free counter with statistics 1408 | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

1408_6.jpg

Fah-ree-key

1408 / Dustin Rowles

Film Reviews | June 22, 2007 | Comments (124)


He’s done it, folks. John Cusack has finally redeemed himself for the sin of Identity, a damn nice little whodunit released in 2003 that squandered all the suspense it manufactured by providing, in my estimation, the all-time most disappointing movie ending, a copout that was no more satisfying than yanking grundel hairs before a date so that they won’t get caught in your girlfriend’s abstinence ring. And Cusack has done it with a film that’s being mislabeled as a horror movie — there’s no blood or guts here. There’s no mutilation, no poking, piercing, or filleting. Indeed, there’s nothing horrific about 1408. It’s not a horror movie, folks; it’s a fucking scary movie. It’s a crawl up in your seat, hide from the projector screen, and lose-your-shit freak-out that, for the first time in as long as I can remember (Poltergeist, when I was 9?) had me silently pleading for my Mommy.

So, let’s “Encyclopedia Brown this bitch.” Based on a Stephen King short story, the movie concerns Mike Enslin (Cusack), a writer who travels the country to visit locales noted for their haunted nature. Only, in all the years that Enslin has been doing so, he’s never seen anything unusual. He’s a burned-out, atheistic skeptic — another one of King’s typical non-believers destined to get his comeuppance. The origins of that comeuppance come in the form of an anonymous post card he receives warning him not to stay in Room 1408 in the Dolphin Hotel, which is exactly what he plans to do. It will make a nice final chapter, he reckons, for his next book, Haunted Hotel Rooms.

The manager of the Dolphin, Gerald Olin (Sam Jackson, in a small but effective role), doesn’t want Enslin staying in the room, which — since 1912 — has been the final resting place for 56 guests, many of whom have met grisly, self-inflicted deaths and others, untimely natural ones. Olin closed the room to the public in the 70s, but because of some manufactured loophole in a civil rights law, he’s forced to allow Enslin to occupy 1408, though he ominously warns him that no one has ever survived an entire hour. It’s not phantoms or specters, he says, it’s just an “evil fucking room.”

No fucking shit.

For the first few minutes, things seem normal, ordinary. “Some smartass said something about the banality of evil,” Enslin remarks into his tape recorder. “And if that’s so, this is the seventh circle of hell.” But, then Karen Carpenter chimes up from the clock/radio as it counts down from 60:00, and I swear to you folks, “We’ve Only Just Begun,” will never sound the same to you again. Who the hell knew that song could sound so goddamn creepy? I don’t want to say much about what happens in the room, though even if I’d wanted to, it’d be impossible to spoil it. It’s not what happens inasmuch as it is the experience of watching it unfold. It’s got a creepy phone operator. The weather changes. The Carpenters continue to taunt Enslin. His dead daughter makes frequent visits. And, of course, there’s that pervasive sense of dread that permeates the hotel room and keeps the audience tense, uncomfortable, and freaked the hell out.

For the willing, it’s easy to give into the claustrophobic terror of Room 1408. I attended a midnight screening, by myself, and I had to remind myself on occasion that it was only a movie. I know it sounds completely ridiculous, but once, in fact, I got up and left the theater briefly, just so that I could temporarily break my suspension of disbelief and rescue my sanity. Credit the excellent job of the director (Mikael Hafstrom , who redeems himself, too, after the awful Derailed) for not feeling the need to throw in a lot of unnecessary gore; the disturbing and unnerving imagery does the job just fine. But, the real success of 1408 is the pitch-perfect casting of Cusack — he’s convincing, in part, because it’s so unusual to see the normally mild-mannered, unusually detached Lloyd Dobbler completely lose his freakin’ mind. The plot developments probably won’t satisfy everyone (there was even a few brief moments when it seemed as though 1408 would veer off into Identity-copout territory), but I can almost guarantee that, if you allow it, something in Room 1408 will scare the living hell out of you, even if you aren’t ultimately pleased with the film’s logic or with its ultimate conclusion — undeniably, the film’s scare tactics are better than its narrative arc.

I’m not normally a fan of scary movies, mostly because I never find them scary. Double that notion for adaptations of Stephen King’s horror novels, which — with few exceptions (The Shining, maybe Misery) — rarely capture the psychological torment of King’s storytelling abilities. I’ve jumped, recoiled, and felt the tension of suspense, but not since I was young enough not to be able to make the distinction between a movie and reality have I so thoroughly bought into the fear of watching a terrifying film. Indeed, 1408 would have The Blair Witch quaking under her goddamn theater seat.

And here’s a fun idea: If you go see 1408 (and I definitely recommend it), attend a midnight screening with friends. And before you go in, surreptitiously cue The Carpenters’ “We’ve Only Just Begun,” to play as soon as you step back into your car and turn on the ignition. It’s damn near guaranteed to frighten the bejesus out of a few unsuspecting passengers.

Dustin Rowles is the publisher of Pajiba. He lives with his wife in Ithaca, New York. You may email him, or leave a comment below.


Mighty Heart, A | Evan Almighty



Comments

Awesome! I'm seeing this tonight and cannot wait, now that you've confirmed that they made the story rise above the source material by not relying on self mutilating and stripping portraits solely for shock value.

I do, however, take issue with this:

"And Cusack has done it with a film that's being mislabeled as a horror movie -- there's no blood or guts here. There's no mutilation, no poking, piercing, or filleting. Indeed, there's nothing horrific about 1408. It's not a horror movie, folks; it's a fucking scary movie. It's a crawl up in your seat, hide from the projector screen, and lose-your-shit freak-out that, for the first time in as long as I can remember (Poltergeist, when I was 9?) had me silently pleading for my Mommy."

Yeah, ummm...horror movies don't require any of the things you listed to claim 1408 rises above them to be considered horror movies. Rosemary's Baby, The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane, The Omen, What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, and countless other fantastic horror films do not rely on these tactics to be scary. In fact, it's because horror went in this direction recently that it seems to have less of an impact.

Give me a Bette Davis going psycho any day over buckets of blood and castrations.

Posted by: Robert at June 22, 2007 12:43 PM

Based on the trailer, I would have never gone to see this-- but I love the neo-Hitchcock, mess with your mind, not your stomach, thriller/horror, and this sounds amazing!

Posted by: Jenn at June 22, 2007 12:47 PM

SO PSYCHED that this movie is good. The short story is terrifying. King's short stories are second to none.

Posted by: Samantha T at June 22, 2007 12:52 PM

I was underwhelmed with the original short story and the trailer seemed completely different from what I'd remembered reading, so I'm glad to see such an awesome review.

Posted by: twig at June 22, 2007 12:52 PM

As a huge Stephen King fan, I was beyond excited for this movie to come out, especially once I read that King himself really liked the adaptation. My girlfriend and I went to the midnight screening last night, and...holy fucking shit, it scared the BEJEEZUS out of me. I went in with high expectations (which I try not to do for Stephen King adaptations, since they usually suck), but 1408 blew my expectations right out of the water. I fucking LOVED it.

Midnight showings are definitely the way to go with this movie. It screws with your head, in the best possible way, and Cusack does a fantastic job throughout. It's absolutely worth seeing.

Posted by: Kate at June 22, 2007 12:54 PM

Yay! I didn't read the whole review since I don't want to spoil the movie for myself, but I'm glad to read from the first two paragraphs that the movie is fucking scary. Like Kate, I never go into adaptations of King's work with high expectations since they can really go either way but I was really hoping this movie would be good. King has been freaking my shit out since I was 8 years old. My mother has most of his books and I read every one in her collection by the time I reached 11 years old and then kept up after that. The short story of this movie freaked me the hell out. I mean, it didn't give me nightmares or anything since very few stories or movies do and I can count those instances on both hands, but it was freeeaaaakkkyyy.

I hope this movie gives me some nightmares. It would join the ranks of The Exorcist, The Shining, Rose Red, and The Ring. I'll give my feedback after my husband and I see the movie tonight.

Posted by: stardust savant at June 22, 2007 1:01 PM

Oh, I can't be more excited. I, too, haven't seen a genuinely scary movie in years. Thanks for a great review, and thanks for NOT giving anything away. Incidentally, if anyone does post spoilers in the comments, I will find you and... well, I'll be very upset.

But I must take issue with your statement about there being few good King adaptations - what, no love for Maximum Overdrive? Sometimes They Come Back? Thinner? Children of the Corn Part 47: Enough With the Fucking Corn Already?

God, what a bunch of shit.

Posted by: TK at June 22, 2007 1:02 PM

I'm not usually a fan of scary movies either, mostly because I've become a full grown pussy as an adult. But I do like a really good scary movie, along the lines of Blair Witch (which so far is my #1 scariest movie). I think I will rent this when it comes out on DVD, and make sure my husband is around to watch it with me.

Posted by: katy at June 22, 2007 1:03 PM

It is gratifying to see Cusack get back on track. When that guy is on and in a good film, he is just the best. This sounds freaky-deaky; I'm in.

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at June 22, 2007 1:06 PM

Absolutely fantastic!

1408 was my favorite short story in Everythings Eventual and perhaps one of my favorite short stories of all time from King (minus The long Walk, brilliant.) I couldn't be happier that they adapted this to film. I had my doubts when I heard Hafstrom was on board but this review has made my day. Fuck that, made my god-dang week. Thanks DR.

Posted by: perfectjargon at June 22, 2007 1:07 PM

A good King adaptation AND a really scary movie to boot? I'll have to believe it when I see it.

Hey, I'm a skeptic. What can I say?

And I'm with you Robert- Horror movies don't have to contain gore to be horrific. Some of the scariest movies I've seen contain very little in the way of blood and guts.

Posted by: Alabamapink at June 22, 2007 1:09 PM

Can't wait to see this! To anybody who didn't like the short story, go get the audio book version.... You will crap yourself!

Posted by: Joy at June 22, 2007 1:12 PM

So, awesome review, and I kind of want to see it except that it is very very possible that I would ACTUALLY pee my pants in the theater. I am the biggest wuss ever, which kind of sucks because I wish I could just get a kick out of scary movies like everybody else rather than being up all night for weeks.

Anyway looks like your spell checker caught our protagonist's name a few times and changed it to "Ensign". Sorry, I know I'm a total nitpicker.

Thanks. I think I got them all -- and it's less the spell checker's fault, and more the lack of sleep following a midnight movie that, unfortunately, kept me up quite a while even after the movie ended. -- DR

Posted by: Abbey Road at June 22, 2007 1:13 PM

I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for this review...and THANK CHRIST! I enjoyed all of identity and then got to the last 8 mins and wanted to shit in my own mouth to get rid of the nasty taste. I am a huge Stephen king fan having read just about everything that man has EVER put down on paper and sold. i have enjoyed all the movies made from his material on some level but have only truly been pleased with the short-story basd works and some of the early adaptations (Carrie, Cujo, Christine, Pet Semetary, The Shining). My best friend and i are likely gonna see this tonight and I am squeaking with anticipation to be shrieking with delight!

Posted by: PissBoy at June 22, 2007 1:14 PM

So looking forward to wathing this movie now. Thanks for the most excellent review. I can't wait to get scared out of my wits end!! *cheers*

Posted by: travka79 at June 22, 2007 1:16 PM

Damnit, I didn't really expect this to be worth rushing out and seeing. So now I have the dilemma...
Do I see 1408 tonight, or Eagle vs. Shark?

Posted by: noxbu at June 22, 2007 1:21 PM

$100000000000000000000000000000 bucks says Eli Roth COMPLETELY fucks up Cell when he directs it as well. Fuck him. Fuck him right in the ear. i hope he gets molested by a goat with syph.

Posted by: PissBoy at June 22, 2007 1:22 PM

Great review--looking forward to seeing this. I've been waiting for a genuinely scary rather than nauseating movie for a while now.
By the way, someone up there mentioned The Long Walk as a great King story and I couldn't agree more. I think that story was terrifying simply because the context was treated as such a mundane affair. Now I'm itching to read it again. It was in the Bachman Books, no? What was the first story, about the kid taking his math class hostage? That was a great story.

Posted by: Sharon at June 22, 2007 1:22 PM

". . . no more satisfying than yanking grundel hairs before a date so that they won't get caught in your girlfriend's abstinence ring."

*wince* *giggle* *wince*

What the hell is an abstinence ring? Would it actually come in contact with the grundel?

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at June 22, 2007 1:23 PM

I read about the first paragraph as not to spoil myself. I'm psyched my Pajiba friends like the movie -- I've been wary waiting for the reviews because I pretty much expect to be dissapointed by most "horror" movies any more. Glad to see this won't be the case.

Posted by: Lauri at June 22, 2007 1:24 PM

there's no blood or guts here. There's no mutilation, no poking, piercing, or filleting.

Sounds like the first Halloween. Promise that whoever reviews Rob Zombie's remake sits down and watches the original first.

Posted by: cmoody at June 22, 2007 1:25 PM

there's no blood or guts here. There's no mutilation, no poking, piercing, or filleting.

Sounds like the first Halloween. Promise that whoever reviews Rob Zombie's remake sits down and watches the original first.

Posted by: cmoody at June 22, 2007 1:25 PM

"Whores don't get second chances."
But Cusack always does.

Posted by: slightlyfey at June 22, 2007 1:31 PM

Toss me in with the bunch of adults here who no longer see scary movies (saw Poltergeist when I was 6 - yes, 6 - and didn't go to bed without looking underneath it first for a year) because my imagination is even more 'wild' that it was when I was a child. Your review, though, has inspired me to consider giving this one a try...now let's see if I can convince the husband.

Posted by: Kolby at June 22, 2007 1:50 PM

Midnight screening.

Sunday.

At the drive-in.

So. Awesomely. Stoked.

Posted by: Jen at June 22, 2007 1:57 PM

Wow - I'm usually not one for 'scare the shit out of me' movies - but sounds like this is one I will HAVE to see. It may just be added to Netflix - my husband is a wimp - or I could take my sister...

Posted by: Tereasa at June 22, 2007 2:07 PM

1. When SK says he likes an adaptation, it usually means I'll think it sucks manatee pooh. Guy and I do not have the same taste in movies...

2. I haven't dug much of anything he's written since about 1993. I did read Everything's Eventual and literally recall not a thing about it. I'm more for his early short stories--those were the hard-as-cock goods, if you ask me.

Still: John Cusack and atmospheric frighty-frights...I will definitely cue this one up in its rental phase!

Posted by: Ranylt at June 22, 2007 2:13 PM

Wow, I was not expecting to hear such great reviews about this flick. Like many, I'm hesitant to see it because I get shit-scared watching scary movies (even awful ones like "The Faculty") so I avoid them whenever possible. I'll probably rent this one so I can scream in the privacy of my own home.

Posted by: Brie at June 22, 2007 2:17 PM

Socalledonlycousins, you say what the hell is an abstinence ring, I say what the hell is a grundel. I guess we are two halves of the joke then.

Posted by: BLA at June 22, 2007 2:21 PM

". . . no more satisfying than yanking grundel hairs before a date so that they won't get caught in your girlfriend's abstinence ring."

Damn you, Dustin, and the Coke that found its way up my nose. :) (Really, though, what is an abstinence ring? I'm too ashamed to google it at work).

The trailers kind of make this movie look stupid, but I like the idea of John Cusack going apeshit insane for some reason. I like the guy, I just think it would be cool to see his tear his hair out. Throw Piven in there as a sacrifice to the "evil fucking room", and you've got one of the best movies ever.

Posted by: em at June 22, 2007 2:25 PM

i am so freakin excited.

Posted by: kb at June 22, 2007 2:36 PM

So. Very. Completetly. And. Utterly. Freaking. Excited.

This summer's movie selection gets better and better by the day. I am yet another one who hasn't seen a scary movie in ages as the second that gore comes on the screen I stop taking things seriously. Suspense and general creeping dread will stop me sleeping for weeks though so yey!!!

Now I just need to find me a big strong man who's hand I can break during the course of the screening and I'm all set!

Posted by: Alex the Odd at June 22, 2007 2:36 PM

Awesome! 1408 scared the living shit out of me when I first read and the trailer looked awful so I was not expecting anything good. Definitely have to rearrange my weekend plans so I can go see this at some point.

Posted by: audrey at June 22, 2007 2:59 PM

From the Urban Dictionary:

Grundel - That little flap of skin between your cock and your ass that has too much hair and itches like fuck.

As for Abstinence, I don't believe in it so why create a ring for it.

Posted by: me at June 22, 2007 3:01 PM

Damn, I love Cusack. Even in cruddy movies.

I disagree about "Identity." I wasn't crazy about the ending, either, but I'd recommend the movie to anyone.

I saw "Grindhouse" by myself in the afternoon in a local theater and was pretty goddamn creeped out. Never again. Being the only person in a movie theater is not fun.

Posted by: LL at June 22, 2007 3:15 PM

I...wow. That was a completely different reaction from everyone I saw it with last night. There was scary stuff; the clock radio especially, but many of the promising ideas were dropped and nothing was fleshed out, from the room to the characters.

That's about all I can say without spoilers, but I came away thinking there was potential for a kick-ass movie, but it missed the mark completely.

Posted by: Karyn at June 22, 2007 3:39 PM

To those wondering what an abstinence ring is, log on the front page of today's New York Times. A school girl in England is suing her school for the right to wear one. What's with the youth of today? When I was at school, wearing one of those would have meant no guy ever wanted to speak to you and all the girls would have been afraid to be tainted by association. I suspect even the teachers would have had a laugh at ones expense. Not that we were all fucking around, but to make that kind of statement would have been teen suicide, and not because it meant the boys weren't getting anywhere, but because it's sort of the christian equivalent of a pocket-protector for a physics student. We know your position, just don't get all precious and showy about it.

Anyways, rant over, yay for Lloyd Dobler! I really didn't want to give up on him, but Must Love Dogs had me wondering if he had been captured by aliens and returned as Pod Cusack.

Posted by: PaddyDog at June 22, 2007 3:49 PM

BLA: "me"'s definition of grundel is essentially correct, though females have one too if I understand the application of the word.

Now about that abstinence ring: I was thinking it might be some kind of preventive piercing or chastity vagi-let or something. Didn't sound right to me, but some fundamentalist religious folk can be a bit radical about restricting the female sexy, and given the physical location of the grundel . . . well, you can see how DR had crossed up my brain circuitry.

Turns out, however, the abstinence ring is a less-physically-cumbersome-but-really-just-as-disturbing finger ornament that's supposed to remind teens not to bump their ugly parts against each other. If you want to see some puh-THEH-tick delusional ramblings, google "abstinence ring" and visit a couple of the websites selling these things. Did you know that "abstinence education is 100% effective against pregnancy"? Or that "study after study proves that teen sex leads to depression, anxiety and suicide"? (As John Hodgman would say, "WERE YOU AWARE OF IT?")

I mean, really, people.

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at June 22, 2007 3:55 PM

Man I am so psyched. 1408 is my favorite short story by Stephen King, and to hear that the adaptation actually does the story justice? I couldn't be more excited.

Posted by: Andy at June 22, 2007 4:11 PM

the only scary movie i've seen in adulthood is...i forget the name, but it's a recent release and it's about the group of women cave diving. i couldn't sleep for a week! i think it's hard to make a trully scary movie. looking forward to this one.

Posted by: agent scully at June 22, 2007 4:47 PM

So I got morbidly curious and Googled "abstinence ring" and found a site peddling "purity" and "Abstinence" rings. They're pushing Irish claddagh rings as abstinence rings. That made me a little angry.

As for the movie, I'm looking forward to seeing it. The trailer seemed promising (and I THOUGHT that was Samuel L. Jackson!!), and I'm a Kingophile. Plus, I'm of the generation that carries a torch for Jon Cusack. Should be interesting.

Posted by: Noelegy at June 22, 2007 4:50 PM

Argh, hit "Post" a bit before I should. I wear a claddagh ring, have a claddagh tattoo, and it burned my toast to see one of my favorite symbols co-opted in this fashion.

Posted by: Noelegy at June 22, 2007 4:51 PM

The Abstinece ring is a bit creepy. When a girl reaches 12,13,14 (maybe younger) her dad sits her down and explains the imporance of waiting for sex till marriage and gives her a ring to wear on her finger to remind her of her promise she just made with her dad and God to wait till marriage to engage in sex and even sexual relations. (hence the joke about touching the grundel) It's supposed to be like you are "married" to God and your dad till he "gives you away" in marriage. I am keen on God and a good old fashion christian, but I always felt that whole promise ring thing was creepy and a bit much. Supposedly Jessica Simpson had one......before her marriage to Nick, need I say more? Oh and yeah the movie sounds interesting.

Posted by: Debbie at June 22, 2007 5:09 PM

Ok apparently the husband and I are going to have to see this. If it doesn't scare the shit out of us, I am going to wish ingrown grundel hairs on Dustin. For life.

Posted by: Kathy at June 22, 2007 5:41 PM

FINALLY! The first movie worth seeing this summer. Good thing I didn't let those IMDBers get me down with their 'inaccuracy' talks.

Heading to see this soon.

Posted by: Candy at June 22, 2007 6:11 PM

yay! cusack redeems himself for identity.

man, he's got a lot of redeeming to do. identity is, hands down, my winner for worst movie of the past decade. and i include pirates of the carribean 3 and gigli in those calculations. it was awful. awful. i wanted to kill everyone involved.

but this sounds very promising. cusack is great when he's in form.

now, let us never speak of identity again.

Posted by: rocky at June 22, 2007 6:18 PM

WOW! Did not expect to see SO many comments up already but I'm glad to hear that some are as freaked out to see the movie as I am.
I would definetly love to see it, especially after the great review, except for the fact that I actually scream and hide under my jacket/blanket/purse in theatres. So I'm pretty sure I will end up embarassing myself - maybe wait for a the drive-in.

Posted by: REW at June 22, 2007 6:23 PM

I...wow. That was a completely different reaction from everyone I saw it with last night. There was scary stuff; the clock radio especially, but many of the promising ideas were dropped and nothing was fleshed out, from the room to the characters.

I'm with Karyn. Got off work earlier today and caught a matinee with a friend. I was completely underwhelmed, and I expected to be damn near shitting in my pants from the fear (as I am a wuss when it comes to the scary). My friend jumped more than I did. And no one in the theater seemed impressed, either, and they were presumably horror fans. Somehow I doubt seeing this at night would make much of a difference.

Posted by: Daphne at June 22, 2007 8:11 PM

Well, speaking as a huge horror fan, this film was one of the best new horrors in years. Easily one of, if not the, best Stephen King adaptations ever. The film started off with very dry, dark humor and quickly shifted at the second act to very disorienting shock, slow burn, and subtle horror. The camerawork was breathtaking and Cusack was nothing short of amazing. I finished watching this over an hour ago and I still feel completely tensed up. Very disturbing, with a whole lot of heart and a surprisingly strong, uplifting message interwoven into the feature.

Give it a shot, it's totally worth it.

Posted by: Robert at June 22, 2007 10:56 PM

Wow. A lot of posts from haven't-seen-it-yets. I saw it tonight and I support DR's reading. Cusack's pitch-perfect portrayal is near Oscar-worthy, and it is the earnestness that he brings to the role (like he does in many of his more dramatic turns, e.g. High Fidelity) that makes Mike Enslen identifiable and worth your emotional investment.

And what really impressed me about this movie was its utter lack of contemporary thriller/horror movie conventions (no J-horror-import traces of jerky-moving ghouls like the girl in "The Ring", no "Saw" franchise graphic depictions). The film does well by taking its time to establish the mood, the eerie, something-is-not-quite-right atmosphere, and by offering the lighter, humorous moments at the beginning to contrast the darker, claustrophbic story that follows.

This movie is quality. Avoid seeing it in the presence of talkative teenagers (thought that's a given).

Posted by: shay at June 22, 2007 11:13 PM

Identity and Derailed were both great films with great endings. 1408 is a piece of shite. [deleted for spoilerness]

Posted by: sva1994 at June 22, 2007 11:37 PM

Me: You owe me a diet coke - I spilled mine laughing at your description. It does however explain why some men NEVER stop scratching! Baseball anyone?

Posted by: Trixie at June 23, 2007 12:52 AM

saw it tonight. it was pretty good, save for part of the ending with samuel l jackson acting like a really weird butler...(youll know when you see it, its when hes holding the glass of alcohol)...i didnt like that there was really no logic to the film at all, but i guess there didnt need to be.

oh, and agent scully, i dont know if anyone answered already, but the movie that frightened you is called the descent. and it was very scary.

Posted by: jordan at June 23, 2007 12:52 AM

Was pumped to see this the first second I viewed a trailer for it. Sadly I shouldve at least taken the advice given in the end of the review because the movie is now offically ruined for me. I got the full on packed movie theater with obnoxious meatheads expecting Hostelsaw 5 snorting disappointedly and, I kid you not, the stereotypical black people screaming at the screen. I think im offically swearing off the viewing of scary movies in theaters, at least for the first week or so theyre out. I thought it was a great movie and im extremely disappointed I wasnt allowed to enjoy it.

Posted by: Alex at June 23, 2007 1:22 AM

"I kid you not, the stereotypical black people screaming at the screen."

The stereotypical... wait, what now?! Man, what an incredibly stupid, stupid thing to say. What an oafish git you must be. Damn. I'm sorry rude people ruined the movie for you. I'm even sorrier you chose to continue the lack of civility with stupid and racist comments like this.

Posted by: isabelle at June 23, 2007 2:25 AM

"Identity and Derailed were both great films with great endings. 1408 is a piece of shite. [deleted for spoilerness]"

You, my friend, are what is wrong with the average horror audience today. You support complete hack jobs of films with endings thrown on just for the sake of having twist endings, yet can't appreciate a film that doesn't rely on tired tricks and MTV editing to get its scares.

Posted by: Robert at June 23, 2007 12:25 PM

Boyfriend and I went and saw this last night, and safe to say it is really scary. Avoid this movie is you are more inclined to guts, gore, chases with demonic possessed movie-make-up'ed crapola and all the typical scary movie stuff. This one is a tense, creepy, hold-your-breath-cuz-there's-no-telling-what-it's-capable-of film. I lvoed it, I was on the edge of my seat and clinging to the boyfriend's arm the whole time. And I absolutely chewed the sh*t out of my pepsi straw.

Again, one of the things I enjoyed was the mixture of unexpected humour in with a lot of the darkness. Cusak did a stellar job of portraying a character you can identify with... he's not an idiot like a lot of characters in horror films where he makes desicions to better the film (running upstairs when someone's trying to kill you downstairs). His progression into insanity is captured perfectly, and with many reactions one would likely make themselves when faced with the same situation.
The part on the window ledge... *shivers*. Wow. I give it two enthusiastic thumbs up.

Posted by: Stasi at June 23, 2007 12:39 PM

Saw this at the drive-in last night.

I loved the movie. The tension was held well throughout, I loved the use of novel imagery and symbolism, although a couple of tired tropes still found their way in (little girl) it was played brilliantly. Cusack is amazing in it.

But....I didn't find it at all scary. Maybe I'm not capable of being scared. Rather than fear, I felt more like, exhilarated to see what creative turn would come next. But I wasn't frightened.

I was thinking about why this might be and....

SPOILER

SERIOUSLY

OKAY

It's Stephen King. He always saves his heroes/heroines. He may slay numerous others, but the heroes are always safe from the beginning. In his books, this works, because after investing 1000 pages in them, you want them to live. It isn't that I was disappointed he made it through (although he could have died poignantly in this I don't think I'd have felt gypped). But the point is that because its SK, you know he'll make, and it was impossible for me to feel any tension about it. While I felt Enslen's anger and indignation, I never felt he was truly in danger of losing it a la Jack. So if he's not going to die, and he's not going to succumb to madness, then what are the stakes? I felt some with the wife coming--that created the suspense I was craving, but angle was obviously not pushed; the cord was slackened just in time to sort of leave me feeling like, "Is that all?" at the end.

Posted by: Jen at June 23, 2007 1:35 PM

1408 was scary? For me it was a blah film in which I'd already seen the freakiest parts several times in the commercials.

Posted by: lechuga at June 23, 2007 2:43 PM

At age 44, I am now properly old enough to remember when Stephen King used to be interesting & relevant.

Posted by: eroslane at June 23, 2007 5:31 PM

John Cusack is starting to look a little bit like Chandler from 'Friends', and I find this distressing. And, although he is an excellent actor and did particularly well in this movie, I can't stop thinking of him as the adorable geek from Say Anything.

Posted by: Maddy at June 23, 2007 7:32 PM

I own Identity. Did you guys see a different movie? It is definitely one of my favorites, and in my top twenty scary movies.
The ending is frightening not because it is a twist, but a concept. It literally leaves the theater with you because anyone around could contain a sea of what you just saw on the screen. I think about it everytime I hear the Foo Fighters song from the beginning, or pass a prison van on the highway.
And John is great in it.
And I own every Hitchcock film, so I feel like I at least have some perspective to offer on this.

Posted by: majandra at June 23, 2007 8:43 PM

Yeah, maybe I should've waited to see it quietly and cheaply in the morning. Had to sit next to someone, there was ambient audience noise here and there, including a few horrendous sneezes and coughs (and for what it's worth, Alex did say "stereotypical" and not "typical". But there's several kinds of noisy theatergoers, and a scary movie on a weekend night's gonna have 'em all. Nothing to really single out *or* be shocked by).

Anyway, I liked the premise and the setting and the guts to basically do a one-man show in one room. It just didn't scare me at all and I got bored. Maybe that's my problem, but it kinda reinforces why I usually don't go to any horror movies and especially why I don't go at night if I can help it...except seeing Harry Potter movies with a few hundred kids is a blast. I'll pack myself right in there with 'em next month. Otherwise I'm always very aware that there's someone taking the armrest or gabbing behind me and I'm never really in the movie. I saw "Snakes On A Plane", completely alone I think, on a Saturday morning a few weeks after it opened and had a great time. Oh well.

Posted by: Jay at June 23, 2007 11:53 PM

To Eroslane who said -

"At age 44, I am now properly old enough to remember when Stephen King used to be interesting & relevant."

... In the interest of being nice, if you were looking for the next Stand everytime and gave up, you've missed the opportunity to read some great stories since (the Dark Tower series, while not for everyone, would please a Stand fan). Sure not every one is a gripping tale for every reader, but what writer pleases all the people all the time? Now, in the interest of being irritated by your comment, here's my heartfelt request that you refrain from posting arrogant pseudo-bibliophilic comments just to be a turd and insult others' tastes without backing it up. It didn't make you sound cool, it made you sound like...well, That Fucking Ian Guy in High Fidelity.

ANYWAY, don't want to turn this into an SK discussion board, so moving on... I'm excited to see this movie now. The previews were actually making me *less* excited about it, and I can't help but think the reason must be that the promoters were trying to lure in the Hostelsaw 5 crowd (good call, Alex) with creepy jump scenes and the promise of bloodnguts in the previews... now that I have this review to consider, I think I'll definitely see it! I agree with Katy though, I've totally wussed out in my adult years, and will either have to see this with a LARGE audience, or with friends, in broad daylight, at home later. Followed by something funny, just to calm myself down.

Posted by: Jaime at June 24, 2007 8:11 AM

My husband and I ended up seeing the movie last night - it was playing out of town and I didn't feel like driving an hour on Friday night. Anyway, I thought it was excellent. The set-up of the movie reminded me a lot of Hitchcock's "Rope" - most of the movie took place in one room and the protagonist was left alone to deal with his own mind and the horrors around him.

At first I was skeptical about the original short story being fleshed out. So many times a Hollywood adaptation turns out to be total shit, but the writers stayed very true to the spirit of the original story. As a commenter above noted, Cusack did an excellent job of portraying a man slowly becoming unhinged yet fighting to hang on to his sanity every step of the way. He was one of those rare horror-movie heroes who didn't lose his shit at the first sight of a ghoulie or the first chill of evil down his spine. I believe someone also mentioned

SPOILER

WARNING

DON'T CRY TO ME

IF YOU DON'T

HEED THIS

that King always takes of his heroes. That is indeed true, but the hero does not always win. I was curious through the entire movie whether or not Enslin was going to win out over the room or whether he was going to merely escape it and supremely piss it off for the next victim.

Overall, I thought the movie was excellent. It's nice to see a horror movie that relies on the human mind to scare the shit out of itself rather then throwing buckets of blood, having creepy children jerk around at the edge of the frame, and pulling body parts off of people very slowly.

I'm now beginning to question my wisdom in watching this movie this weekend. Today I leave for a week-long work meeting in which I will be staying in an unfamiliar hotel. I sense a few sleepless nights. Here's hoping the hotel doesn't have crooked doorways and compound my 1408 nightmares with nightmares of The Haunting.

Posted by: stardust savant at June 24, 2007 11:22 AM

It's Mikael Håfström, actually. Swedish bloke.

Posted by: piedlourde at June 24, 2007 3:59 PM

Oh God, did this movie suck.

I figured that the Pajiba reviewers hate everything that is the slightest bit commercial, so that if they liked this one it must be something special...how wrong I was. I was able to call every plot twist that showed up and I have never read this particular SK.

I guess I'm just not on the right po-mo mo-fo wavelength for this site.

Posted by: Adam C at June 25, 2007 4:22 AM

I read the review, and like Dustin, I haven't been scared of a movie in a very long time. However I'd like to say that I still have not been scared by a movie in a long time after seeing 1408. It was good, and in fact an amusing horror/comedy at times. This was a very strangely self aware horror flick that throws in a few quips at just the right moment to make the audience laugh instead of scream.

I will admit, I jumped once, early on. If the movie had progressed at the same rate throughout, I would have given it 10 skulls instead of 6.

Posted by: patches at June 25, 2007 10:46 AM

Dustin, this is an excellent time for me to bring up a film you did not review but I wish you had... Matthew Barney's Drawing Restraint 9!!! I know that it is a piece of art, not a blockbuster movie, but hey, I saw it at the IFC center and ate popcorn and Sourpatch kids (*note* eating snacks was a terrible, terrible idea). But I really wanted to hear a film critic's side, not just art critics. I've got a bootleg if you want to do a Real Time Review. It makes any horror flick pale in comparison. Okay, I'm going to go throw up now after thinking about it...

Posted by: Nico at June 25, 2007 1:08 PM

Isabelle: "You, my friend, are what is wrong with the average horror audience today. You support complete hack jobs of films with endings thrown on just for the sake of having twist endings, yet can't appreciate a film that doesn't rely on tired tricks and MTV editing to get its scares."

1408 doesn't rely on tired tricks? Really? So that whole sequence near the end of the film in which (SPOILER) Enslin thought he had escaped the room wasn't a tired trick? Crawling through the ventilation duct wasn't a tired trick? Seeing hallucinations of his late, mentally addled father wasn't a tired old trick? The cliche of a man who lost his faith following a tragedy wasn't a tired old trick? (END SPOILER) Please. This film is filled with cliches, which wouldn't have been so bad if they were actually executed in a manner that was scary.

I'm not what's wrong with the average horror movie audience today for the simple reason that I'm not part of that audience. Most modern "horror" movies suck. They make no sense, are cliche-ridden, and just aren't scary. It's why I far prefer films like Derailed and Identity, which aren't horror films, but thrillers, and well-made ones. I saw nothing in the endings of those films that suggested that they were thrown in "just for the sake of having twist endings" (which sounds a lot more like Shayamalan's films). Those endings were the logical outcomes of their preceding plots, and merely followed the rule of surprising the audience. They were not "hack jobs" to me, but entertaining. This film was not. To each their own, Isabelle. :-)

Posted by: sva1994 at June 25, 2007 1:28 PM

wait. people found this movie scary? you're kidding right?

it's a nice enough film. and cusack was good, despite looking more and more like his sister. but how was this film not filled with cliches? how was it not terribly predictable? and how can a film filled with cliches, that's pretty much always predictable, be scary at all?

pretty stunned at this review :)

Posted by: studpup at June 25, 2007 8:46 PM

so utterly dissapointed. the best thing about this movie was the art direction...and of course, sam jackson and john cusack. not scary in the obvious over the top gore way, or in the psychologically distrurbing way. blah, would absolutely not recomend this movie, and find it so hard to believe this would actually scare someone, or even entertain. i kept waiting for something, i'm not sure what but it certainly never came.

Posted by: rachel at June 26, 2007 6:02 AM

Maximum Overdrive is a sweet movie.

Posted by: WhoWhatWhere at June 26, 2007 6:34 PM

I know what you mean about having to leave in the middle just to retain your sanity. I didn't actually get to, because of some fat lards in my aisle that didn't want to move, but I definately wanted to. I found myself curled up in the fetal position in my theater seat, peaking through my fingers like a five year old, and saying, "Oh my God, oh my God, oh my God!" numerous times, to the annoyance of my boyfriend and fellow movie goers, I'm sure. The fact that the movie IS so claustraphobic, and that you're afraid to let the camera zoom away from Cusak's face without holding your mom's hand, makes it even better. Because you don't want to see what the room is doing, but you HAVE to! It was amazing. I pulled my son into bed to protect me from the monsters after seeing this incredible movie.

Posted by: Scottie at June 27, 2007 7:50 AM

I'm seeing the movie tomorrow and after reading this, I'm pretty excited.
I love how you wrote this, and found this review hilarious and entertaining.
But I'm not going to start reviewing your review.
But keep writing, because I really enjoyed reading this!
Anyway, psyched for the movie.
Thanks very much!

Posted by: Meg at June 28, 2007 12:19 AM

Shame on Pajiba, for causing me to sit through this movie which I would have otherwise avoided. The only scary parts were those which made you jump with cheap loud noises, and absolutely nothing in the movie will keep me up tonight.

And I don't think this movie made the Carpenters any creepier than they already were.

Posted by: Meredith at June 28, 2007 12:36 AM

AMEN, Meredith. I took my friends with me last night to see this, thinking it would have the same effect on me that "The Grudge" did (I slept with my lights on for a week, and anytime someone makes that gutteral noise... well, I'm just not right with the world.)

Anyhow, this was NOT anything remarkable. I have to disagree with labeling this film as anything other than mediocre entertainment with more laughs than scares.

Maybe I'm just not claustrophobic. [spoiler, maybe? eh who cares.] We all laughed at the "you are here" part.

Just didn't get it. I enjoyed "Surf's Up" more than this movie.

Posted by: Big Red at June 28, 2007 8:30 AM

dont listen to them dustin, (if you actually bother to readthrough these) i saw and understood where one might get piss scared, but i wasn't all that unnerved. however im not going to curse your opinion, becasue although the horror didnt get me, cusack's performance allowed me to remove him from my retired list.

def. better than any other current "horror" movie. and what i appreciated most about it was the ending. GREATTT ending!!! they didnt take the shitty, eXistenZ route of "ooo maybe he's STILL in the roooooommmm!!! oooooo"

very happy, thanks pajiba

Posted by: MAx at June 28, 2007 5:38 PM

I wouldn't have seen this without having read this review, but I'm glad I did. I went with my roommate and we had a blast. I literally shrieked like a little girl at some parts. Loved it! Thanks, Pajiba.

Posted by: Brianne at June 28, 2007 7:03 PM

scaryscaryscaryscaryscaryscary
scaryscaryscaryscaryscaryscary
scaryscaryscaryscaryscaryscary
scaryscaryscaryscaryscaryscary
scaryscaryscaryscaryscaryscary
scaryscaryscaryscaryscaryscary!

Posted by: RicaB at June 29, 2007 3:20 AM

It was a nice break from the torture-porn horror films of late.

But I couldn't decide if it was a scary movie, or a PSA against taking mescaline when you are alone.

Posted by: slc at June 29, 2007 4:43 PM

Best scary movie I've seen in a long time. When I was a kid, I loved Stephen King movies for the ability to take a perfectly normal oldies song and twist it so that I can never hear it the same without getting the chills.

It was great to see John Cusack's character lose his mind. With this movie and the upcoming Grace is Gone, it looks like he's gonna have another great year.

Posted by: lex at June 29, 2007 9:05 PM

I saw it last night.

I had no nightmares afterwards, and it didn't scare me nearly as much as I had expected it to: I'd say about 85% less.

Because I watched about 85% of it THROUGH MY HAND as I COWERED ON MY SEAT WITH MY FEET UNDER ME.

No, wait. 84%.

The other 1% I watched as a reflection on my date's face, when I decided looking at him would tell me what I needed to know.

Apparently I missed a few nifty special effects this way. I am sure they will look lovely on DVD.

Posted by: Salieri2 at June 29, 2007 10:01 PM

this film is in the horror/thriller cat.. there is no scares nor thrill with this film, this is one hell of a boring film.. im not into blood and guts as i prefer the more intelligent film. but this film had no story not plot and lacked atmosphere. complete and utter garbage..

Posted by: Film Critic at June 30, 2007 8:01 PM

this film is in the horror/thriller cat.. there is no scares nor thrill with this film, this is one hell of a boring film.. im not into blood and guts as i prefer the more intelligent film. but this film had no story no plot and lacked atmosphere. complete and utter garbage..

Posted by: Film Critic at June 30, 2007 8:01 PM

This was a GREAT movie! It actually took a few hours for my reality to go back to normal after the movie... I kept waiting for something to happen to me. After the movie I went to the bathroom and I was so in shock with the movie I wasn't even paying attention to the line of people waiting and walked right past them to an open stall that was really a mess.. and I turned and all these people were telling me, we tried to warn you and just shaking their heads! I thought about explaining.. but thought I better just wait my turn. I was oblivious for several hours after the movie!

Posted by: Christine at June 30, 2007 9:42 PM

cannot WAIT for this to hit the UK...Stephen King really is the master of the short story and this one was creepy and disturbing as hell..one of those that leaves visual imagery and residual creepiness haunting you for days after :-)Plus John Cusack is a fine actor. Looking forward to it

Posted by: nari at July 1, 2007 8:32 AM

Loved it loved it loved it loved it. . .

Too bad there was a loser giving play by play narration behind us, I am not a big shusher but I did so and also had to add a 'Shut up" to no avail. . .

But all that couldn't stop the love, however I don't know if I will be able to watch it again on DVD, it freaked me that much. But I loved it, (did ya get that) so I will.

Posted by: Alli at July 1, 2007 9:29 PM

I just saw this movie yesterday. I wasn't creeped out. It was alright, but I wouldn't watch it again or recommend it to anyone.

Posted by: rose at July 2, 2007 11:28 AM

what does everyone make of the end??

Posted by: noone at July 2, 2007 11:57 PM

See, I hate movie-talkers with a fiery passion, and it's become so common that I almost refuse to go to the movie theater any more. I just don't understand why one person can't keep their fucking mouth shut for the length of a feature, let alone an entire theater, or why someone would spend admission price to sit and talk with their friends, instead of doing it for free somewhere else.

I hate people.

Posted by: Craig at July 3, 2007 1:11 AM

I was so excited to see this after reading the review. I hate gore, and I was psyched to see a truly scary movie of thrills and chills.

That's 2 hours and $7 I'll never get back. Boring. Not scary. Ridiculous.

Posted by: Grace at July 4, 2007 10:59 PM

I read the review for this and was excited when Dustin gave it such a good review. I was pumped to see a truly psychological scary movie.

I must say, it was quite disappointing. It had some scary moments, but you can watch the trailer and see those. The film did not make much sense and left me with many questions. For instance, if there were 56 deaths in the room, why were there only two main apparitions?

I enjoy reading Stephen King's novels and find most of them well written and scary. I just wish this movie made more sense. What is it about the damn room? I mean, sheesh, don't leave us guessing. I thought the Amittyville Horror was much scarier.

Posted by: John M at July 5, 2007 11:09 AM

OMG! I absolutely LOVED this movie. I have not been scared by a movie since I saw Alien. I screamed out loud. I never do that. I found the shock value intense and was gasping through out the entire movie. This is the type of movie I live for. I found it genuinely horrifying.

Posted by: scubadiverb at July 5, 2007 5:55 PM

This movie has what most suspense/horror movies have been missing for years (6th sense excluded) and that is a strong storyline, character development, plus the limited use of CGI.
If you enjoy movies that draw you in and immerse you into the nightmare, which is 1408, then this is your cup of tea..
Words to describe 1408: Intense, Terror, Fright, Creepy, Nightmarish.

Posted by: Brian at July 6, 2007 2:56 PM

Literally the best "horror" movie I have seen since I was a kid.

(SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER)
My gf didn't like it....but she kind of gave up on it after a certain part of the movie when she thought it was over. That was the best part for me. I had the disappointment of thiking the movie was over, then was flipped right back into the movie.(END SPOILER)

The movie made me claustrophobic and had me very nervous/anxious through the whole thing. It has been about an hour since I have seen it, and still have goosebumps.

Posted by: John at July 7, 2007 12:30 AM

HUGE DISSAPOINTMENT!!!!!!!

Posted by: ash at July 7, 2007 3:32 AM

The only thing more fucking evil then the room is the ending.

Posted by: Frank at July 7, 2007 7:16 PM

Long and boring. Sam L Jackson's role is ridiculous and predictable. It wasn't scary and the suspenseful parts only led up to nothing. They had quiet parts where the radio blasted out of nowhere, but that would scare me even at a comedy or a drama! REALLY WANTED TO LIKE IT but it really sucked. My date doesnt like scary movies because she's chicken, but just sat stone faced throughout the movie. Sucked bigtime.

Posted by: Rz at July 8, 2007 6:38 AM

Saw it last night - I enjoyed it. The short story really stood out from the "Everything's Eventual" collection, so I was hoping it'd be good. It wasn't perfect (thought it relied on the father/daughter thing too much where it really didn't have to), but I love the premise. I also though Samuel L.J. was a lot of fun in that role. The movie combined scary shit and laughs pretty well, as all of Steven King's finest work does.

Posted by: samantha t at July 8, 2007 12:39 PM

As for the story relying on cliches, I think that's part of King's m.o. He takes what's traditionally and typically frightening (a monster in the closet, creatures in the sewers, the undead taking over a town, a haunted room/hotel) and somehow casts it in such a way that it's *actually* frightening.

Posted by: samantha t at July 8, 2007 12:41 PM

I just found it hilarious how Cusack was being the tough guy and then after one or two little weird things happened in the room he was begging and screaming like a little girl, to get out. Not cool. Not Scary.

Posted by: Rob at July 10, 2007 12:07 AM

Wow, I just saw this movie earlyer today and wasn't really sure if it was going to be any good at all, frankly, I thought the trailers made it look fairly dumb. I was wrong, this is the first movie that has scared me in a LONG time and when I say it scared me, it scared the SHIT out of me. As far as the end goes, I thought it was absolutly amazing. This is the best horror movie in years. GO SEE IT!

Posted by: Jeff at July 12, 2007 5:44 AM

"psychologically disturbing"-- someone above said that. that perfectly describes the movie in my experience. certainly there were frightening bits but the impact of the movie as a whole was HUGE for me. as the credits rolled I wasn't entirely sure that was it. then when I got up to leave I had terrible vertigo.

leaving the theatre I passed acquaintances and didn't see or recognize them. when they said my name I looked at them and babbled some incoherant apology about having just seen something scary. I think I may have to apologize for being a loon.

two hours later and I'm still a little dizzy.

Posted by: satori at July 16, 2007 2:26 AM

i really dont care if any of you losers wanna see 1408 i want different peoples reviews of what they thought not just some pathetic putz

Posted by: kelly at July 19, 2007 12:21 AM

"Because I watched about 85% of it THROUGH MY HAND as I COWERED ON MY SEAT WITH MY FEET UNDER ME."

OMG me too! I am easily scared, but the musical stings were timed so that I could hide before seeing anything. Which I know is a silly way to watch a movie, but still. I thought it was creepy, and I enjoyed it, but it didn't stay with me long after we left the theater. My b.f. was less than impressed, though. The post office interlude in particular left him cold, but it was fun on a Sunday afternoon.

Posted by: lunabelle at July 20, 2007 2:10 PM

1408 was a waste of time. I hope Dustin Rowles wasn't serious about having to leave the theatre to "rescue his sanity". Based on his ridiculous review, he must have lost it a long time ago. I've been in scarier rooms at the Super 8.

Posted by: chris at July 24, 2007 12:12 PM

1408 was a waste of time. I hope Dustin Rowles wasn't serious about having to leave the theatre to "rescue his sanity". Based on his ridiculous review, he must have lost it a long time ago. I've been in scarier rooms at the Super 8.

Posted by: chris at July 24, 2007 12:13 PM

Nice review. Scaring your friends with that song trick after a midnight showing sounds fun. :-)

Posted by: sayed at July 25, 2007 12:18 PM

Really? You thought it was that scary, Dustin? The review is a little over the top, I feel. "1408" was effective and very stylish, but it didn't give me any major heart palpatations.
And that whole tormented father/loss of a child subplot has been done far too many times. I realise it may have been essential for the plot, but it still ticked me off and I couldn't help but rolling my eyes during the tearjerking flashbacks.
Anywho -- I still love me some Cusack. The man ages like a fine wine.

Posted by: piedlourde at July 26, 2007 1:55 PM

Bravo Dustin! I absolutely loved this film. I thought it was a wonderful thrill ride. I read the short story twice. I must say this was actually BETTER than the short story! I cannot believe it actually was better, but it was!

I highly recommend this movie.

Posted by: LoveScaryFlicks at July 31, 2007 8:01 PM

ive just watched the film and to be honest i was a bit dissapointed... i wanted to be scared but i wasnt.. oh well..

Posted by: Toni-Marie at August 23, 2007 12:28 PM

I saw this last night and I can't stop thinking and talking about it. I couldn't sleep last night, convinced that my Siamese cat who kept staring at me was some sort of evil essence.
Both my father and mother walked out as they couldn't stand it anymore. My poor old dad couldn't even look at the screen he was so terrified!
I'm back again for another round tomorrow eve with a whole bunch of friends and I'll take your advice and watch a midnight showing! :)

Cusack is FANTASTIC - an Oscar worthy performance!

Posted by: Charlotte at September 6, 2007 8:32 AM

Me and My boyfriend are planning watch tomorrow but haven't decided yet, if what movie we're going to watch. But since I read your nice review with this movie I decided to watch it. Your reviews seems to encourage me to watch that movie.

Posted by: Favorite Movie Reviews at September 7, 2007 10:48 AM

No matter how intelligent you claim to be, this film was diabolical, I have never seen such a poor, and down right crazy 12 year old attempt at a "movie", the "acting" by the main actor was poor, and that is being kind, i could have done better in my sleep, what is film coming to, how desperate have they become, no intelligence behind it, where is the clever plot? this was written by a person on acid!! not enjoyable for us sane people, my advice DONT SEE THIS FILM, ITS TIME OUT OF YOUR LIFE YOU WILL NEVER GET BACK!!!!

Posted by: jane semore at September 7, 2007 2:52 PM

95% of people are stupid, that being said, 95% of people might not get this movie. Have you ever had a dream that was so awful that you wake up in puddle of sweat and tears? That you couldn't wake up from, you just had to ride it out? That's what this movie feels like (in a good way), if you like cheap blood and gore and scary monsters in rubber masks, this isn't for you. If you want to be scared on a deeper level, this is for you.

Posted by: Alan at September 21, 2007 1:22 AM

get a life

Posted by: Deena at October 2, 2007 8:41 PM

If you liked this "film", you should check out other stellar releases such as "Good Luck Chuck" and...ah, fuck it...You don't get paid for writing reviews, do you? I sure hope you have a day job 'cause if this is the kind of shit you dig, you should be reviewing reality shows for Fox. Cliche' after cliche' after...Holy shit: A cliche. Good luck with your career, 'cause it's just as shitty as the movies you enjoy.

Posted by: Jason at October 4, 2007 12:35 AM

I know no one will read this because the movie came out a while ago. I just watched it on DVD, and I had read this review when the film was released theatrically. The review made me really apprehensive -- I am 31 years old, but I live alone, and I am not ashamed to admit that sometimes what seems like harmless fiction in the daytime can turn on you at 3am. The bombastic "Silent Hill," for example, kept me up a few nights.

So, after reading the review, I thought this movie would freak me the hell out. For the first 10 minutes after Enslin gets in the hotel room, I was sitting on my couch, completely tensed up. But pretty soon I realized that...nothing happens. Nothing scary, at any rate. When the pictures started moving on the walls, I found myself thinking back to that Darryl Hannah/Steve Guttenberg movie "High Spirits" and laughing. What exactly were you scared of, Dustin? I can be a complete wuss during scary movies, but I found myself amusedly picking out plot holes, not losing my shit. And it was very sloppy, I think -- nothing was connected. The daddy issues are mentioned again and again, yet nothing scary or illuminating comes of it. It could have been a scary aspect, but it was another missed opportunity. Those pictures on the wall were apropos of nothing, as well. The apparition that tries to attack Enslin a couple of times -- what was he there for? I know he was in the boat picture, but there's just no significance to anything, and I think that was just lazy. Not to mention I've never seen hammier acting from Cusack, although as an actor, it is difficult to repeatedly react to nothing, and I mean that literally and figuratively. Kudos to you, though, Dustin: your review was scarier than the actual movie.

Posted by: Stacy at October 22, 2007 12:33 PM

Good lord this movie was pathetic. The movie trailer was scarier and more interesting than the movie itself.

It has been almost a week since I watched it, yet I cannot stop thinking about how utterly disappointing it was. It was not scary. It had huge plot holes. The storyline meanders from one hackneyed scene to another.

The acting in this movie is awful. Cusack looks comical in a few of the over-the-top scenes. Jackson delivers his usual wooden and unconvincing performance.

Save your time and money, watch something else instead.

Posted by: Eric Layne at November 8, 2007 11:19 AM

hi im paul wats it 2 ya

Posted by: josh at November 8, 2007 1:02 PM

hi im paul wats it 2 ya

Posted by: josh at November 8, 2007 1:03 PM

This was just a remake of the movie "House" (William Katt). I was hoping for something original.

Posted by: Bubs at November 10, 2007 10:25 AM

Just tried watching this movie on my own...
failed miserably.
Gotta wait for a friend to watch it with me.
I got all the way to 55 minutes left on the clock.
I have been waiting for a FREAKY movie like this for a while. There is sooooo much superficial stuff being released these day's like Pulse, White Noise etc ect ect, how refreshing to see some good solid acting in a spooky film.
RECCOMENDED (but not as solitary viewing)
I gotta watch the rest ASAP - when I find the balls to put it on!!

Posted by: Eddbolt at November 18, 2007 11:58 AM