The Worst Stephen King Movie, According To Rotten Tomatoes

It is worth noting that King wrote “Cell” during a time when cell phones weren’t as accessible as today (to the point that they have evolved into a necessity), offering a technologically-wary perspective of a phenomenon yet to happen. This pessimistic outlook serves the purpose of fleshing out a horror premise rather well, and as expected of King, “Cell” is a fun, fast-paced read about the end of humanity. That said, the experience is middling compared to most of King’s sprawling oeuvre, as the second half of the novel falters in suspending disbelief and offering a worthwhile resolution. It has none of the dense richness of “The Stand” — which dabbles in post-apocalyptic themes — because it is not meant to unravel like a complex saga. “Cell” unfolds fast and dirty, where the thrilling smoothness of its initial chapters devolves into a bumpy, uneven race to the finish.

Despite the novel’s flaws, it does not deserve an adaptation as bad as 2016’s “Cell” (not to be confused with Tarsem Singh’s surreal, experimental “The Cell”), which sports an 11% on Tomatoes. Does the film truly deserve such an abysmal rating? Let’s find out.

The following contains mild spoilers for 2016’s “Cell.”

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

Instead, “Cell” strips all the fun that King’s novel offers and repackages it into drab metaphors that are neither scary nor intriguing in the least. It’s tough to discern what went wrong; Williams has shown a knack for not just creating suspenseful terror (his “Paranormal Activity 2” is more than serviceable), but for also creating characters that are grounded and complex, as seen in his 2004 film “The Door in the Floor.” Likewise, Cusack and Jackson are both compelling performers in general, yet they fail to make an impression within a story that grants their characters very little dynamism. Sure, the film is not downright unwatchable, but it comes pretty close at certain points. Regrettably, everything else is flavorless.