Cellar Door

Following a loss young couple Sera and John decide to move out of the city. They find a town they like but every house they like is well out of their price range. They are just about to give up when they are shown another house. It is large, beautiful and over a hundred years old; the owner invites them to spend the night. When they wake up he has departed leaving a letter stating that they can have the house for nothing... the only condition is that they must never open the cellar door. If they do they lose the house. They agree to the terms and make themselves at home but it isn't long before the subject of what is behind the cellar door is raised, and just how would anybody know if they looked. Tensions rise further when a woman John had an affair with starts harassment proceedings against him at work.

This film turned out to be very different from what I expected. Instead of a horror it is a psychological thriller. Tensions rise nicely as John tries to keep his secrets from Sera and she is firm that they must not break the rule concerning the cellar door... just what can be down there that could demand it remains locked? Jordana Brewster and Scott Speedman are solid as Sera and John and Laurence Fishburne stands out as Emmett, the man giving them the house. The setting; both the house and surroundings give the film a good atmosphere. I can understand why many viewers are disappointed that one obvious question isn't answered but I quite liked that; it leaves the viewers free to have their own ideas. Overall I'd not call this a must see but if the like psychological thrillers it is worth a watch.

I like a slow burner but there needs to be a payoff and here there simply isn't.

There's very little that is tense or exciting. The story goes nowhere really and gives us nothing new. The script is lazy and the result is some pretty tepid central performances. There is so much exposition there is no tension at all.

Laurence Fishburne is a highlight. He's engaging for the time he's onscreen.

I think the intention is for viewers to make their own conclusion, to leave the payoff to their own imaginations. The trouble is the movie just wasn't engaging enough for me to invest so I just left it feeling disappointed.

The premise for 'Cellar Door' intrigued me. When you name your movie that and then make the movie about the mystery of what is behind the cellar door, then it should be a fun ride to go on and hopefully have a good pay off. Unfortunately the film wasn't as much about that as it had implied, and the ride wasn't as fun as it should've been.

This was more of a regulation thriller with a side story revolving around the cellar door. Now I've got no problem with regulation thrillers - if they're done well. This one however was a bit flat. In fact the whole movie was a bit flat. It was lacking some punch and some X-factor.

I found myself really having to strain to keep my attention on the film and that's a shame. There were a lot of little tweaks that I think could've made this a better experience. 5/10.

Cellar Door starts with an intriguing premise, hinting at a mysterious horror story full of suspense and deep-rooted tension. However, it soon becomes clear that the film's potential remains untapped. What begins as an atmospheric buildup, luring the audience with the promise of dark secrets and spine-chilling moments, gradually devolves into an uninspired, drama-filled soap opera with no real stakes or satisfying resolution.

The movie's singular rule-"Just don't open the cellar door"-is paradoxically both the center of attention and a total misdirection. One would expect that such a warning would be pivotal to the story, propelling the plot with intense anticipation. Instead, it plays no significant role at all, leaving viewers scratching their heads. How does a film build its entire narrative on a concept that never materializes into anything meaningful? The result is a frustratingly aimless experience with no payoff, no tension, and an underwhelming narrative arc.

In the end, Cellar Door fails to deliver on every front, leaving audiences with more questions than thrills and a lingering sense of wasted time.

I cannot believe that I watched that movie twice. First at the beginning of November and today again. I watched it and thought: "Kind of familiar." Well, I continued to watch it.

After the movie wrapped up, I was like: "Dang, I watched it already."

It's how forgettable this movie is. Oh my God, I was so dumb wasting the same amount of time twice. It's a very bad movie. Forgettable, basically background noise. I wouldn't wonder if my troglodyte-brain sees that movie in the "what to watch"-list and I choose that movie again at the beginning of January.

It's really bad. And I cannot believe how dumb I am for watching it twice... 🙄