1408
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) | Release Date: June 22, 2007
8.2
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 694 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
559
Mixed:
87
Negative:
48
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
6
grandpajoe6191Sep 30, 2011
"1408" is a horror movie that doesn't know what it does, but it still manages to give the good chills and scares.
4 of 9 users found this helpful45
All this user's reviews
5
bjfisher02Jan 22, 2011
1408 was a great movie, but not what I would have imagined. John Cussack was great. I came into the movie expecting to be scarred and left a little disappointed. Although the film was creepy I felt it lacked something. The movie was1408 was a great movie, but not what I would have imagined. John Cussack was great. I came into the movie expecting to be scarred and left a little disappointed. Although the film was creepy I felt it lacked something. The movie was definitely worth a watch and if it can be found at a reasonable price owning.… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
kublay0880Dec 10, 2012
Very generic-kind of movie, it does have some thrilling moments but these are shattered by very bad special effects, loved the mood created throughout the movie, I was hoping for more of Jackson's participation but Cusack did a good job. IVery generic-kind of movie, it does have some thrilling moments but these are shattered by very bad special effects, loved the mood created throughout the movie, I was hoping for more of Jackson's participation but Cusack did a good job. I can't rate it as horror movie, but I can say that it was a suspense movie fun to watch.… Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
6
AndreiCJun 14, 2013
I can tell it was wanted to be "out of the box", in the end doesn't really scream for that, but the thrills are there, has those moments when you can't blink and John Cusack was okay.
0 of 4 users found this helpful04
All this user's reviews
4
GentM2015Jun 10, 2015
I'm calling it,maybe it's just me that I didn't understand this film but I absolutely didn't like it,in fact I hated it.Nothing seems to add up here,jump scares that only makes u want to watch the movie less and plot lines that don't make anyI'm calling it,maybe it's just me that I didn't understand this film but I absolutely didn't like it,in fact I hated it.Nothing seems to add up here,jump scares that only makes u want to watch the movie less and plot lines that don't make any sense.The acting is fine but still in the end I walked out of this movie forgetting it for a very short amount of time because there was nothing truly special to remember.I never got scared of it after I finished the movie and that is a huge negative for the movie itself.… Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
6
FilipeNetoMay 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 theIn 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 10 users found this helpful010
All this user's reviews
6
JLauSep 18, 2020
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Skeptical supernatural writer is invited to a hotel room that causes people to commit suicide and eventually, he does.… Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
5
geewahMar 30, 2021
Bland, and for what is supposed to be a psychological thriller/horror is falls horribly flat in the scare department.
So many better movies out there in this genre.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
5
HellHoleHorrorFeb 16, 2022
The film starts interestingly enough with a good build up to the infamous room 1408. The room itself is pretty damn scary with some really jumpy moments of ghostly activities. The effects are very solid looking and the claustrophobic paranoiaThe film starts interestingly enough with a good build up to the infamous room 1408. The room itself is pretty damn scary with some really jumpy moments of ghostly activities. The effects are very solid looking and the claustrophobic paranoia pulled off really well. The problem is that when he leaves the room for the first time the story becomes confusing and pointless. The ending (of the theatrical version that I saw) is very weak indeed. Overall I would say that you can watch it but be prepared for it to get boring when the scary room has been left behind and even when it is rejoined. Effectively scary room that has little other reason for watching.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
JeffP.Oct 8, 2007
Overrated, pretentious neo-ripoff of The Shining without one ounce of that movie's mounting fear. Cusack's character is unlikeable from the opening scene, and from a ghost/haunting logic point-of-vierw, virtually nothing makes any Overrated, pretentious neo-ripoff of The Shining without one ounce of that movie's mounting fear. Cusack's character is unlikeable from the opening scene, and from a ghost/haunting logic point-of-vierw, virtually nothing makes any sense. They say that a great movie is a good story, well-told. This is a mediocre story, badly told.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MerrillJun 27, 2007
I went in with somewhat high expectations and walked out feeling a whole lot of "meh". The movie has an interesting concept but it's just a bunch of random hallucinations strung together with not much of a supporting plot.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
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 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
4
TerranceBJul 1, 2007
I went in expecting a great movie from all the reviews but this was nothing but your average cheap horror flick (think Turistas, The Messengers). Cusack plays a convincing King but Sam Jackson was underused and where was Tony Shaloub? I I went in expecting a great movie from all the reviews but this was nothing but your average cheap horror flick (think Turistas, The Messengers). Cusack plays a convincing King but Sam Jackson was underused and where was Tony Shaloub? I didn't see him once. Save your money but if you ever see this movie playing on cable check it out for the ending.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JasonE.Aug 13, 2007
Why do producers have a prediliction for adapting Stephen King's impressionistic short stories? Although they're blessed with a catchy premise their resolutions are almost always sloppy and overstuffed assuring filmmakers a Why do producers have a prediliction for adapting Stephen King's impressionistic short stories? Although they're blessed with a catchy premise their resolutions are almost always sloppy and overstuffed assuring filmmakers a difficult time ascribing both the visual and temporal into a convincing emotional whole. Unfortunately, this film follows that same pattern. Two different teams collaborated on this project, and their differing takes on the material rears its head early as scenes feel disjointed and the dialogue a little too irreverently silly. However, the strength of the premise and appealing takes by Cusack and Jackson - their scene has a mephistophiclean appeal - draws us into the far-fetched notion of a single room in a large metropolitan hotel as being the beacon of a ridiculous amount of freakish happenings. Credit also to director Hafstrom for using employing every possible camera angle inside '1408' as to open up the audience's mind as to where the source of menace may be coming from...or coming at you next. Cusack is quite capable of carrying most ships as long as he's not required to burden the emotional load. But, this is a King tale - their can't be horror without some treacly subplot involving a kid. And plop - as the action ain the room grows more hectic, Cusack's forced to wring through every emotion imaginable... and everything falls apart. I didn't buy anything from the hour point on...and the last moments inside the room are ludicrous. Cusack wisely knows he lacks the talent or charisma to appear in either tentpole or prestige pictures every year - so he generously offers himself to genre - wistful romantic comedy being his favorite. Although this is a sidestep from 'Identity's' surprising bounty, he should continue exploring the dark side - though something closer to 'Grosse Pointe's' black comedy would probably suit his appeal a lot more.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
PaulK.Jun 22, 2007
I haven't read the Stephen King novel, so I'm not sure how this adaptation stacks up, but this was just ok. I didn't feel connected to the Cusack character and there wasn't enough background about the room to explain why I haven't read the Stephen King novel, so I'm not sure how this adaptation stacks up, but this was just ok. I didn't feel connected to the Cusack character and there wasn't enough background about the room to explain why it is the way it is. The attempted twist ending was insulting. I guess if you're a fan of the book, maybe see it? Everyone else should wait for video or skip it.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
BillyS.Jun 25, 2007
The only thing that keeps 1408 from being a typical "Lets spend the night in a haunted house" movie is John Cusack. Though this isn't up to his usual impeccable script choices, his performance is, as always, much better than the The only thing that keeps 1408 from being a typical "Lets spend the night in a haunted house" movie is John Cusack. Though this isn't up to his usual impeccable script choices, his performance is, as always, much better than the material calls for. Samuel L. Jackson has a little more than a cameo but his name looks good on the one-sheets. 1408 is light years ahead of the usual slasher/gore flicks but it is not the thinking mans horror flick the critics say it is. A good horror flick doesn't steal endings from an episode of Dallas!!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MattW.Jun 29, 2007
Started out with and interesting premise, and kept my attention for about and hour, but like most horror flicks had no way to keep it going or anyway to end the story. All in all, it would be worth catching on pay-per-view late at night on Started out with and interesting premise, and kept my attention for about and hour, but like most horror flicks had no way to keep it going or anyway to end the story. All in all, it would be worth catching on pay-per-view late at night on Halloween when you are all alone.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
AndyG.Sep 22, 2007
Good acting by John Cusack. The movie gets boring when it becomes clear that all that's happening in that room is imaginary, that the mistakes Mike Enslin has made in the past are coming back to haunt him. With a lesser actor this movie Good acting by John Cusack. The movie gets boring when it becomes clear that all that's happening in that room is imaginary, that the mistakes Mike Enslin has made in the past are coming back to haunt him. With a lesser actor this movie would be a catastrophe - with Cusack, it's watchable. Only watch it if you don't have anything better to do.. [p.s.: good review by Matan C].… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
More From This Movie

64 Critic Reviews

8.2 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 71 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL