the most terrifying opening sequences. Just as Clay is about to make a call, his phone battery dies. The move saves him as the signal soon starts affecting everyone. A girl repeatedly slams her head against a wall, planes crash, and people maul each other. Unfortunately, the ending is problematic and a major reason why this is considered one of the Stephen King adaptations that are weaker than the book. The choice to turn the “Raggedy Man” villain from a symbolic figure in the book to a physical figure in the movie also feels misguided.
Part of Cell’s problems can be blamed on its chaotic production process. Director Eli Roth (better known for Hostel) was meant to oversee the project in 2008 after finishing Hostel: Part II, but exited because he didn’t agree with the studio’s vision. Roth also felt that he was more comfortable working on original stories. Could he have done a better job? Probably! He was on form at the time.
Despite its flaws, Cell should be appreciated for a few reasons. It puts a unique spin on the zombie template. Similar movies tend to rely on viruses or the supernatural as explanations for the creatures. Since he opted for technology, King’s tale is entertaining and compelling, but still cautionary. In addition to that, it’s a perfect crisis movie, brilliantly highlighting all the human emotions that are likely to pop up in times like this. Give it a chance, if you haven’t already.
Source link
Add Comment