King Phones It In

1408
Running Time 94 minutes
Directed by Mikael Håfström
Written by Stephen King
Starring John Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson
1408 is the latest product canned by the cottage industry known as Stephen King, but if you go expecting a horror movie, you’ll be disappointed. From the start, Swedish director Mikael Håfström works up a sweat trying to save a reputation damaged by the 2005 Clive Owen–Jennifer Aniston disaster Derailed, undercutting tension by a process of anticlimax, slow camera moves and ponderous music. Alas, it’s a hopeless pursuit, because the star is John Cusack, whose scowling look of permanent cynicism leaves little room for audiences to explore each mystery element of the spooky unknown on their own. He telegraphs it all for them. The director might actually be a perfect match for the overwrought follow-the-dots formulas of both Mr. King’s contrived writing and Mr. Cusack’s one-dimensional acting. He leaves everything for the twist ending, then fails to provide one.
This is the underwhelming story of a hotel room in New York where scores of people have died in ghastly ways. Mr. Cusack plays Mike Enslin, a jaded author of books that debunk haunted lighthouses, unfriendly poltergeists and other paranormal activities, who hears about the blood-curdling events at the Dolphin Hotel, where Room 1408 is always unavailable. Ignoring the warnings of the hotel manager (Samuel L. Jackson), Enslin bullies his way in, confident that if he can spend one night in 1408 he’ll have his next best-seller. The Dolphin is not the Carlyle, but it’s not the Bates Motel, either. Still, its tragic history of hangings, mutilations and suicides both gruesome and amusing (one guest drowned in his chicken soup from room service) in Room 1408 (56 in all) make it an enticing rest stop for ghouls. No one has ever lasted one hour in 1408, but Enslin plans on staying all night. The hair starts to rise on the back of your neck the moment he turns the key in the lock. The thermostat sticks on 80 degrees, turning the room into a sauna. Then it drops to below zero, covering everything in ice. The window slams on his hand. The sink spouts boiling water. When he tries to escape, the door is locked and the key breaks in half. He tosses objects from the window to attract attention, but they disappear before they hit the sidewalk below. One by one, the grim events that happened in the past are restaged before his eyes. He also sees the episodes from his own past in the TV set. The daughter who died young appears in the mini-bar. There’s only one way to get out of 1408—to destroy it.
I went along with the about-face antics of Stephen King’s overactive imagination for about an hour before tedium took over and it was time for an explanation. Final upshot: There isn’t any. Regardless of how long you last in 1408, the logic to which you are entitled never comes. For the final insult, the author and the filmmakers resort to the old cop-out: The only ghosts in Room 1408 are the ones you invent yourself, and everything that happens in there is in your own mind. In a pig’s patootie.
The one-room claustrophobia gives an edge to the paranoia, but to hang the movie’s more conflicted suspense on the leers and grimaces of Mr. Cusack’s face without building any sense of the man’s inner demons is asking for trouble. Like Jack Nicholson in The Shining, he looks more wacky than demoniac, weakening the fright potential even further. The unconvincing final operatics lack the depth the audience deserves for its patience. You leave 1408 haunting yourself.



















I know that different people have different opinions, but I cannot figure out how this man became a famous movie critic. His reviews are uninformed and full of smug vocabulary. I remember seeing a review of his when I was just a child, and I thought he was a jerk even then. If he doesn't like a film, he doesn't really give a good answer as to why. He just talks about how much he hates it. He doesn't have fun during a certain comic book film(one of the most well reviewed ones of all time), so he says it's "for morons". He doesn't understand a film (The Fountain), so he says there is nothing to understand. It's almost as if he is trying to impress people by hating more films than anyone else. He makes Leonard Maltin look like Kevin Thomas.
I agree with poster razorc. This critic is a trainwreck of unnecessary negativity. I'm always grateful for a critic who can provide a compelling argument for the ways a film has failed in terms of what the film set out to accomplish. Rex Reed is not that critic. He is a blunt instrument pounding away at the context of a film while more talented film critics observe and comment on a film's subtext. What a waste.
Once I read Mr. Reed's review on 1408; I laughed out in unison with his unskilled understanding of the movie 1408. Mr. Reed has officially declared how a thriller should be like. Looking at Rotten Tomatoes, he gave Disturbia a BIG PLUS! In efforts to see why this movie was so great in his opinion I tracked his review down. I read it...and I was astonished. He commented that it was very unique and good in composition. But in reality we see a teenage boy spying on some girl with binoculars. I don't think thats thrilling Mr. Reed. And on top of that you say that 1408 offers no credibility to the audience. You sir are forgetting that it was written by Stephen King(one of the better horror/thriller writers). Are you saying that a teenage boy praying on a girl with binoculars leaves the audience more wanting in a movie then King's 1408 classic? GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT! I looked at your other reviews the ones you gave plusses to were french titles....how exciting. Fortunately, I have see those movies and they were bad...not good...I could go on with explaining why, but that will waste too much time. Then you give spiderman 3 a big letdown? Don't forget the screenwriter had a nasty job of making 20+ comic books into a great film. ON top of that your reviews are lacking...you only display why YOU HATE IT. AND WHAT REALLY ANNOYS ME YOU ASSUME THAT THE AUDIENCES DON'T LIKE IT. Well in fact, a couple of my friends saw this film and they agreed it was great. SO DON'T YOU GO ASSUMING THAT THE AUDIENCE DOESN'T LIKE IT. YOU DON'T LIKE IT AND DON'T WRITE REVIEWS BASED ON THAT. Your taste in movies in horrible Mr. Reed. 156 million box office Spider-man agrees with me. Next time you write a review don't write about the overall plotline...you kill it for the people who want to see it. Maybe perhaps you should write more WHY(you understand that word? YES?) it was bad, not that it is bad. My cousin writes for our local paper, and she has more of an idea why a movie is good or bad. She is 21. Your review displays nothing more then a talentless movie critic. You should get a real job. I hear the Quiky-Mart is hiring.
Good Lord!
Before finding the link to this review from Rotten Tomatoes, I was surprised to read that Rex "Oh Mercy, however did this Peggy Lee CD find its way into my handbag" Reed was still alive, let alone there being a publication that considers him relevant enough to publish his reviews.
Rex, you were a cinematic idiot in the 70s. You were a cinematic idiot in the 80s. I only assume you were a cinematic idiot all throughout the 90s. Now that we've reached the new millenuem, nothing has changed.
And thank you for your small part in giving the world Myra Breckinridge.
Although I have plenty of friends here ready to show Mr. Reed the door, I will take a moment to through in my two cents.
First, regarding his review of Disturbia, I can only hold my face in my hands and shake my head.
Original!?!?!?!
Um, id you see the Hitchcock classic Rear Window?
Second, did the production company not allow you interviews or send you the gifts a fair review deserves?
It seems to me Mr. Reed employs the same negativity employed by teenagers. They and he both believe this will make them come off intelligent!