1408

Of course, the short story was better. And to tell the truth, when is that not the case with Steve? By the way, today it’s King’s sixtieth birthday, so I dedicate this review to him. :-) But still it’s a quality picture and the necessary changes during filming were managed fairly... let’s say decently. I wouldn’t give it a straight A, the story was unnecessarily protracted in places. Mikael Håfström puts his money on a pretty sure winner and mainly relies on the excellent John Cusack who was absolutely great and precisely cast. I was a little unhappy that we didn’t see some of the malevolent “parts" of the room, like the distorted door or the swampy floor, but I understand that Håfström had to restrain himself and also he was only working with visual media. Samuel L. Jackson was a pleasure and acted superbly, even though I admit that I was rooting for the fat, bald Mr. Olin. A high four stars and at last I’m grateful for a horror that is terrifying even without hundreds of frights and a mass murderer. I hope that this is a sign of good times on their way. (2007.09.21)

I was expecting a cynical hero locked in a scary room. And I got a cynical hero with past trauma locked in a treacherous room, which can scare you so much that unexpected visitors will not be welcome at that moment. Even in the horror genre, there is occasionally a surprise that won't easily leave your mind and that you would gladly experience again, despite the unpleasant dose of fear. This is an honor won also by John Cusack's The Raven. (2008.10.15)

It’s no easy feat to bring Stephen King to the silver screen in a respectable form. While some have managed to successfully adapt several of his non-horror pieces, as for his scary stories, only one has been good. So it rather surprising that in the end it was a routineer like Håfström who managed to do something to even up this sorry imbalance. Because of limited space, 1408 relies solely on the central character. Luckily Cusak turned out to be an outstanding choice. His charisma supported by a good measure of cynicism, together with his unmistakable croaky voice holds the picture’s head above water even during the weaker moments. The fundamental problem here is that after the wonderful opening hour, the creators didn’t head straight for the finishing line, but needlessly and even unbecomingly drag it out. It begins with a wonderfully created atmosphere, lots of ideas and several borrowings from other stories by King (e.g. “The Ledge"). But in the second part, the tempo drops sharply, the story starts to get out of its depth and the atmosphere almost completely disappears. And there aren’t even any ideas anymore, just over and over variations of the same thing we have seen earlier on in the movie. As a result, 1408 ends up being the same as its literary counterpart is in comparison to other works by King. In other words, an example of above average filmmaking craft, but it definitely won’t stay lodged in your memory. P.S.: Of the three existing endings, by far the best is the not so happy one. (2007.07.10)

1408 is not exceptional either in terms of script quality or directorial approach, but at the same time, it is an honest genre film without unpleasant mistakes and pandering. In the flood of endless teenage massacres, inconspicuous vampire and zombie slasher films, and cheap thefts of famous films from the past, this psycho-horror feels honestly old-fashioned according to the rules of the old genre school. In addition, Cusack acts excellently and Samuel L. Jackson complements him very well in the smaller role of the hotel manager. The appropriate duration and several decent special effects scenes with a functioning atmosphere make this film an above-average work in its genre. Overall impression: 70%. (2008.07.11)

I like Stephen King a lot. It's just that not all adaptations of his books are excellent. Unfortunately, I haven't had the privilege of reading the book, so I can't compare this time, but if I were to rate the movie, and I probably should since I'm typing this blabber here, it would be four stars. But for what, though? For the atmosphere? John Cusack's performance? The storyline? The satisfying ending, where the wife's bulging eyes confirm that her husband really did experience something? I add it up, I scratch twice, and yeah, it's a well-deserved 4 stars. Definitely for me. (2008.05.11)