Very scary; all violent scenes scared the hell out of me. I liked the return of John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson, working together since 1408: perfect chemistry. Great actors.This movie will probably make people who own smart-phones disagree with the concept of turning into a zombie. Another movie like that was another one with Samuel L. Jackson, Kingsman: The Secret Service.The end of the movie had me saying "What?" If a movie can do that with style, hell yeah I'm giving it a "10" rating. The ones who don't like this movie are probably zombies already.Sep. 2014, <more>
Mount Ontake in central Japan: confirmed that of the 56 people who died when the volcano erupted on--people found with cellphones in their hands.
WOW, lucky I forget what the book was about. Or at least, I forgot parts of it. The book was good, not one of King's best. Nothing like The Stand, or Salems Lot, Etc.And the Stephen King Universe is in here, except the movie doesn't play up on it. But I guess if you don't read King, it WOULD make no sense. But yo King fans it would be nice to see more of the Universe.I liked Samuel Jackson and John Cusack in their roles. FOR THOSE THAT Don't KNOW about it, ALL SK's BOOKS TIE TOGETHER AND JOIN ANOTHER UNIVERSE, RUN BY AN ARCH ENEMY, NAMED Randall Flagg. Or other <more>
names...Good movie, ending is a bit better, but I wish I knew what happened to everyone. In other words ..ending is weak
I am not sure if this really contains a "spoiler" or not, but this is my first review I felt the need! and I didn't want to get blacklisted!! Am I the only one who really enjoyed this movie? This movie isn't given enough credit.I think the ambiguity and at times disjointed impression given off by the movie adds to the dream-like quality of what is happening. Perhaps that can give the false sense of lazy writing or acting. The ending is perfect!!!! I must add that I am a big fan of Cusak and Stephen King novels are the only books I have read in the past ten or so years. I <more>
also thought the dark, dreary locations were great for setting an ominous mood for the film. It made you wonder throughout the whole movie, what was happening in actual tangible reality? And are we becoming "zombies" to our electronic devices?
If you read the book, you'll love it. (by filipsalapa)
This is my first review in here and I have to write something to defend this film.As a die hard Stephen King fan, and a huge fan of the original book this movie was based on I have to admit that it is a solid attempt at making this story come to life.For the most time the whole movie is well-paced and sticks quite good to the original concept of the novel. To me, that is a plus, since most of the time, Mr. King's works hadn't had the best of luck in that department. There are a few jump scares but for the most part the movie is just feeding you with the creepiness and the feel of <more>
unease. Like the book did to me. Seriously. That does not happen often at all, let alone in King's adaptations the only exception being "The Mist" .The performances were decent, although I felt like the movie could have gone on for a while longer giving us some more background on all of the main characters. That way we would have felt more connected with them, or understood why they make some of their decisions ie. the lady in the bar . I feel like the movie speaks more to the folk who read the book, which is both a positive and a negative thing. Positive, in a way that us - fans of the book - feel like we are being fed the right amount of Mr. King's genius. Negative in a way that people who missed out on the book tend to feel like they are a bit left out on some of the details. And then there are the special effects - I seriously don't understand why some of the reviewers bash the movie's special effects. They are not there to create the atmosphere, but rather, to bump it up by filling in the gaps. To make it all seem more whole. I don't want to go into details as to not to spoil anything, but I just want to give everyone heads up to NOT rely on the movie's CGI to reel you in. It's not that kind of film.In summation:Just give it time, keep your mind open, switch the lights off and put on a good set of headphones. And don't forget to switch your cellphone off..
Ultimately impenetrable, but high-class zombie sci-fi (by jrarichards)
Ever imagined what would happen if zombies of the familiar "Walking Dead" kind became as fast as those in "28 Days Later", but were also guided in their behaviour e.g. able to climb stairs and ladders , very ready to attack and kill but NOT capable of passing on their undead status to others by biting? Ever thought that that might represent a step forward in terms of zombie-dystopia plot subtlety, and at the same time be pretty darn scary? Well, here is the Tod Williams-Stephen King film "Cell" to show us - persuasively, if not quite flawessly - how the above <more>
suggestions might be true, with a swipe taken at mobile phones and the Internet as we go along.In many ways "Cell" is the kind of intelligent stuff we've been looking forward to, and it boasts adequate-to-fine acting most especially from a superb Samuel L. Jackson as the thoroughly-plausible Vietnam Vet railway worker Tom McCourt , very nice cinematography and suitably-atmospheric urban and rural New England settings, and dialogue with quite a bit of wisdom and even wit yes, really .Tradition is not eschewed entirely here - there's an initial airport scene what else? in which mobile phones ensure that our normal world goes to ***t, or goes to hell, depending on how you see it - in a matter of seconds; and this is really supremely evocative. There's also an "academic in an exclusive countryside-located school tries to explain the brave new world in a moment of respite scene a la BBC "Survivors", "Dr Who", "The Day of the Triffids", "Forbidden Planet" and various other sources , and a besieged rural hostelry scene.Sadly, it does seem that this film does its best work at the start, and that's a shame. Indeed, the final bits do tend to get a bit incomprehensible, if certainly remaining impressive and pretty scary. On the plus side, this piece is mostly quite unpredictable, making it unnerving in another way too, and this extends even to the tangibly-sad loss of key characters we've come to like. Not bad for about 95 minutes of high-class watching that does leave the watcher wanting more.True sci-fi buffs should certainly check this out for themselves, and not be swayed by the more negative reviews of "Cell" to be found here, or the lowish overall score it receives.
i actually thought it was really good. it wasn't really a zombie movie. unless that's what you call everyone everyday as they Trog thru life constantly connected to their phones. it is kinda slow, in parts, but they actually try and throw some real story in their and theirs some crazy action in the city and the woods.another thing is its totally plausible and could happen, no one knows what years of microwave exposure does to humans brains and biology. oh wait, they do know exactly what happens. any how, its got some low budget effects, and some nice ones on a soccer field. Its just <more>
as good as any other syfy movie made in the last 20 years. best to watch w/o the tinfoil hat though.
A movie based on the book, rather than an accurate adaptation (by Azuria-Vita)
I must say I don't really understand the negative reviews. I've read and loved the book, but I was always aware that the movie was not going to be an exact copy of it. Yes, people who expected it to be will be disappointed, but don't spoil the fun for others who just want to see a good movie - because it is still a good movie in itself. Giving a movie a bad rating just because it didn't meet your personal expectations is kind of stupid. You should always try to see the movie and book separately. Some scenes, when translated to a movie screen, just don't come out the same <more>
way. What sounds amazing in a novel doesn't need to look fantastic in theaters. And that's coming from a writer.Of course, it is a lot harder to make you feel for the characters on a screen than when you read about them in detail. I still felt for the characters. I like that the movie changed a couple of things, but still kept stuff that will remind you of the book Alice's white dress, the ice cream truck etc.... Some of those book references were used in a different way, but it made me smile. The new ideas were pretty unique and I don't want to spoil the experience. I think the most important parts were still well performed and - last but not least - it was entertaining, interesting, different, suspenseful. 8 Stars - I take two stars away, because some improvements could have been made.
I spent almost an hour reading a lot of bad reviews about this movie and the way many people compares it with the book... Come on!!! Have you ever seen a movie that fits exactly with the book it was based on???OK, many reviewers may say that this is the worst adaptation ever, but I think differently: Due to the fact that the screenplay was co-written by Stephen King himself, and he estates that the ending of this movie was written especially because of the readers that complained about the book's ending, I guess he played a little bit with his own story, to give us, fans, some variations. <more>
He already did it with the TV Series "Under the Dome" and more.I am a musician, and, as a composer, I love to make variations with my own melodies... for a creative worker it's a lot of fun.I won't tell you to watch this movie or to avoid watching it, just give artists a try, but NEVER compare a movie with the book it is based on.Open your mind and you will find out that every version of the same main story has its pros and cons.Enjoy movies just the way you enjoy books.Greetings!
Best horror movie in a long time (by masteroftofu)
I dunno what's with these hipster reviews trashing this film, but I highly disagree with every word they've said.The horror genre has been GARBAGE for a long time, with Hollywood spitting out cheesy jump scare 'blockbuster' films that are 99 times out of 100 just BAD films and sometimes completely unwatchable. Literally like 1 good horror film coming out every other year IF THAT. That's why, while watching this film, I was saying to myself 'holy crap this is actually really good for a horror film'. I dunno what these horror films these reviewers are watching are <more>
that are so good, but I'd love to see the list. Because the horror genre as a whole has the lowest set bar of any genre out there. Trying to write up reviews comparing this genre to films like Shawshank redemption is just a joke. Reading the premise of the story, they should've known right off the bat what they were getting into, and to complain that it was too campy, is just a jokeThat said, this film was a great watch. Never was there a moment where I was saying 'oh god that is so bad'. It was actually really good. The special fx and camera work were mediocre, but it didn't really hurt the film that much. This would've made a great theater film, but Hollywood no longer supports rated R films, and this is just too gruesome to sneak by with a pg-13 rating. Right from the opening scene we are thrown into complete chaos. No cheesy buildups like most disaster/horror movies. The only gripe i had with the film was no explanation of why any of this is happening, but the film was good enough that it didn't ruin it for me.If you're a fan of actual horror films, and not just some hipster film critic, I definitely recommend watching this film. If 'cheesy' horror/scifi films make you want to write angry reviews on IMDb, you should avoid this film like the plague