1408

Name: 1408
Genre: Thriller, Horror
Released: June 22, 2007
Duration: 104 min
Rating: 64
Cast: John Cusack, Mary McCormack, Samuel L. Jackson

2007

METASCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 27 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Universal acclaim based on 691 Ratings

See All

8.1

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8.1	Your Score
8.1	User Score Universal acclaim based on 691 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

1408

Now Playing: 1408

Movie Details & Credits

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) | Release Date: June 22, 2007 | PG-13

Starring: John Cusack, Mary McCormack, Samuel L. Jackson

Summary: Renowned horror novelist Mike Enslin (Cusack) only believes what he can see with his own two eyes. After a string of bestsellers discrediting paranormal events in the most infamous haunted houses and graveyards around the world, he scoffs at the concept of an afterlife. Enslin's phantom-free run of long and lonely nights is about to changeRenowned horror novelist Mike Enslin (Cusack) only believes what he can see with his own two eyes. After a string of bestsellers discrediting paranormal events in the most infamous haunted houses and graveyards around the world, he scoffs at the concept of an afterlife. Enslin's phantom-free run of long and lonely nights is about to change forever when he checks into suite 1408 of the notorious Dolphin Hotel for his latest project, "Ten Nights in Haunted Hotel Rooms." Defying the warnings of the hotel manager (Jackson), the author is the first person in years to stay in the reputedly haunted room. Another bestseller may be imminent, but like all Stephen King heroes, Enslin must go from skeptic to true believer - and ultimately survive the night. [MGM]… Expand

Director: Mikael Håfström

Genre(s): Thriller, Horror

Rating: PG-13

Runtime: 104 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Desson Thomson

Swedish director Mikael Hafstrom creates a compelling ride of a movie. Every beat of the film is weighted with significance, and our mounting dread becomes almost intolerable. Read full review

Kyle Smith

Sharp little psychological thriller. Read full review

Michael Phillips

Swift, sharp adaptation of Stephen King's short story (from the "Everything's Eventual" collection). Read full review

Robert Wilonsky

The horror wouldn't work without Cusack, who makes what could have been a rote acting exercise--Be tough! Now angry! Now defensively funny!--a cathartic ritual instead. Read full review

Rick Groen

Really wanting to get into our heads, 1408 tries awfully hard to play both sides of logic's boundary line -- tries and fails, and then succeeds, only to ultimately fail again. On the whole, the frights are frighteningly erratic. Read full review

Rene Rodriguez

For about an hour or so, 1408 has you thinking you're watching The Next Great Horror Movie: That's how good the first half of this adaptation of Stephen King's short story about a haunted hotel room is. Read full review

Stephanie Zacharek

One night in 1408 stretches out until it ends up feeling more like a routine three-day business trip. The scariest thing in it may be the way the clock radio has a way of turning itself on, loudly, of its own accord. The song is always the Carpenters' "We've Only Just Begun." Now THAT'S horror. Read full review

SEE ALL 27 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

jarndyce

Apr 29, 2011

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Given that King adaptations are typically awful jokes, 1408 merits praise merely for being not abysmal. That said - it's a good little chiller that should have been great. So much is wonderful, including Cusack's droll awareness of playing the same, weary, cynical dude. The settings, the silences, the pacing - all grand, really. What goes wrong? TOO MUCH EXPOSITION, and the misleading kind. Based on the first 30 minutes, 1408 is beyond deadly. It's sadistic, vile, and very, very fast, given the self-mutilations which have occurred within it, and in mere minutes. But Cusack's experience, a few harmless phantoms aside, isn't terrifying; it's all about sadness and his personal despair. I expect more from a room that induces a maid to stab her eyes out in mere seconds.
But - hey, it's all right. And the hotel window/ledge scenes are bloody fabulous.… Expand

9 of 18 users found this helpful99

PeterJ.

Oct 24, 2007

Fantastic movie. One of the best scary movies I've seen in a long time. And the secondary story of his life is riveting. A must see for those of us who still have an attention span.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

joeh

May 25, 2009

Good movie, not perfect, but very very chilling. Honestly, in a world where horror movies are much better than they are now, I may not like this movie very much, but with all the crap we have to sit through, I actually enjoyed have a film really creep me out. I though the shining was Good movie, not perfect, but very very chilling. Honestly, in a world where horror movies are much better than they are now, I may not like this movie very much, but with all the crap we have to sit through, I actually enjoyed have a film really creep me out. I though the shining was mindnumbingly boring when I first watched it. I read the book and LOVED it, so I assumed the movie would be the classic it was hailed as. Turns out it was just a kid riding a trike for half an hour and some goofy close ups of shelly Duvall and Jack Nicklson. The reason I tried this movie was actually BECAUSE of the PG-13 rating; I figured if the producers felt confident releasing a horror film that wasn't an R than they must have something good. Turns out this movie is one of the best psychological thrillers I have ever seen. It was both intelligent as well relatable, without trying to hard to have a moral theme. The movie just IS scary, playing of your emotions and inner most fears, and not the visceral ones either, your REAL fears, even the ones you may not have realized you had. Of course it's not perfect, and it drags in a few spots, But the plot twists and writing (plus Cusak's performance) make for a GENUINELY scary film. I can understand why some might think the movie was a little haphazard or not fully realized (I never read the short story, so I can't comment on that), but if you don't like it because it's not a gore fest than grow an imagination and step outside your little world of superviolence for something that ACTUALLY has substance.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful

TheFilmDoctor

Mar 22, 2016

If elements of 1408 seem a little familiar, it shouldn't be a surprise. Here's John Cusack, once again having lodging problems (see also Identity). Here's a supernatural debunker faced with something that refuses to be debunked (see also The Reaping). And here's a movie about a room-for-rentIf elements of 1408 seem a little familiar, it shouldn't be a surprise. Here's John Cusack, once again having lodging problems (see also Identity). Here's a supernatural debunker faced with something that refuses to be debunked (see also The Reaping). And here's a movie about a room-for-rent where people go in but don't come out (see also Vacancy). Yet, despite all of these recycled plot elements bobbing around, there's nothing stale about 1408, which is easily the best horror film of 2007. Too often, we see a movie with a great setup like this ruined by a subpar ending. However, 1408 deftly sidesteps that trap, delivering a conclusion that somehow manages not to disappoint while at the same time leaving things open-ended enough that viewer interpretation comes into play.

To say that movie adaptations of Stephen King stories have a checkered history is to understate the matter. The rule of thumb is that King's non-horror efforts have gotten much better treatment than his bread-and-butter fare. The rule doesn't apply here, though. While 1408 isn't on the same plane as The Shawshank Redemption or Misery, it's easily among the best King-inspired motion pictures to-date. It is by turns bold, scary, and downright creepy. The film doesn't try to do too much and what appears to be a dead give-away of things to come turns out to be nothing more than a delicious piece of misdirection. I love that sort of thing. Instead of the viewer being a step ahead of the filmmakers, it's the other way around.

Mike Enslin (John Cusack) is a professional skeptic. He makes his living by visiting supposed haunted houses and writing about the absence of ghosts. For him, room 1408 at New York's Dolphin Hotel is too good a challenge to pass up. In its nearly 100 years of existence, 56 people have died in that room. The hotel's manager (Samuel L. Jackson) calls it **** evil" and advises in the strongest terms that Mike not stay there. "No one," he advises, "has lasted more than an hour." At first, Mike is nonplused by the ordinariness of the accommodations. Then strange things begin happening, and by the time he decides that checking out early might be the wisest decision, that option no longer exists.

For the most part, this is John Cusack's movie to carry, and he has no problem taking it where it needs to go. His "co-stars," Jackson and Mary McCormack (as Mike's estranged wife, Lily), have minimal screen time. Most of the movie focuses on Cusack, alone in his room, trapped in an escalating environment of paranoia. Cusack uses his sunny, good natured disposition to get the audience to like him and, once that's accomplished, the film has us. Director Mikael Håfström is as adept at setting up "boo!" moments as he is at building and sustaining suspense. From the moment Mike enters the room, there's a growing sense of dread, but this is punctuated by instances of stark, sudden terror. This is Håfström's second English language motion picture, and it's a considerable step up from his previous effort, the unsatisfactory Clive Owen/Jennifer Aniston thriller, Derailed.

1408 is divided into three clearly delineated acts. The first, which lasts about 30 minutes, is the setup. We meet Mike on the outside, get to know him a little, then follow his single-minded determination to remove all obstacles and get his story. The second act takes place with Mike alone in the room. This is the most eerie, unsettling portion of the movie and will forever change your opinion of a sentimental Carpenters' wedding classic. The third act is the shortest, but offers enough twists and switchbacks to turn what initially seems to be a conventional denouement into anything but that. You can see it coming… or can you? While the final scene won't frustrate anyone the way the ending of The Sopranos did, it's not clear-cut, either. There's room for interpretation, which is a rarity in any horror film.

1408 doesn't belong grouped with the likes of Hostel and Saw, because the filmmakers understand that fear gestates in the mind. Gore can as often diminish terror as enhance it. 1408 can be rated PG-13 and still frighten the crap out of viewers because of the way the director balances claustrophobia with suspense. Yet things never become too intense, which can be a danger with a movie like this. That's where John Cusack shines through. Even in the midst of a personal apocalypse, he can utter a one-liner to break the tension.

The 15 rating might argue that 1408 is for teenagers, but that's a mistake. This is the most mature horror movie of the year - far more adult and sophisticated than the tedious Hostel Part II. If you like to be creeped out by movies, this is one to see. It reminds us what it's like to be scared in a theater rather than overwhelmed by buckets of blood and gore.… Expand

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

FilipeNeto

May 19, 2018

In this film, a skeptic tries to investigate (and demystify) the story of an allegedly haunted hotel room. The character, played by John Cussack, is quite stubborn and is convinced that the hotel has no ghosts. Less certain of this is the manager, played by Samuel L. Jackson, who doesIn this film, a skeptic tries to investigate (and demystify) the story of an allegedly haunted hotel room. The character, played by John Cussack, is quite stubborn and is convinced that the hotel has no ghosts. Less certain of this is the manager, played by Samuel L. Jackson, who does everything to demoralize the investigator, trying to protect his hotel from that ill-famed room, which remains closed and inaccessible. The two actors work well together and do a good job, especially if we consider that they are more accustomed to working on action films. But the great actor in the movie is the room itself. We never see an entity. In fact, the film is not clear about the existence of a ghost. We see, instead, a man in crisis, struggling with remorse of varied origin, with weights in consciousness. The isolation of the room confronts the investigator Enslin with all these ghosts which, in fact, may be no more than the ghosts of his own past. This is the beauty of this film, deeply psychological: sometimes the ghosts of our lives are the ones that can destroy us if we confront them. The film, however, commits the terrible sin of exaggeration, especially from the final third. It seems that director Mikael Håfström was fascinated by the possibilities of special effects, deciding to deeply distort the room in the strangest ways, trying to fit this into the film and making it a little intractable, taking the focus away from the psychological depth thought out in the script. Special effects, no matter how well done they may be, have their time and should be served to the public in the right measure.… Expand

0 of 7 users found this helpful07

PatrickS.

Nov 7, 2007

I bought this movie because the short story in '14 dark tales' by Stephen King was incredible. It scared the likes out of me and the ending was far from predictable (he sets himself on fire in the short story). What the filmmakers did to this masterpiece made me hugely I bought this movie because the short story in '14 dark tales' by Stephen King was incredible. It scared the likes out of me and the ending was far from predictable (he sets himself on fire in the short story). What the filmmakers did to this masterpiece made me hugely dissapointed. But it was absolutely typical, I half-expected it to be this way. Hollywood filmmakers try to make a film oh so dramatic by adding a secondary plot (in the book there was no daughter and wife), they have to of course use incredibly modern technology (no cell phone nor a laptop in the book) and create an ending that, uses stupid special effects where there was such a beautifully creepy one given. Another typical thing to add here is that they put in bad effects and left out the ones that are the most enthralling in the book. The whole time I was waiting for Cusack to touch the wall and realize it feels like skin. And when the room froze? What was supposed to be so frightening about that? They completely overkilled the thermostat element. To all those people who watched the movie: Don't let yourselves be fooled by the film: buy the book and see for yourselves how the story itself is far from being mediocre but is one of the best Stephen King stories there are, I'm not kidding. Cusack was ok, it was just his misfortune to be placed in a film like this. The situations were so unreal that well realistic acting would have been next to impossible. Ending note: Read the book, you'll get more out of it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

JohnP

Nov 15, 2007

Cusack has long been one of my favorite NON high profile actors because of his choice of movies in general. But alas he lost me on this one. This movie was simply a recylced FX vehicle and if anyone thinks it was more than that then they looked way too hard and deep. As is many American Cusack has long been one of my favorite NON high profile actors because of his choice of movies in general. But alas he lost me on this one. This movie was simply a recylced FX vehicle and if anyone thinks it was more than that then they looked way too hard and deep. As is many American movies the beginnings have promise and then falter into the writers abyss. By that I mean they run out of any credible imagination, originality and passion. If your not going to make any sense at least attempt to be entertaining, which this movie was not. This movie on the making sense level was close to The Lakehouse and that my friends was baddddd. So.. not in great company I must say. Think I'll go and write a screenplay, never have attempted one but heck sure as hell couldn't be as bad.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

SEE ALL 102 REVIEWS

47	#47 Most Discussed Movie of 2007
32	#32 Most Shared Movie of 2007