Talk:The Cell (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strange critiques[edit]

I read from several sources how sucky or at least mediocre this movie is. Could it be that those opinions are majorly coming from psychologically uneducated people?

I am pretty versed regarding borderline disorders and schizophrenia and I have to say this movie is the most excellent piece of cinema there is, when it comes to demonstrate the inside of a schizophenic mind, and as well of a borderline disorder patient's mind. And that is a very rare piece of art, if not unique.

So what are you Cell-bashers saying now? What are the arguments? I guess, as a person without similar problems, this film is just obscene. But with more knowledge about psychopathology, an intelligent person should recognize that this film is extraordinary in this regard.

All the Best.


Gross[edit]

I edited the box office numbers. I do not know the overseas gross, but I do know the US gross, and it surely wasn't $111,543. It was $61,280,963, and your source is here. --Hellogoodsir 23:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section[edit]

controversy |ˌkɒntrəvəːsi| |kənˌtrɒvəsi| noun ( pl. -sies) disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated

One review, one reviewer, uncontested.

Not controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.46.253 (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.46.253 (talk) 03:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Medved isn't the only critic to complain about J-Lo smoking a joint in the film. I remember a newspaper story in which the film was lambasted for showing a character who works with children smoking pot, and there was at least one other critic who I recall was rather vocal. I want to say Roger Ebert but I can't be certain. The Medved column I cited is the only professional critic's comments I could find currently online. If anyone can find other links -- including rebuttals to Medved's POV -- please feel free to add them. I have my own POV on this, but I only added it because it received media attention, which satisfies Wiki's notability requirements. 23skidoo 07:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this section because only one source has been provided, and that hardly constitutes the fact that it is controversial, or even deserving of its own section. Besides the guy also goes on a rant about the baptism in the movie, he's just ranting for the hell of it. Something controversial receives mass attention, and this did not. --Speakslowly 04:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. I remember this fact throwing me off as a teenager. But now that I'm older... well, I re-watched the film with my boyfriend tonight and remarked to him that it was sort of a relief to see her doing so. It sort of set her apart from your typical, pretty, good-hearted heroine. She's still giving and good hearted, but she isn't perfect. I like that about her. She's sort of fearless. I can't imagine the uproar the scene caused... must've been quite rowdy. Regardless, I wouldn't change that part of the film for anything. I liked that it literally had nothing to do with the rest of the story and really didn't equate her to a flaming junkie, it was just a little realistic quirk. --68.92.52.3 05:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember watching this movie and being pretty indifferent about her sparking up a joint. You have to remember that she is playing a character who "dives" into people minds and has to deal with the disturbing imagery within these minds. When i saw here light up a joint i just though, "Well duh, anyone who does here job would probably need a little ganja at the end of the day to relax and stay sane." I don't think there was much of a controversy here. I saw the film in a packed theater and nobody gasped at this scene. There were a few chuckles, but that's it. Elhector 18:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. People are still talking about it. I put it back, since Medved is a notable critic. My edit uses the term "and others" and when I have a moment I'll do some extra research to find the "and others". To dismiss the section based upon anecdotal evidence (i.e. the reaction of an audience) goes against WP:NOR, whereas Medved's criticism was published widely (though the source I cite here is at present one of the only accessible online-archived sources). It doesn't matter if you feel the scene was harmless. The fact is a published critic (and others - again I'll add names when I have a moment) said otherwise. 68.146.41.232 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it odd that this should get an entry, especially given the nature of the film, regardless of whether or not a film critic pointed it out (which doesn't constitute controversy). The film was rated R, and the person shown partaking of the joint was an adult (a responsible, accomplished professional adult, at that). Legal or not, many adults in such roles do smoke marijuana from time to time, and its portrayal in the movie was a refreshing dose of realism. Medved himself does not have an NPOV, so why should his comments warrant "controversy," especially in an internet era when it's quite easy to cherry-pick individual instances of commentary without looking at the larger picture- specifically, the lack of any mass public debate about this one scene. It seems to me to be more a case of some negative critical reception at best than controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.124.250 (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the least bit notable, except maybe for fretful but clueless parents, or alarmists with a censorship agenda. And Ebert appears to not have cared about it, FYI: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20000818/REVIEWS/8180303/1023. He gave the movie four stars and doesn't mention the joint to my knowledge. That also just doesn't sound like him, I don't think he would waste time on something so trivial.VatoFirme (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might actually be worth noting that a movie critic would care about a scene where a character is getting high, by herself, amidst about 2 hours of scenes involving torture and killing of kidnapped females. Are depictions of slow drowning and mutilation of tied-up girls acceptable entertainment, but a dipiction of J-Lo smoking weed isn't? Anyway, it seems to me that it is rare that a lead character, outside of Ice Cube's movies, is shown using 'recreational' drugs, so I vote for leaving the comment. There's not a lot of other things that would distinguish this movie, after all. C d h (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one scene has been discussed to death but something I would really like to know is what cartoon was she watching while smoking?137.229.70.176 (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Dog[edit]

Does anyone know who the acting dog in this movie was? Or what species it was? It was a beautiful white dog, with blue eyes, a pink nose and pink ears. When I first saw it I thought maybe a white german shepard, akita or if they can come in all white a husky or maybe a wolf. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Problem[edit]

All I Need from Within Temptation is from an album released in 2007, with the video being released in the same year. This movie being released in the year 200, I find it quite hard that the scene where Jennifer Lopez is trapped is a box with reverse gravity is based on that music video. If anything, is the other way around. I'm going to delete that piece of information until I'm proven otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.220.110.255 (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1920's?[edit]

the summary states its a "1920's psychological thriller" - it seems like vandalism to me so i'm changing it to "2000 psychological thriller". if anyone knows a good reason that it should be reverted, please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.85.18.175 (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a science fiction story on exactly this subject that predates the movie. Does anybody remember the name of the story? It would have appeared in either Asimov's SF magazine or Analog. I think it was Novella length. I think they changed the ending - in the story, the psychiatrist is taken over by the serial killer. I don't remember all the details but I believe one of them (there were a man and a woman in the story) is lost in the first attempt, and the other tries again later and is also lost attempting it again. Possibly the woman tries it first, her mind is shattered, then the man goes in to her mind to try to save her, finds the remnants of the serial killer, I think he ends up lost as well.

Based on a SF story?[edit]

There is a science fiction story on exactly this subject that predates the movie. Does anybody remember the name of the story? It would have appeared in either Asimov's SF magazine or Analog. I think it was Novella length. I think they changed the ending - in the story, the psychiatrist is taken over by the serial killer. I don't remember all the details but I believe one of them (there were a man and a woman in the story) is lost in the first attempt, and the other tries again later and is also lost attempting it again. Possibly the woman tries it first, her mind is shattered, then the man goes in to her mind to try to save her, finds the remnants of the serial killer, I think he ends up lost as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.60.99 (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Angels_(novel) 2600:1702:3C30:5F80:0:0:0:43 (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Issue: Plot section is IMDB's Plot Synopsis[edit]

The Plot section of this article is almost a verbatim copy of the Plot Synopsis for this film on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209958/synopsis?ref_=tt_stry_pl). Perhaps IMDB used Wikipedia's text, or perhaps IMDB's content licensing allows for this use. Worth checking into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxiggy (talk • contribs) 22:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Cell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Cell_(film)&oldid=1217227299"