Stephen King's Cell: Dual Novel/Film Review

In 2008 I saw 1408, based on a Stephen King story, staring John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson, reading the short story counterpart afterward. In 2016, I saw Cell also based on King, staring Cusack and Jackson again. This time for equilibrium I read the book before watching the movie. Both the novel and film Cell follow protagonist Clay Riddell amidst unrest following a technology-induced apocalypse. The story offers vivid imagery of its fictional tragedy and aftermath, minimizing cliché zombie themes, commonplace today. Since high school, I have viewed Stephen King as a literary influence. Immediately I was allured by the book. Character development and scene setting was terrific. I was overjoyed at classic Stephen King reader-enticement, including analogies like “intimate as a (female private part),” and comparing pacing to a captain on a ship deck. Symbolism in form of, among other things, a prosaic Junior Nike shoe communicating loss of world innocence was also present. My major note was I felt there could be more uncovered by the novel’s characters or narrative regarding the President of Harvard. This is the cryptic name the ensemble of survivor characters assigned the disfigured man, becoming their arch nemesis. Beyond establishing him as a former Ivy Leaguer, somehow appointed leader of the localized phone-people, no back-story is provided with him. Apart from this and overlookable narration repetition, I enjoyed the book. However, I have never had such mixed feelings about a film.

While reading, I discovered that prior to release, the film was already panned by critics. However, never before had I allowed opinions of strangers writing for circulations I don’t read to alter my opinion prematurely. I would not start with something bearing Stephen King’s name. Comparably between book and film, I found myself immersed in a form-versus-content rollercoaster. In the beginning, the film followed the opening book narrative well. This does exclude the setting relocation of the cell phone quietus from The Boston Common to “Boston Airport.” Strangely filmmakers passed over the true name Logan Airport. I believe the production company, or director feared lawsuits based on this. It would also explain the change of the antagonist’s adlibbed nickname. The movie changed the “President of Harvard” to “President of the Internet,” which I found a stupidly impulsive renaming. Since a decade of time passed between novel and film, Cell the movie kept up with cultural changes well, such as inclusion of texting. Initially, I questioned casting Jackson as Tom McCourt. However, I was impressed at preserved characterization of Tom from the novel, simultaneously allowing Jackson to Sam-Jackson-up the film. Truly there’s no alternate terminology. Certain character components were swapped and modified between the characters of Tom and Clay. I was fine with this for cinematic reasons, and since there was leeway for this since Tom and Clay were close throughout the book as well. Jackson and Cusack displayed their range as actors. A scene with Stacy Keach, wherein an academy soccer field is torched conveyed frugal special effects, laughable on the scale set by current Michael Bay standards. Nonetheless, Cell boasted more plot development than much of Bay’s work. I was not disappointed that filmmakers removed the Junior Nike. As previously stated, in the book I appreciated the theme the child’s shoe represented. Cinematically however, its inclusion would devour valuable film duration. I applaud the director for finding that expendable.

I oftentimes tell people I was “with the movie, until around the bar.” This was a scene near the end, not remotely in the book. It introduced short-lived characters, also alien from the novel. I was baffled why the movie tacked on this scene. It accomplished nothing but rerouting the story along an unnecessary slight deviation, forgoing introduction of characters, vital in the book. Consequentially it was made to be less so in film. The ending of the novel was a cliffhanger, which disappointed me. I liked the book’s ending more than the film’s. The closing scene of the film was deplorable. Everything from special effects, to choreography, to book truism was garbage. It felt extremely hacked together, like a castaway’s life raft. However, I don’t fault the filmmakers. I theorize it was due to budgetary reasons. I refused to fault the entire film for the unsatisfying ending. In summation, the novel Cell was terrific, exemplary of Stephen King’s mastery. On the other hand, while I don’t necessarily advise avoiding the film, I do prescribe lowered expectations.