Worst Stephen King movie, according to Rotten Tomatoes

In 2006, Stephen King wrote an apocalyptic horror novel that transformed the contagion metaphor into something atypical. Although zombies are front and center in this paranoia-ridden tale, these creatures are not reanimated corpses that have mutated beyond recognition. à la the infected in “The Last of Us”. Instead, these zombies are former cell phone users who have been transformed after sending out a global network signal called The Pulse, turning them into rampaging killers. This novel, The Cell, captures the unprecedented chaos created by this unlikely situation, with struggling artist Clayton serving as our entry point into this world on the brink of collapse.

It's worth noting that King wrote “Cell” at a time when cell phones weren't as accessible as they are today (to the point where they've become a necessity), offering a technologically cautious perspective on a phenomenon yet to come. This pessimistic outlook serves quite well to flesh out the horror premise, and as expected from King, The Cell is a fun, quick read about the end of humanity. Still, the experience is average compared to most of King's vast oeuvre, as the second half of the novel falters in suspending disbelief and offering a worthwhile resolution. It has none of the The dense richness of “The Stand”. — which touches on post-apocalyptic themes — because it's not meant to be a complex saga. “Cell” unfolds fast and dirty, where the thrilling smoothness of its opening chapters turns into a bumpy, uneven race to the finish.

Despite the novel's flaws, it is no deserve an adaptation as bad as 2016's “The Cell” (not to be confused with Tarsem Singh's surreal, experimental “Cell”), which sport 11% for tomatoes. Does the movie really deserve such an abnormal rating? Let's find out.

The following contains a mild spoilers For “Cell” of 2016.

Immediately after King's novel dropped in 2006, Dimension Films bought the film rights and brought in Eli Roth (“Cabin Fever,” “Hostel”). Roth's vision for “The Cell” was quite ambitious, as he intended to focus on the aftermath of the apocalypse beyond King's cliffhanger vibe (which itself is meant to evoke both hope and despair). However, Roth pulled out of the project in 2009, citing creative differences with the studio, and King himself ended up writing the script that same year. It wasn't until 2012 that director Todd Williams (“Paranormal Activity 2”) came on board and steered “The Cell” across the finish line.

In Williams' film The Cell, artist Clay (John Cusack) pursues his dream of writing and publishing a graphic novel about the willful abandonment of his wife and son. A year later, when Clay (shamelessly) calls home to share his success, he witnesses The Pulse wreaking havoc across Boston after fleeing to a subway station for safety. Planes collide mid-air, some subway terminals are destroyed, and train conductor Tom (Samuel L. Jackson) warns Clay that they must evacuate and make way for the tunnels if they want to survive. Infected zombies, called “callers,” are said to kill humans by moving like a hive mind and emit static sounds from their mouths. Although this last bit should have had an alarming effect, it has not.

Instead, “The Cell” strips away all the fun that King's novel had to offer and repackages it in bland metaphors that are neither frightening nor intriguing in the slightest. It's hard to see what went wrong; Williams has shown a knack for more than creating suspenseful terror (his “Paranormal Activity 2” is more than serviceable), but also for creating grounded and complex characters, as seen in his 2004 film The Door in the Floor. Likewise, Cusack and Jackson are solid performers overall, but they fail to impress in a story that gives their characters very little dynamism. Sure, the movie isn't exactly unwatchable, but it's pretty close at certain points. Unfortunately, everything else is tasteless.