THE CELL (2000)
Grade: C+
Director: Tarsem Singh
Screenplay: Mark Protosevich
Starring: Jennifer Lopez, Vince Vaughn, Vincent D'Onofrio, Dylan Baker,
Marianne Jean-Baptiste, James Gammon, Jake Weber, Patrick Bauchau, Gerry
Becker, Tara Sunkoff, Jake Thomas, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Catherine Sutherland
THE CELL is chock full of some of the most repulsive imagery I've ever seen
in a major motion picture. Also some of the most creative. Its director,
Tarsem Singh, who comes from a music video and commercial background, is a
visual stylist of the highest order and in some scenes he's orchestrated what
could be called visual poetry. THE CELL is often a feast for the eyes though
unfortunately almost never a feast for the soul.
Last week Roger Ebert and his smarmy co-host Richard Roeper breathlessly
raved, deeming it a masterwork, one of the best films of the year. Just a
week prior, Ebert panned COYOTE UGLY, exclaiming "There has to be something
for the gray matter. Something". Well I've seen THE CELL and I don't recall
it offering much of anything for the gray matter. It had promise (but doesn't
every movie, hell, TEACHING MRS. TINGLE had promise), but it's more
interested in operatic images than it is in story (the same of which could be
said for a music video). The scenes between its characters feel oddly cold
and removed like in many Stanley Kubrick films, but in those the stiffness
served a purpose, Kubrick made satire and Tarsem has made a straight genre
film, which should have likeable characters in order to make us, you know,
give a damn. Whatever artistry the director brings to his visual palettes he
clearly lacks with his actors; all their voices might as well be dubbed in
seeing as how their delivery lacks discernable emotion. Tarsem is clearly not
at all interested in them, but he realizes that he has to give those pesky
characters some screen time before getting to his visual feast. And he
complies, though obviously quite begrudgingly.
So I find myself in something of a quandary. While parts of THE CELL
disgusted and even offended me, parts of it thrilled me and served as a
reminder of what this medium is really capable of. THE CELL plays it safe
with its story line, already described by some as SILENCE OF THE LAMBS meets
MATRIX, but it doesn't in individual sequences, which is refreshing after one
of the most conventional movie summers in some time.
Tarsem may not be much of human storyteller, but he manages to capture the
dream state better here than in any other film I've seen. When the picture
opens, Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez under pounds of make-up), a
progressive child psychologist, has been placed into her patient's
subconscious by a group of scientists testing out a revolutionary new dream
therapy that enables the patient to interact with their therapist in their
own head, thus uncovering secrets that may be too painful to be revealed
consciously. Once in the patient's head, Deane finds herself decked out in a
flowing white gown amid a serene desert vista that could've been spliced in
from a Calvin Klein ad. She's trailing up a sandy dune as Tarsem's camera
lingers, watching from afar. Next she's on a black horse riding to her
patient, jump to her with the patient, the horse behind her, now an inanimate
life-size figurine. Tarsem captures the odd incongruous shifts that we
encounter in our dreams, a state where unbelievable things occur and seem
downright believable as they transpire…until we wake and ponder; wait a
minute, I can't fly. In the world Tarsem creates, anything is possible.
For its first thirty five minutes THE CELL shows a great deal of promise,
expertly cutting between three separate stories so as they build to their
inevitable interlocking we feel tension from each overlapping into the other.
In one, dogged FBI agent Peter Novak (a dulled Vince Vaughn) is narrowing in
on Stargher (Vincent D'Onofrio), a schizophrenic killer who performs some of
the most revolting acts I've ever seen get past the MPAA with an R rating of
approval. Stargher has constructed a cell encased in glass, containing only a
toilet and a bench. He kidnaps women and locks them within it. He leaves them
there, alone, setting a timer for water to intermittently shower down from
the ceiling. He films them from a stationary camera as they drown, slowly.
Later, after they've died, he takes their nude bodies, places them on a slab
and levitates above them (you see this wacko has inserted steel rings into
his back which he connects to chains that hold him above the bodies, his own
skin stretching out like molten latex) while he masturbates over their
corpses.
Audiences have always had a morbid fascination with how serial killers
operate, and these sort of films have been growing decidedly more gruesome
and kinky with their killer's fetishes, but THE CELL has crossed boundaries
that I didn't have any desire to see crossed. I don't mind perversion if it
has a point (as it did in SEVEN and SILENCE OF THE LAMBS) but here it serves
no purpose other than to titillate and jolt an audience that's probably sat
through everything from KISS THE GIRLS to THE BONE COLLECTOR. THE CELL has
gladly matched the evil we've seen in all those films and now we can sit and
wait to see someone match it.
After discovering several clues that lead to the killer, the FBI tracks
Stargher down, who lays in a coma, passed out after failing to get to his
medication. The agents have discovered he has another victim in his cell, and
it's only a matter of time before she drowns. Problem is they don't know
where Stargher keeps the cell and since he isn't conscious they have no way
of finding out. This is when the stories collide. The cops go to the
revolutionary scientists with the proposition to put the progressive
psychologist inside the killer's mind, befriend him and get him to confess
the location of his cell. Thus begins the visual orgy.
Amongst the madness is Jennifer Lopez, who, here, lacks everything that made
her so charming in OUT OF SIGHT. Lopez looks stunning always, her hair
perfect, even when mussed it's stylishly so. Here, she truly gives a star
performance, and I mean that in the worst way. Gone is the energy and glow,
in its place a Melanie Griffith acting job complete with cotton candy affect
and adorned with a small country's supply of lip gloss.
Another acting causality is the usually immensely likeable Vince Vaughn, a
highly individual actor who's managed to inject personality in even the most
banal roles (his cowboy serial killer in CLAY PIGEONS), though in this film
he walks through the part looking tired, speaking in measured tones, not
really doing much of anything. If you're gonna cast a talent like Vaughn why
not give him something to do besides a tired Charlie Sheen impersonation?
Not to mention (but I'll do so anyway since it's sorta my job) the myriad of
character actors given nothing roles, like Dylan Baker, Marianne
Jean-Baptiste, and Pruitt Taylor Vince, though in a major motion picture this
is to be expected. Vincent D'Onofrio manages to make something of an
impression in early scenes when he plays his schizoid killer like a nerdy
mouth breather type, seemingly more afraid of human interaction than death
itself. Though once we get into his mind D'Onofrio's performance becomes more
typically over the top.
The script's attempts to give us hints as to why Stargher turned out the way
he did are awfully pretentious (you see, he was abused by his father who took
to calling him "faggot"), but writer Mark Protosevich and director Tarsem
Singh nonetheless deserve credit for birthing some of the most oddly
compelling (and deeply disturbing visuals) I've ever seen in a picture not
directed by Fellini or Argento. The visuals aren't total originals, but they
come to life as such with Tarsem's world combining Tarot card images with odd
religious torture devices into the grimmest fairy tale universe since
CINDERELLA before it was sanitized. But ultimately, all those smoke and
mirrors weren't enough to tide me over. I mean, there has to be something for
the gray matter. Something. Doesn't there?
http://www.geocities.com/incongruity98 Reeling (Ron Small)
NOTE: This review was posted on the usenet
to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup.
Mooviees.com accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review.
Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.