In 2006, Stephen King wrote an apocalyptic horror novel that transformed the contagion metaphor into something atypical. While zombies are front and center in this paranoia-fueled story, these creatures are not reanimated corpses that have mutated beyond recognition, à la the infected in The Last of Us. Instead, these zombies are former cell phone users who have transformed after a global network signal called The Pulse is sent, turning them into rampaging killers. This novel, The Cell, captures the unprecedented chaos caused by this incredible situation, with a struggling artist named Clayton serving as our entry point into this world on the brink of collapse.

It's worth noting that King wrote "Melia" at a time when cell phones weren't as affordable as they are today (to the point where they've evolved into a necessity), offering a technologically prescient perspective on a phenomenon that had yet to happen. This pessimistic outlook serves the purpose of setting the stage for horror, and as expected from King, Cell is a fun, fast-paced read about the end of humanity. That said, the experience is middling compared to much of King's voluminous oeuvre, as the second half of the novel falters in suspending disbelief and offering a worthwhile resolution. There is nothing from the thick riches of "The Stand" — which ventures into post-apocalyptic themes — because it's not meant to unfold as a complex saga. The Cell unfolds fast and dirty, where the exhilarating smoothness of its opening chapters turns into a bumpy, bumpy race to the finish line.

Despite the novel's flaws, it does no deserve an adaptation as bad as 2016's Cell (not to be confused with Tarsem Singh's surreal, experimental Cell), which sports 11% on Tomatoes. Does the movie really deserve such an abysmal rating? Let's find out.

The following contains mild spoilers for "Cell" from 2016.

Immediately after King's novel flopped in 2006, Dimension Films bought the film rights and attached Eli Roth ("Cabin Fever," "Hostel") to direct. Roth's vision for The Cell was quite ambitious, as he intended to focus on the aftermath of the apocalypse, extending beyond King's cliffhanger (which itself aims to evoke both hope and despair). However, Roth dropped out of the project in 2009 after citing creative differences with the studio, and King himself wrote the script the same year. It wasn't until 2012 that director Todd Williams ("Paranormal Activity 2") came on board and steered The Cell across the finish line.

In Williams' The Cell, artist Clay (John Cusack) chases his dream of writing and publishing a graphic novel at the cost of intentionally abandoning his wife and son. A year later, when Clay (shamelessly) calls home to report his success, he witnesses the Pulse wreaking havoc across Boston after fleeing to a subway station for safety. Planes collide mid-air, some subway terminals are destroyed, and train conductor Tom (Samuel L. Jackson) warns Clay that they must evacuate and make their way to the tunnels if they have any chance of survival. Infected zombies, called "phones," are seen killing people while moving like hive minds and emitting static sounds from their open mouths. Although this last bit should created a disturbing effect, it does not.

Instead, The Cell strips away all the fun that King's novel has to offer and repackages it in dark metaphors that aren't the least bit scary or intriguing. It is difficult to discern what went wrong; Williams has shown a knack for creating more than just suspenseful horror (his "Paranormal Activity 2" is more than serviceable), but also for creating characters that are grounded and complex, as seen in his 2004 film The Door in the Floor. Likewise, Cusack and Jackson are both compelling performers overall, but still fail to make an impact in a story that gives their characters very little dynamism. Sure, the film isn't completely invisible, but it comes pretty close at certain points. Unfortunately, everything else is tasteless.