Cellar Door

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.

John and Sera are looking for a fresh start after Sera miscarries. The pair struggle to find a house in their price range, but their luck changes when they're told to visit Emmett, a wealthy man in a beautiful house. Emmett offers the couple the house, on condition that they never go into the basement.

I thought this started off pretty well, I enjoyed the first half an hour or so, I loved the suspense and intrigue, that whole question of what's in the basement, unfortunately it tails off badly.

The second half of the film is poor, it just didn't fit, it went from being an intriguing thriller into a bizarre and clunky slog, I could almost believe the story of the cellar, the Alissa storyline....never in a million years.

What is going on with Laurence Fishburne, he seems to be signing up for the most random films, films that let's be honest, aren't quite at his level.

Jordana Brewster and Scott Speedman were both pretty good, they made a cute couple, they worked well together.

A decent start, shocking second half.

5/10.

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.

I enjoyed this film; well acted and not a horror, more a mystery who dunnit. It is a relatively slow burn, but I was intrigued by the characters and invested in them. The characters, though few in number, were all fleshed out with their own unique quirks and motivations, adding depth and complexity to the story. A score of 7 may be a little high, but so many reviewers giving this a 3 or 4, in my opinion, is rather mean. It contains some blood and a little violence, which is nothing you won't have seen on a BBC production; it is well crafted and unexpected. I don't think anyone who is a Who Dunnit fan or enjoys a good mystery will believe their time was wasted by watching this. Look elsewhere if you are after blood, gore, and supernatural happenings.

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... 🙄