IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS MOVIE YET AND DON'T WANT TO KNOW HOW IT ENDS, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU READ NO FURTHER.If you haven't, you really need to see this movie by the way.
As mentioned in another thread, I've been on a horror flick kick recently and have been watching lots of movies I've never had the chance to see.
With that said, I wanted to get some opinions on the ending of 1408. I have my own ideas and have researched opinions online on Yahoo, IMDB, etc., but most people seem to have a very simplistic understanding of the end. I don't know why, but I actually found it irritating that they ignored some obvious cues that the writer and director purposely put in to the ending of this movie. Keep in mind that the ending I'm referring to is NOT the alternate funeral ending.
Before I post my opinion, I'd love to know what some of you think first because I'd like to see what other interpretations there are from people who are dedicated to these kinds of movies. Please feel free to elaborate on your thoughts!
Are you talking about the very end, when he's listening to his burned up tape player and his wife hears the voice on it?
Or talking about the scene before that where he finally escapes the hotel room?
I've only watched it once... but I imagine if I watched the film again I'd like it better...
I was very disenchanted with the whole thing... there was much more that they could have done with the film to pay better tribute to the story and make it more of a scary movie. Just when I thought they were going a good direction, they'd make a quick turn and end up back at square one.
I really didn't like how the interview with Olin (Sam' L. Jackson) was so brief. It was very important rising action in the short story and I think the film would have been done better had they focused more on the interview-- maybe 10 minutes of the film. I also wish they'd have dramatized the twins who regularly turn down the room and their experiences in 1408. I feel that was also important rising action...
I think I'd have enjoyed the movie a lot better the first time if I hadn't read the short story (1408 by Stephen King) before I saw the movie. The story is kinda creepy... my first read brings back good memories because one of my neighbors walked by my apartment window and started to call my husband's name while I was reading the bit about the phone. It made shivers run down my spine!
The short story revolves more around Olin and Enslin's interview and less on the room itself, building tension along the way and getting your imagination to run wild with tales about the room.
The movie took on a completely different tactic... which I personally found to be very non-scary. I thought they could have done more with the room... I really hated the "time warp" scene. I had hoped they'd focus more on the ghosts of the people who died in 1408... telling their stories and making their haunt more real to the viewer.
It's widely thought that the original book (in this case short story) is always better than the movie mainly because the movie is based on one person's interpretation of a story. Stories can be interpreted many different ways, as can the ending of this movie. In some cases, the movie isn't meant to simply make a story into a movie, but take the story in a different direction. For this topic, I'm focusing on the movie itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveintheGrave
Are you talking about the very end, when he's listening to his burned up tape player and his wife hears the voice on it?
Or talking about the scene before that where he finally escapes the hotel room?
Either or both. My personal opinion ties both scenes together.
Generally, original Stephen King novels and short stories do not translate well into film. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that SK is an unparrelled story teller. Print medium works best for him. Translating his stuff into movies is difficult and usually disappointing. Could you see some director trying to tackle to Dark Tower series? It would have to be 30 hours long. Ironically the books that translate best to movies are the non-horror books such as The Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me.
As far 1408 goes, it was a typical translation of a SK story. Interesting "wouldn't it be cool if..." plot with not much explanation, interesting if not somewhat cliched characters and a huge let down of an ending.
You have to face facts too, movies have to appeal to a larger audience (translate that to dumber and riddlin deprived). They have to be quick and flashy and follow a certain Hollywood formula.
At least it wasn't as disappointing as Pet Semetary, which I thought was the scariest book and the worst movie.
Some movies have gotten close, like Carrie. I also thought they did IT very well with the TV miniseries. Even IT with the giant spider at the end reminded me of a Gilligan's Island episode.
Ironically the books that translate best to movies are the non-horror books such as The Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me.
Even more ironic, three of the four short stories in King's "Different Seasons" novel made the transition to film excellently-- "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption", "The Body" (Stand By Me), and "Apt Pupil". I also believe that "The Stand" was excellently portrayed... but it's +6 hours long.
I did like the tape player scene at the very end of 1408. That was superb and very true to the text... it was the "time warp" that killed the film entirely for me. In any case, I'd chalk 1408 up there on the "Ruined by Hollywood" list...
Okay, I understand. Some (or most) people are going to like the short story better, but I've never read it. Never having read the story, I think the movie was pretty good.
Anyone have an opinion on the meaning of the ending of the movie, other than that it's not as good as the short story?
The meaning of the end is that, even though he left the room, the room never really left him. It still haunts him and will continue to haunt him until the day he dies and the room can claim the one who got away. Once you enter 1408, you can never leave.
If you haven't read the short story, I would recommend it. The movie ending makes a lot more sense knowing the information from the short story that Hollywood felt was extraneous. I actually posted a link to the story in my first post. If you enjoyed the movie that much, it's worth the read. I guarantee you won't be disappointed.
I imagine your watching 1408 was a lot like my experience watching the 3rd Harry Potter film (I hadn't read any of the books before then). I enjoyed the film, but it seemed like there was a lot of information that was missing because I had a lot of questions after watching the movie... All those were answered when I read the text.
I "get" that you're trying to discuss the film because you really enjoyed it. In the case of books put to film, I believe it's always better to see the film first.... however, it is also impossible to discuss the film as a stand-alone entity because it is an adaptation of the original text. It doesn't generally follow the original story or, in this case, the film leaves out information that could otherwise answer questions that Hollywood leaves unanswered. I'd even go so far as to say that they often times leave such information out knowing that you can find the story elsewhere and tie up the loose ends later....
Unfortunately, I'm not much of a reader. I would have to imagine that if you saw the movie first, when you read the book (story), you would be trapped within the visuals of the movie. In other words, the writer/director has limited your thoughts on what you visualize while you're reading. I would imagine that would ruin the book to some extent.
In this discussion though, I don't see why it's "impossible" to discuss the film alone. If I never knew that there was a short story, it wouldn't stop me from discussing it with other people oblivious that there was a short story.
Interesting interpretation of the ending though. I hadn't thought about the evil of 1408 possessing Michael Enslin in the end. That would explain his evil smile. What about his (ex)-wife hearing their daughter's voice on the recorder? Since the girl was a ghost, I think it's strange that her voice would be audible on the recording. What does Michael's facial expression tell you when he smiles at his wife after he sees that she's heard their daughter's voice.
My interpretation is different and a little more complex and I'll explain as soon as I get your thought on the recording.
I'll indulge your desires for a discussion of the movie, as I have never read the story either.
I was personally very disappointed with the ending, as it was extremely vague. I think about ten more seconds could have made it infinitely more appealing to me:
If you'll remember about 2/3rds of the way through the film he communicates with his wife on the outside which is told to come directly to the room. Since the room has already tricked us once by allowing us to think we had gotten out, it's not far fetched to believe that it would have done this kind of thing again, and this time have trapped his wife who had come to his aid inside with him. Thus the smile at the end was his personal acknowledgment that he was still in the room, as he would not still be tormented by his dead daughter if he had escaped. The ten seconds that could have been added would have been if the walls of his new house had crumbled away and once again he was in the small hotel room, but this time his wife was there too.
Another take on the ending posed by a friend of mine was that since the sounds of his daughter could be heard on the tape, everything that happened in the room was real, thus being a true door between our world and the worlds beyond death.
Of course, I like my spin better. ;-P
-handy_haunter
__________________
~I'm going to eat your brains and steal your knowledge.
Movie "1408" ***Beware of spoilers***
Please feel free to elaborate on your thoughts!
Linear Mode
