1408

A great film. From the horrifying "audio story" of my beloved SK came an above-average film in all respects, which brings back memories of the good old days when the word horror didn't just mean dozens of disgustingly slit throats, piles of disemboweled intestines and a poor atmosphere. I have no reservations about the way the filmmakers handled the subject matter. The short original text was obviously not enough for the whole film, so a lot of things had to be thought out. But even the added passages feel like they are straight out of Stephen King! I was staring... Admiration must go to the director, the special effects team and especially John Cusack, who simply excels in this film about one progressively mad author. And so I thought - if I gave five stars to Darabont's The Mist, why not give them to 1408? One of King's best adaptations. (09/09/2010)

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. (05/11/2008)

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. Cusack's The Raven deserves this privilege. (10/15/2008)

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. (09/21/2007)

A bit of a naive ghost story, the kind of which there have been many. And even though John Cusack is playing for dear life and all that fear is palpable, my adrenaline level didn't rise an inch during his growing madness. Besides, the filmmakers didn't know where to go and resorted to more and more obvious twists and turns, almost crossing the boundary of kitsch several times. On the other hand, they came up with a very interesting ending, which was certainly not very shocking, but it surprised me. A decent 3* for the effort, the actors and the decent atmosphere. (06/13/2012)