BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Madilyn Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Leofwine_draca CELL is the big-screen adaptation of one my least favourite Stephen King novels. I do like the subject of zombies but in the hands of King they ended up being ridiculous. This film version gets rid of some of the dumber elements from the novel - the levitation scenes, for example - but is still in no way good. Things are at their best in the early outbreak scene, which suffers from shaky camera syndrome a bit but is generally exciting if you can ignore the odd dodgy CGI shot of an exploding plane and the like. John Cusack, looking tired and bloated, is a poor choice of lead, while Samuel L. Jackson is purely on autopilot here and has none of the fire-and-brimstone charisma you see from him elsewhere. The film gets worse as it goes along, lacking suspense and saddled with unlikeable characters and cliched situations, until it ends on a scene which made me laugh out loud at the inept cheapness of it all.

darthMisaskernew This movie is just awful. Not a single good thing about it. I remember being so excited when they announced a theatrical adaptation of Cell, because like it was one of his most underrated stories as well as one of the few that HADN'T been made yet. And then they threw in massive stars like Sam Jackson, John Cusack, and Stacy Keasch? But they messed it all up! This movie is absolutely nothing, NOTHING like the original story, except for the very vague plot and character names. The book was filled with mystery and thrills but nope, not this movie! I guess maybe the creators thought using the original source material was a bad idea? If that is the case then WHY EVEN MAKE A MOVIE VERSION AT ALL??? I understand changes must be made but why change everything?? This movie is not smart or scary at all, no thrills or chills, just boring. SO BORING. The actors are so bored and have the same "yeah, whatever" faces. Sam Jackson is the only character with personality, and that is because he is just playing Sam Jackson. The story is also super confusing and makes no sense. Oh and the CGI is almost as bad as Jeepers Creepers 3...yeah, that bad. It looks like it belonged in a cartoon on Nickelodeon! So yeah, bad movie. And the ending is a huge middle finger to anyone who liked the book. Just...wow...what an awful movie.

Michael Ledo In this film, the zombie apocalypse is initiated by a cell phone, turning people in cell phone zombies a slightly worse condition than their present state. Clay (John Cusack) is the victim of a dead cell phone battery and manages to survive. He is a graphic novelist, a skill set needed to rebuild the world. Traveling along with him is Tom, a Vietnam vet and Subway conductor.Since they are on the East Coast, Catalina Island is not an option. They plan on going to check on Clay's family, picking up and losing people along the way. From there they plan on going to Kashwak, Maine, because Stephen King is familiar with it.There is an ending, but you don't get the closure you are seeking.Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity.

max4858 What a terrible movie! The novel is at best what I call "junk food Stephen King", but there's a place in the world for junk food. Even a mediocre King novel is worth your time. But this film? No redeeming qualities whatsoever. Awful script, terrible cinematography, waste of three great actors (John Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson, Stacey Keach), putrid CGI, well, you get the picture. Did anyone involved even open up the book, let alone read it? Avoid this movie like the plague.