While reading, I discovered that prior to release, the film was already panned by critics. However, I have never had such mixed feelings about a film. Apart from this and overlookable narration repetition, I enjoyed the book. Beyond establishing him as a former Ivy Leaguer, somehow appointed leader of the localized phone-people, no back-story is provided with him. This is the cryptic name the ensemble of survivor characters assigned the disfigured man, becoming their arch nemesis. My major note was I felt there could be more uncovered by the novel’s characters or narrative regarding the President of Harvard. Symbolism in form of, among other things, a prosaic Junior Nike shoe communicating loss of world innocence was also present. 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. Character development and scene setting was terrific. Since high school, I have viewed Stephen King as a literary influence. The story offers vivid imagery of its fictional tragedy and aftermath, minimizing cliché zombie themes, commonplace today. Both the novel and film Cell follow protagonist Clay Riddell amidst unrest following a technology-induced apocalypse. This time for equilibrium I read the book before watching the movie. In 2016, I saw Cell also based on King, staring Cusack and Jackson again.

Jackson, reading the short story counterpart afterward. In 2008 I saw 1408, based on a Stephen King story, staring John Cusack and Samuel L.

Stephen kings cell