Room RageSunday Nick and I hit a matinee of 1408, a Stephen King adaptation starring John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson. I don't believe I've hit any spoilers in the following review, but there's always a danger of being told more than what some would like to know.
Most Stephen King adaptations develop engine and navigation problems on the way to the screen, and as this is one case where I didn't read the source short story I can't tell you whether or not this tale went astray. I can only tell you that it was one character's search for truth and belief in something beyond the palpable, wrapped within a modestly entertaining ghost story.
Cusack's character, Mike Enslin, is a writer with an at least borderline alcohol problem, whose personal tragedy has driven him the direction of writing about hauntings. Like Houdini before him, he was seeking to combine a search for validation with one of income. Subsequently he found his belief in an afterlife dismantled by his own investigations into imaginations run wild and self-serving fabrications, mostly by hotel and motel owners seeking to use the tourist trade to drum up business taken by corporate hotels and re-aligned interstate routes.
The story unfolds almost simultaneously with Enslin's character, as most of the film is ultimately a subjective experience for him.
The screenwriters (I'm tempted to say King, but as noted above I didn't read the short story and there are three people - not King - credited with the actual screenplay) play with the audience, which is appropriate in a tale of a hauntings and a search for belief. In the thick of the action the movie's trailer pitches it does go a tad over the top in cliched snippets (especially if one's used to the dilapidated and chaotic images often used when King's playing with a malevolently spirited piece of real estate) that at one frenetic moment found me laughing out loud, if without any malice.
Enslin's investigations have taken him down the road of minor bestselling author of haunted travel guides, combining the essences of travel writer and ghost hunter. This pursuit -- and more specifically a mysterious invitation on a postcard (his P.O. box is routinely filled with invitations, brochures and probably lurid come-ons from hotels, bed and breakfasts and other potential tourist traps seeking validation or at least a little juicy publicity) leads him to the Dolphin Hotel's eponymous room.
At least one red herring is offered and yanked away just as the audiences' collective jaw has clamped on it in disappointment at a cheap move, re-infusing the movie with life. While some may view it as cheating - the inclusion of a scene that would seem to be significant to the movie but would have to mean something else - to me that would smack of sour grapes and should stand as a lesson to just enjoy the movie and not try to deconstruct it while watching. There's plenty of time to do that afterwards, if you've the intent.
As is always the case, your mileage may vary.
We found it to be an entertaining film with a small cast we enjoyed spending time with.
Cusack's Enslin is weary but still conniving, and exudes a cynicism that rises from the compounded disappointment and regrets of an intelligent man whose bitterness is more inwardly directed than outwardly. Tony Shaloub, who's known most widely these days as USA TV's Adrian Monk, has a small part as Enslin's publisher, in a brief, engaging scene that helps painlessly fill in some backstory and add an emotional aspect to the locale. Jackson plays the man in charge of the Dolphin Hotel, a role he plays with an entertaining reserve and concern. Mary McCormack does a creditable job, though I daresay without hopefully being unkind that she's closer to a plot element than a character for our purposes.
As is generally the case with projects Cusack selects, it's not a blockbuster but it's a reasonably solid work. Just a few minutes past an hour and a half, the movie doesn't move with a breakneck speed, but if one creates a laundry list of occurrences and backstory revealed you'll realize the film definitely kept a good pace without feeling rushed or compressed, and the audience is brought up to speed without clumsy, blatantly expository dialogue.
The movie neither preaches nor clubs the audience over the head with a concluding message, both of which I appreciate.
Not necessarily a film one has to rush out and see on the big screen (not that I regret having done so) but at least one to note to watch for once it can be brought home.
Comments
MPW really liked this movie a lot, and I thought it was okay. I loved the ending, which I won't give away -- but MPW and I are on opposite sides of the question. She feels like it has a happy ending; I think that it's possible that the protagonist is still suffering.
Both of us liked Mr. Brooks a lot more. I thought Mr. Brooks was much more thought-provoking and the characters (especially the one played by William Hurt) were fascinating.
I agree with you that Costner has made some awful movies, but I can think of three that I found him to be compelling -- or at least interesting: Tin Cup, The Upside Of Anger, and this one.
Bu 1408 is a solid movie. I've not read the source story either, so I have no idea how true the movie is to King's intent.
The only part of the movie thatI had real trouble with was Samuel L. Jackson's turn as the hotel-based Mr. Roarke. It just didn't feel right to me, despite the fact I think Jackson is a fun actor to watch.
The ending was, as you and I each tried to say without spoiling things, left open enough that there will be obvious differences of interpretation -- which I vastly prefer over having the filmmaker making a black and white pronouncement on such issues.
Mr. Brooks may be one of Costner's best efforts, but I have enough problem with him as part of a strong cast... I'm very reluctant to give money to support his insistence to continue acting. Neither Tin Cup nor Upside of Anger had sufficient draw to get me to watch either, despite each showing up on cable channels that would theoretically make it very easy (in terms of finance and opportunity) for me to watch. Costner as a washed-up golf pro or a boozing ex-baseball player who's into jazz and, in both cases, the romantic interest -- is more than I could take. Sports fame, Costner and romance? I'd be compelled to ask which circle of Hell this is and if I truly did something so terrible that it would merit sitting through either. I will leave both to others.
Brooks intrigued me because it looked as if William Hurt (presumably as murderous alter ego) and the force of the psychological thriller genre could carry me happily through. Costner in a romantic comedy or even romance-themed drama... no, that sounds like a heavily-slanted compromise movie decision where the woman wants to see it and the guy wants a happy ending. I've never wanted sex badly enough to go that far.
I don't know if it's mostly that he uncomfortably reminds me of someone I knew long ago (which he does), but I find myself both predisposed to dislike him and not be convinced by any character he plays, especially if he's supposed to be likeable. The latter - failing to be convinced - is what I keep coming back to.
The latter came up this past Sunday, when among the trailers shown was one for yet another remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, this one simply called Invasion. (We should give them credit for not just going with a more lurid Snatchers, though something tells me someone would have but it was shot down by a focus group.)
In one scene we see the protagonist with her son, obviously on the run, boarding a commuter train. A young black couple is on it, and (undoubtedly skipping over most of the scene) they've found each other out and advice is given that the invaders can be fooled if one simply doesn't show emotion. At that point Nick leaned over and wryly asked "Is Kevin Costner in this?" We'd both expect that if he were he'd end up the last non-comatose human being to evade detection.
Back to 1408, I understand the ambivalence about Sam Jackson's character, especially as you refer to him as a "Mr. Roarke" type. Much depends upon how much of his story one decides to take at face value, and whether or not one believes he was responsible for the postcard sent to Mike Enslin. I could see a split in the audience between those who were sure he was and those who figured it was at least as likely that someone who'd had some other brush with the hotel decided to pass along the terse, tempting, reverse psychological tease.
It's Jackson's final appearance in the film, when they cut to him sipping from a snifter and making a brief statement concerning Enslin's resolution to the ordeal, that most likely leads some to see him as perhaps something other than who he says he is. On the other hand, all could simply be as he told Enslin, and he was genuinely relieved to be freed of the burden... presuming what was done took care of the problem.
Much depends upon when one believes that scene took place; virtually as Enslin's being pulled out (which would seem to be absurd, since I'm sure the fire department cleared the building and as the man in charge he'd be the center of attention for the staff) or later, after he was able to get back in and had surveyed the scene and gotten the initial reports.
Certainly, though, the juxtaposition of sound and scene suggests the former, so I can certainly understand choosing to read him as someone playing chess rather than simply being one of the pieces. If one chooses to go that route then the information can be seen to make it obvious, though I'm enjoying there being some room for ambiguity and interpretation.
I'll enjoy re-watching it when it makes the rounds to cable. It may be that as I watch it again - this time watching it more as a movie rather than as characters and circumstances I'm following - I may come to see Jackson's character more in one camp than another.