Cell

Name: Cell
Genre: Sci-Fi, Thriller, Horror
Released: July 8, 2016
Duration: 98 min
Rating: 38
Cast: Isabelle Fuhrman, John Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson

2016

METASCORE

Generally unfavorable reviews based on 15 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally unfavorable reviews based on 62 Ratings

See All

3.5

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3.5	Your Score
3.5	User Score Generally unfavorable reviews based on 62 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Cell

Now Playing: Cell

Movie Details & Credits

Saban Films | Release Date: July 8, 2016 | R

Starring: Isabelle Fuhrman, John Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson

Summary: At the Boston airport, Clay (John Cusack) witnesses a scene of chaotic mayhem when an electronic signal turns hundreds of cell phone users into rabid killers. Desperate to find his estranged wife and son, Clay teams with a train driver (Samuel L. Jackson) to battle the horde of murderous “phoners” as the city descends into apocalyptic madness.

Director: Tod Williams

Genre(s): Sci-Fi, Thriller, Horror

Rating: R

Runtime: 98 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

RogerEbert.com Odie Henderson

Jul 8, 2016

With a bigger budget and a longer runtime, Cell could easily have been elevated above its current station as a worthy 2 AM viewing on cable — not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s cursed with some really cheap CGI, but blessed with actors who are game for, and respect, the material. Read full review

John Hazelton

Jun 28, 2016

This apocalyptic thriller is a run-of-the-mill zombie flick that goes through the genre motions efficiently enough but fails to live up to its credits. Read full review

Martyn Conterio

Sep 10, 2016

Tod Williams, a journeyman best known for Paranormal Activity 2, has managed to transfer King's very popular brand of horror with a good deal of success. Read full review

John DeFore

Jun 23, 2016

Though it's better than its "dump this thing" theatrical release would suggest, Cell is far from excellent. Read full review

Noel Murray

Jul 7, 2016

King worked on the script for Cell, which isn’t that surprising given that many of the worst adaptations of his work have his name on them. It only proves how hard a job it is to adapt King. Even the author himself can’t ace it. Read full review

Kyle Smith

Jul 7, 2016

For John Cusack in Cell, the bad news is that his phone just ran out of juice. The good news, sort of, is that those who are on their phones were just attacked by a piercing signal that turned them into flesh-munching zombies. Read full review

Time Out London Tom Huddleston

Jul 7, 2016

There are times when Cell feels like a surreal pastiche of po-faced apocalypse movies. But no such luck: this is every bit as bad as it appears. Read full review

SEE ALL 15 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

Meth-dude

Sep 22, 2016

It started off pretty well but quickly went downhill. The acting was decent and the movie was overall kind of entertaining but the movie was very stupid, filled with horrible CGI and had a pretty bad ending. It's not that bad of a movie, it's just not very good.If you're looking for a movieIt started off pretty well but quickly went downhill. The acting was decent and the movie was overall kind of entertaining but the movie was very stupid, filled with horrible CGI and had a pretty bad ending. It's not that bad of a movie, it's just not very good.If you're looking for a movie to watch on a friday night with your brain turned off, you should give it a chance. Otherwise, I would recommend something else.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

HotelCentral

Apr 28, 2017

Stephen King is quoted as saying that cell phones are "21st-century slave bracelets," and frankly I guessed this might be so while watching "Cell," based on his novel. If you like anything that hints of a zombie apocalypse then you might regard the film as passably OK. It has some problems.Stephen King is quoted as saying that cell phones are "21st-century slave bracelets," and frankly I guessed this might be so while watching "Cell," based on his novel. If you like anything that hints of a zombie apocalypse then you might regard the film as passably OK. It has some problems. It's about non-zombie-type zombies. They do certain things that seem impossible. Admittedly, zombie flicks are all about the impossible but "Cell" provides no real explanation for how the impossible is achieved or what's really going on and in the end it all seems kind of half-assed. The acting is OK but even Samuel L. Jackson, John Cusack, and Stacy Keach aren't enough to make this tepid production particularly watchable. Frankly, I'd suggest trying out "The Signal" (2007) instead, a very low-budget non-zombie zombie indie that makes characters stand out.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

TheQuietGamer

May 13, 2017

The problem with the movie isn't it's cast (Most of whom give pretty good performances), the low budget, or even it's rather derivative zombie movie formula. It's the writing. This is a very unsatisfying adaptation of the book. The movie is at it's best when it's using scenes straight fromThe problem with the movie isn't it's cast (Most of whom give pretty good performances), the low budget, or even it's rather derivative zombie movie formula. It's the writing. This is a very unsatisfying adaptation of the book. The movie is at it's best when it's using scenes straight from the source material. This just doesn't happen very much at all. We see familiar bits and pieces along the way, but for the most part the movie largely does it's own thing, and poorly at that.

Those who have read the book will know that it wasn't your average zombie story. King infused the apocalyptic scenario with his unique sense of imagination. The "Phoners" were gifted psychic powers, connected by a hive mind, and led by a menacing Phoner of higher intelligence and a thirst for vengeance. The movie touches on those elements, but fails to use them to any satisfying results. They're just sort of there and only serve to confuse those who didn't read the book and tick off those who did with how ineptly they are handled. The plot itself is also only a hollow imitation of the real thing. I understand the obvious budgetary restraints would have prevented an entirely faithful adaptation, but they certainly could have done better than this. It follows the overall outline of the book's plot to a degree, but it's filled in with original moments. None of which are good. All the original stuff is just badly written, particularly where the dialog is concerned. It's all a mad rush to a crappy conclusion. The interesting and important bits are skipped over in favor of a whole lot of nothing. You want to know the really shocking part about all of this? It was written by Stephen King himself. He butchered his own book onscreen! Stick to the books King, because you just proved that you can't write a good movie. Now, I could have dealt with the less than faithful adaptation of the book provided the original stuff was good, but it's not. For my fellow fans of the book, I highly recommend skipping this one. It doesn't do the source material justice at all. As for those without knowledge of the book, but are hoping for a solid zombie flick, also look elsewhere. It's just a bad movie.

4.5/10… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

S1r-R34l

Feb 24, 2017

Another bad Stephen King adaptation, even worse when you realise Mr King wrote the screenplay. Though it's the direction of the film which makes this dull and boring. It's too short to do the book justice... and the novel wasn't that good. Only Samuel L Jackson and Stacy Keach put anyAnother bad Stephen King adaptation, even worse when you realise Mr King wrote the screenplay. Though it's the direction of the film which makes this dull and boring. It's too short to do the book justice... and the novel wasn't that good. Only Samuel L Jackson and Stacy Keach put any emotion into their characters. Nice idea badly produced.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

rockon

Jan 12, 2019

They took a best-selling novel, added big-name actors to the project, and made what comes off as a B movie. It just looks shoddily made and the "zombies" look plain silly. Comical, actually. I love the zombie genre but the most poignant criticism I read of this film is that it "lacks aThey took a best-selling novel, added big-name actors to the project, and made what comes off as a B movie. It just looks shoddily made and the "zombies" look plain silly. Comical, actually. I love the zombie genre but the most poignant criticism I read of this film is that it "lacks a pulse." Making a play on words about the cell phone pulse that makes people killer maniacs. Because this one doesn't give much of a thrill. It's pretty bad when they make a movie that is supposed to scare people and they laugh at it.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

MOVIECRITIC315

Jul 9, 2016

Im suprised cell is not a comedy bc i was laughing my ass off throughout the entire movie. Im not going to spoil the movie but the ending is so damn terrible that it made me laugh how terrible it was. The zombies are laughable bad and not scary but they are funny. Cusack and jackson are theIm suprised cell is not a comedy bc i was laughing my ass off throughout the entire movie. Im not going to spoil the movie but the ending is so damn terrible that it made me laugh how terrible it was. The zombies are laughable bad and not scary but they are funny. Cusack and jackson are the only good in this movie but there not good enough to save this crap. Dont waist your time and money trust me. Overall i feel bad for Stephen King.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

qamaster

Aug 13, 2016

amazing **** incredibly stupid plot. King untalented playwright. This is not his first fiasco.
Is it a comedy? then why I wanted to laugh already in the sixth minute.

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

SEE ALL 19 REVIEWS