1408
Stephen King is a prolific and best-selling American author
of supernatural thrillers. Many of his novels and stories
have been adapted to the screen. For example: ‘Carrie’
(1976), ‘Salem’s Lot’ (1979), ‘The
Dead Zone’ (1983), ‘Christine’ (1983), ‘Firestarter’
(1984), ‘Children of the Corn’ (1984), ‘The
Running Man’ (1987), ‘Pet Sematary’ (1989),
‘Misery’ (1990), ‘Sleepwalkers’ (1992),
‘The Lawnmower Man’ (1992), ‘The Shawshank
Redemption’ (1994), ‘Apt Pupil’ (1998) and
‘The Green Mile’ (1999), to name just a few. Perhaps
the best known and most popular cinematic adaptation of a
Stephen King novella was Stanley Kubrick’s ‘The
Shining’ in 1980. This creepy movie, set in an isolated
historical hotel closed for the winter season, has long been
regarded as a film classic. However, Stephen King was not
to approve of Kubrick’s adaptation of his novella, and
King was to eventually produce his own TV movie rendering
of the story in 1997, which expanded on, and filled in, many
of the points of the plotline and character developments missing
from Stanley Kubrick’s version. All-the-same, Stephen
King’s movie had none of the cinematic flair of Stanley
Kubrick’s original. Coming in at over three hours, it
was probably easier to read King’s novella rather than
endure his movie. Anyway, this is all just background blurb,
to highlight how successful Stephen King has been as a source
for cinematic material, and to introduce the latest adaptation
of one of his stories. Director Mikael Hafstrom’s interpretation
of King’s short story ‘1408’ has much in
common with Kubrick’s ‘The Shining’. Both
are concerned with a haunted historical hotel, and similar
visual imagery appears in both movies, which, no doubt, finds
its source in King’s original writings. However, this
is not to negate Hafstrom’s movie. ‘1408’
is a rather scary and suspenseful piece of work. John Cusack
plays a successful author who concentrates on debunking legends
concerned with the supernatural. Naturally, when he hears
about a notorious haunted hotel room, nothing can stop him
from getting to the bottom of the myth. Okay, the first half
hour of the movie can be pedestrian, seeing as how it is all
about character and plot development, but, once John checks-in
to Room 1408, nothing can stop the horrors that are about
to occur. Mikael Hafstrom creates an amazing sense of tension
and apprehension, considering that most of the movie is restricted
to the hotel suite, and, John Cusack turns in a fabulous performance
as a man whose ideals are being totally rent asunder. In what
is virtually a one-man show, John Cusack has to carry the
bulk of the movie, and he succeeds quite successfully in maintaining
interest. Interest is also maintained through the movie’s
exciting staging, editing and visual effects. Plus, there
are those special moments of Stephen King’s trademark
depictions of horror. Stephen King is well known for being
super-critical about movie adaptations of his works. He should
find little to complain about in Mikael Hafstrom’s chilling
cinema interpretation of ‘1408’, but, being Stephen
King, he probably will!
Bug
Modern-day Master of Suspense, director William Friedkin,
is the creator of such movie classics as ‘The French
Connection’ (1971), ‘The Exorcist’ (1973)
and ‘Cruising’ (1980). He has been absent from
the screen for almost five years, but he makes a spectacular
come-back with his latest disturbing movie, ‘Bug’.
Let’s make it clear from the start that this movie is
not concerned with swarming ‘killer-bees’ or ‘flesh-eating-locust’.
Rather, it is involved with a beast of an entirely different
nature, which I am not going to tell you about, as there would
then be no point in watching the movie. Let’s just say
that when cocktail waitress Ashley Judd, while hiding-out
in a seedy motel awaiting the release from prison of her abusive
ex-husband Harry Connick Jr., allows into her room, and life,
a paranoid sexy drifter, played by screen new-comer Michael
Shannon, he brings with him the ‘bugs’ which are
about to create a claustrophobic nightmare. Based on Trecy
Letts’ off-Broadway play, William Friedkin makes no
attempt to hide the theatrical source of his movie. Rather,
he highlights the fact by primarily confining the action to
the interior of the rundown motel room. The setting becomes
another character in the movie, and contributes significantly
to the atmosphere of mounting hysteria. By using bizarre visuals,
and carefully selecting his camera angles, Friedkin draws
us into a world of psychological fear. Gradually, he increases
the suspense to create a drama which is utterly absorbing
and controversially shocking. Ashley Judd, Harry Connick Jr.
and Michael Shannon all give good performances, albeit of
a theatrical nature. Their ‘ensemble’ playing
enhances the theatrical quality of the movie. With his film
William Friedkin has elected to stress the movie’s theatre
sources, rather than suppress them, and, in turn, he has created
a cinema ‘drama’ that is entirely compelling,
and which is, incidentally, Strictly For Adults Only.
Macbeth
Shakespeare is hard going at the best of times, but this Australian
adaptation of the Bard’s ‘Scottish’ play
must be the worst movie interpretation to ever come along.
Director Geoffrey Wright relocates the action to modern-day
gangland Melbourne, and what worked for Baz Luhrmann in his
‘hip-hop’ contemporary construction of ‘Romeo
and Juliet’, doesn’t have quite the same ring
for this somber and most psychological of Shakespearean plays.
In-any-case, how could you possibly get pass the appalling
Australian actors as they mutilate the Queen’s English
with their atrocious Australian accents?
