Carl Stargher kidnapped his eighth victim, Julia Hickson, and put her in a cell of torture on this day, May 20th, 2000… 18 years ago today. Her cell was hidden somewhere in the outskirts of Los Angeles, in a remote part of the desert. Luckily, she was found and saved by the FBI…
Does this sound familiar? It didn’t REALLY happened. It’s just part of the plot of the sci-fi, psychological thriller, “The Cell,” released by New Line Pictures in August of 2000. It’s been criticized as a rip-off of “Silence of the Lambs,” but it’s so much more than that. I this writer’s opinion, while Lambs is a fantastic movie, this goes for so much more of an approach (and a very different one at that) of delving in to the killer’s psychology and mind.
The plot is as follows… Catharine Deane, a psychotherapist who is part of a revolutionary treatment which allows her brain waves to enter the mind of coma patients for rehabilitation purposes, is hired by the FBI desperately seeking a way to find the whereabouts of the 8th victim of a comatose serial killer. With no other hope to track down the entrapped woman, the FBI feel that this new scientific process can help them find the missing victim abducted by notorious serial killer, Carl Stargher, whose modus operandi is to abduct women one at a time and place them in a secret location where they are kept for about 40 hours until they are methodically drowned. Unfortunately, the seemingly irreversible coma which the killer has fallen into means he cannot confess where he has taken his latest victim before she dies. Now, Deane must race against the clock to delve into and explore the deranged mind of the Stargher to get the information she needs to locate the woman before it’s too late but, the killer’s horribly damaged personality poses risks that threaten to overwhelm and consume her own psyche.
It definitely has “Silence of the Lambs” qualities but, it isn’t the same. If Clarice Starling could have used some new fandangled sci-fi tech and entered Buffalo Bill’s mind and we see what she sees within his subconscious, THAT would be “The Cell.”
-large-picture.jpg)
It stars Jennifer Lopez as Catherine Deane, the woman with the knowledge and experience to enter into the mind of the killer. She’s good here and not surprising… she’s not a bad actor just a bad judge of scripts at times. This isn’t one of those scripts, in my humble opinion.
It also stars Vince Vaughn who won me over in “Swingers” and still continues to charm every time (Yes, EVEN IN the USELESS GUS VAN SANT REMAKE of “Psycho.” He played a greatly nuanced Norman Bates, I don’t care what anyone says). His subdued and subtle, almost pensively sad performance is a true testament that Vaughn IS a good actor. He’s proven it time and time again that he’s not just a comedic performer and this is some of the first real dramatic acting he was able to sink his teeth into. He sinks them hard here playing an agent with an abusive childhood past, so he is able to relate to the killer, making reference that there isn’t much difference between him and the sociopath he caught except maybe one or two different life choices. He is understated, quiet and reflective and it’s a nice break through performance for him.
Then there’s Vincent D’Onofrio… What can I say about his performance other than, he’s Vincent D’Onofrio. He’s amazing in almost everything he does. He’s NEVER bad. Here, it gets to chew a little scenery in his dream land and still be terrifying on sometime subtle and other times over-the-top levels. He seems to be having fun scaring the Hell out of people either quietly or being a wall of terror… watch the film and see what I’m talking about.
Directed by Tarsem Singh, who has gone on to do other films like “The Fall” (2006), “Immortals” (2011), “Mirror Mirror” (2012) and “Self/less” (2015), shows off his flair for the visual with an incredible world within the mind of the killer. The production design, cinematography and eye candy we get with this piece of cinematic art is truly astounding, even if you HATE the plot and don’t agree with it being a horribly underrated film, the visuals are worth at least one viewing if not multiple.
Critic’s reaction to The Cell were mixed at best, with many people’s opinions on the internet sum up "The Cell” as “disturbing, stunning eye candy, but it is undermined by a weak and shallow plot line that offers nothing new."
One of the most positive reviews came from Roger Ebert, who awarded the film four out of four stars, writing: "For all of its visual pyrotechnics, it's also a story where we care about the characters; there's a lot at stake at the end, and we're involved. I know people who hate it, finding it pretentious or unrestrained; I think it's one of the best films of the year." Ebert later placed the film on his list of "The Best 10 Movies of 2000", writing: "Tarsem, the director, is a visual virtuoso who juggles his storylines effortlessly; it's dazzling, the way he blends so many notes, styles and genres into a film so original."
James Berardinelli had given the film three out of four stars, writing: "The Cell becomes the first serial killer feature in a long time to take the genre in a new direction. Not only does it defy formulaic expectations, but it challenges the viewer to think and consider the horrors that can turn an ordinary child into an inhuman monster. There are no easy answers, and The Cell doesn't pretend to offer any. Instead, Singh presents audiences with the opportunity to go on a harrowing journey. For those who are up to the challenge, it's worth spending time in The Cell."
Peter Travers from Rolling Stone wrote that "Tarsem uses the dramatically shallow plot to create a dream world densely packed with images of beauty and terror that cling to the memory even if you don't want them to."
The film (and especially its “dreamworld/serial killer psyche) is filled with contradicting S & M and Catholic imagery, has a ton of gore, and a schizophrenic tone unlike anything this reader had experienced when I first saw the film. It’s worth a watch as Tarsem and his visual style is at times breath taking and at other times breath stealing.
Take a peek at this gem. Yes, the plot has SORT OF been done before but, not like this. Visually brilliant and not nearly appreciated enough as a different type of film, it has become part of the cult film world. Groundbreaking? No, but a lovely and yet disturbing ride worth the 90 minutes.
