1408: Doomed to Oblivion?

Fishasaurus · July 02, 2007, 08:31:44 AM

I just saw this over the weekend and liked it. But I worry. It's based on a Stephen King story, you know, and with the exception of The Shining, which I've personally enjoyed less and less over the years, and Night Flier which is oddly likeable, most of the movies based on his stuff stinketh royally.

I thought it was good but really uneven, with some of the best AND worst acting I've ever seen out of John Cusack. What does anyone else think?

Oldskool138 · July 02, 2007, 09:02:09 AM

I think Pet Semetary is the best movie made from one of his books. The Nightmares and Dreamscapes miniseries is really good as well. I'm a big Kubrick fan so I love The Shining...I just wish they'd put it on HD DVD like Full Metal Jacket. I have a soft spot for Secret Window.

I was kind of disappointed that 1408 was rated PG-13. I hate it when films pull punches to get the lower rating. The only horror movies nowadays that get R ratings are the torture-porn horror flicks (Hostel, Touristas...etc.). I'll go see 1408...hopefully it won't stink up the joint.

Fishasaurus · July 02, 2007, 10:36:17 AM

Oh, I liked it all right -- it's just that the scares went from very subtle and effective to very obvious and chintzy. I don't think anyone would say it stinks.

SaintMort · July 02, 2007, 05:27:12 PM

Quote from: Oldskool138 on July 02, 2007, 09:02:09 AM
I was kind of disappointed that 1408 was rated PG-13.

If more PG-13 horror movies were like 1408 I wouldn't hate them so much

Fishasaurus · July 03, 2007, 10:23:11 AM

Quote from: SaintMort on July 02, 2007, 05:27:12 PM
Quote from: Oldskool138 on July 02, 2007, 09:02:09 AM
I was kind of disappointed that 1408 was rated PG-13.

If more PG-13 horror movies were like 1408 I wouldn't hate them so much

So what did you think of the Willard remake?

SaintMort · July 04, 2007, 12:04:47 AM

Quote from: Fishasaurus on July 03, 2007, 10:23:11 AM
Quote from: SaintMort on July 02, 2007, 05:27:12 PM
Quote from: Oldskool138 on July 02, 2007, 09:02:09 AM
I was kind of disappointed that 1408 was rated PG-13.

If more PG-13 horror movies were like 1408 I wouldn't hate them so much

So what did you think of the Willard remake?

Never got around to that one... see my thing is... when I think PG-13 horror movie I automatically think of the worst PG-13 horror movie of all time (and possibly one of the worst movies in general) Stay Alive

Fishasaurus · July 09, 2007, 11:45:38 AM

Quote from: SaintMort on July 04, 2007, 12:04:47 AM
Quote from: Fishasaurus on July 03, 2007, 10:23:11 AM
Quote from: SaintMort on July 02, 2007, 05:27:12 PM
Quote from: Oldskool138 on July 02, 2007, 09:02:09 AM
I was kind of disappointed that 1408 was rated PG-13.

If more PG-13 horror movies were like 1408 I wouldn't hate them so much

So what did you think of the Willard remake?

Never got around to that one... see my thing is... when I think PG-13 horror movie I automatically think of the worst PG-13 horror movie of all time (and possibly one of the worst movies in general) Stay Alive

Well, I recommend it. Highly.

DodgingGrunge · July 09, 2007, 12:07:18 PM

Quote from: Fishasaurus on July 03, 2007, 10:23:11 AM
So what did you think of the Willard remake?

Crispen Glover was born to play Willard! In fact, as far as remakes go, that is one of my favorites.

I saw 1408 the other day and more or less enjoyed it. It started out strong, sassy and clever, but about halfway through his hotel hell the film began to fall victim to its own devices. The main character can only survive so many bumps and scrapes before you, the viewer, begins to tire of the drama. And while I don't mean to spoil it for anyone, this film suffers multiple endings, à la Maverick, a cliché I've always despised.

But it is definitely worth a viewing.

The Burgomaster · July 09, 2007, 06:07:36 PM

I enjoyed 1408. It isn't a great movie, bit it's definitely a good movie. I think the best movies based on Stephen King's books are (in no particular order):

* THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION
* THE GREEN MILE
* CARRIE
* SALEM'S LOT (the David Soul version)
* THE DEAD ZONE
* MISERY

I'm not a big fan of THE SHINING (other than some of Jack Nicholson's moments of acting brilliance).

PET SEMATARY was pretty good, but could have been a lot better. Same goes for CHRISTINE.

CUJO, SILVER BULLET, SLEEPWALKERS, CHILDREN OF THE CORN, and a few others were hugely disappointing.

DodgingGrunge · July 09, 2007, 08:49:59 PM

Quote from: The Burgomaster on July 09, 2007, 06:07:36 PM
I think the best movies based on Stephen King's books are (in no particular order):

* THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION
* THE GREEN MILE
* CARRIE
* SALEM'S LOT (the David Soul version)
* THE DEAD ZONE
* MISERY

I'm not a big fan of THE SHINING (other than some of Jack Nicholson's moments of acting brilliance).

PET SEMATARY was pretty good, but could have been a lot better. Same goes for CHRISTINE.

CUJO, SILVER BULLET, SLEEPWALKERS, CHILDREN OF THE CORN, and a few others were hugely disappointing.

I think the important thing for directors to consider is Stephen King writes in a very literary style. Many stories couldn't be transformed to the screen even with a billion dollar budget. I would argue that The Shining is my favorite adaptation solely because Kubrick made it his own, playing to his talents and resources. I can understand why many King fans dislike it, since it isn't terribly faithful to the book, but film is film and print is print. And for our part as fans, I think it is important to remember that we end up with two distinct works; each can be judged on their own merits as a constituent of their medium.

The best example I can think of is William S. Burroughs' Naked Lunch, adapted for the screen by David Cronenberg. The two products couldn't be more different, but each work splendidly in their respective formats. I cannot even begin to imagine how terrible the film would have been had Cronenberg merely set out to make a copy.

The Burgomaster · July 10, 2007, 07:05:51 PM

Quote from: DodgingGrunge on July 09, 2007, 08:49:59 PM

I would argue that The Shining is my favorite adaptation solely because Kubrick made it his own, playing to his talents and resources. I can understand why many King fans dislike it, since it isn't terribly faithful to the book, but film is film and print is print. And for our part as fans, I think it is important to remember that we end up with two distinct works; each can be judged on their own merits as a constituent of their medium.

I'm a huge believer in the point you make that movies and books are quite different and should be judged independently. I'm also a believer that movies can be (and often are) better than the books upon which they are based. THE GODFATHER is a prime example. Parts of the novel are poorly written. Overall, the novel is a good story with only mediocre execution. The movie is fabulous.

As for THE SHINING, I saw it before I read the book and thought it was decent, but not great. It didn't scare me and I didn't find it extremely suspenseful. Scatman Crothers annoyed me, too. I thought Nicholson was brilliant in many scenes and there was some nice cinematography (and I'm not just referring to the scenes of the bigwheel riding through the corridors, which are the scenes everyone seems to remember). The book and the movie are very different and therefore it would be difficult (and maybe even wrong) to even try to compare them. But the movie just didn't knock my socks off. And that's too bad, because every time I watch it, I WANT it to knock my socks off!

Torgo · July 10, 2007, 09:29:28 PM

I haven't seen it yet and am not that big of a fan of the original short story, but some people I know saw it recently and thought it was really well done.

I might see it this upcoming weekend if I don't see Die Hard 4 instead.

Joe · July 11, 2007, 06:27:17 AM

i had read the short story ( in the "everythings eventual" book, which has some very cool stories not to mention a little dark tower piece which i loved) and yes i kept comparing as i was watching and for a story that was only what 9 pages? it was well interpreted. when i saw it i did not like that fake ending crap, but now that i think back it wasnt that bad. the thing i really didnt like was that there wasnt enough mayhem in the room. there were some painting antics i wish they left in and "My brother was attacked by wolves" is written on the folder that samuel jackson gives him, what the hell is up with that? in the book he just says it for some reason into the tape recorder, idk they could have just left it out because it didnt make sense before stuff wasnt supposed to make sense, does that make sense? all in all it was decent it was hard to take seriously with the teenie boppers lauging and screaming at stupid jump scares not to mention the little bastard behind me kicking my chair. there was also this dumbass sitting behind me and at one point when a door appeared in the middle of the room actually said "is that a door?" ........yea and they also loved to speak loudly about what was unfolding in the story like we didnt know wtf was going on with shocking suprise in their tone towards an obvious plot turn. i need to see this one again to really know how i feel about it without the continuous comments like "thats so random whats going on?" um well the room is trying to drive him crazy and make him kill himself , is it so beyond your simple mind to grasp that concept? 3 out of 5 for now

Fishasaurus · July 11, 2007, 07:54:11 AM

Quote from: Joe on July 11, 2007, 06:27:17 AM
i had read the short story ( in the "everythings eventual" book, which has some very cool stories not to mention a little dark tower piece which i loved) and yes i kept comparing as i was watching and for a story that was only what 9 pages? it was well interpreted. when i saw it i did not like that fake ending crap, but now that i think back it wasnt that bad. the thing i really didnt like was that there wasnt enough mayhem in the room. there were some painting antics i wish they left in and "My brother was attacked by wolves" is written on the folder that samuel jackson gives him, what the hell is up with that? in the book he just says it for some reason into the tape recorder, idk they could have just left it out because it didnt make sense before stuff wasnt supposed to make sense, does that make sense? all in all it was decent it was hard to take seriously with the teenie boppers lauging and screaming at stupid jump scares not to mention the little bastard behind me kicking my chair. there was also this dumbass sitting behind me and at one point when a door appeared in the middle of the room actually said "is that a door?" ........yea and they also loved to speak loudly about what was unfolding in the story like we didnt know wtf was going on with shocking suprise in their tone towards an obvious plot turn. i need to see this one again to really know how i feel about it without the continuous comments like "thats so random whats going on?" um well the room is trying to drive him crazy and make him kill himself , is it so beyond your simple mind to grasp that concept? 3 out of 5 for now

Wow. It never crossed my mind that the movie would be, um, too difficult for the viewers. Wow.

indianasmith · October 07, 2007, 05:35:45 PM

I finally got around to seeing this movie last night. I really enjoyed the first few minutes. Samuel L. Jackson was OUTSTANDING as the hotel manager, and John Cusack did a pretty good job in the lead role. The problem was that, in stretching a 30 page short story into a two hour movie, a lot of stuff had to be added, and the ending was really limp. But for the first hour or so, this was one of the most creepy movies I've seen in a long time. Too bad that it had such a schizophrenic ending. Still, it was worth the time. When is THE MIST coming out? I've waited a long time for that story to be made into a film!