1408 - Todd Gilchrist

In Todd Gilchrist’s Review of Mikael Hafstrom’s 1408, he talks about the portrayal of John Cusack’s character, Mike Enslin. I definitely agree with Gilchrist that John Cusack has the talent in many of his movies to create a relationship with the audience, or an “understanding”, if you will, that really helps the audience relate to his characters.

Gilchrist says in his review,
“Rather, it's that Cusack embodies so many of the qualities we possess -- and sometimes wish we possessed -- that he generates almost immediate identification with the audience, whether he's a love struck kickboxing enthusiast, a hitman headed to his high school reunion, or a Birkenstock-wearing U.S. Marshal trying to apprehend a runaway plane full of convicts.” -Gilchrist

I have seen many, many films with Cusack, and every time I watch one of his movies, I can automatically relate to him, and I feel like I know his character personally. In almost the entire first half of Gilchrist’s review he talks about Cusack’s performance, which I really liked because the movie definitely wouldn’t have been the same with any other actor. The thing that really made 1408 different than other horror or suspense movie is Cusack’s light humor. Cusack just has flat-out funny mannerisms that really lighten the mood at the right times, which gives you a laugh in the midst of being in suspense of what will happen to Mike Enslin next.

“But instead of making this story a spectacle of cinematic proportions -- in other words, rendering it in epic visual flourishes that serve only themselves -- Hafstrom does a terrific job keeping the experiences personal, even if they sometimes function at levels so subconscious we aren't aware of their meaning.” –Gilchrist
Many horror and/or suspense movies love to make large “visual flourishes” for the audience. In other words they add a lot of images, effects, scenes and so on, that aren’t necessarily relating to the character or the character’s life. For example: In any of the Saw movies, when each character encounters their “death challenge”, or whatever you want to call it, it doesn’t relate to that specific person’s life. However, in 1408, Cusack’s character has to face a personal challenge; the death of his daughter, which he reencounters several times through out the movie. But back to the example of Saw, their encounters are just gross, nasty and out to disgust the audience.

Overall I agreed with what Gilchrist had to say about the movie. The only thing I was surprised he didn’t mention or comment on was how, in my opinion, overdone the mid-to-end section of the movie was. But, Hafstrom did, however, have some very eye-catching scenes during that “section”. The movie was a new kind of spin to a haunted hotel story, which for the most part I liked. I think that the best way to go into it is to have an open mind and try not to compare it to other horror or suspense movies. It’s definitely “out there”, but it succeeded in the purpose of movies: to entertain.