Not a "truly great horror film"

Rating: 4/10 (3 July 2007)

The movie deserves credit for not relying on gore, which comes by the truckload with contemporary horror fare. And Cusack's performance is, as usual, not disappointing. These two things aside, the film suffers from the typical components of generic Hollywood stories where you have a protagonist haunted by an emotionally-damaging past, and who by the end of the film somehow sheds his old skin and becomes happy again. Honestly I felt annoyed by this not just because none of this was in King's story but because it is so typical of the studio films. Once the family drama starts up, you know that sappy scenes of his failed family life are going to be peppered across the film to make it more palatable for the masses. Consequently it becomes highly predictable.
The written version of the story by Stephen King is excellent but doesn't entirely lend itself to the screen. After all nearly all of the story takes place in one room and with one character. Its nuances make it so terrifying, the small things occurring in the room. The movie, however, relies on hokey ideas like cracked walls with blood dripping through, an inexplicable ghoul in the air shaft, visits in the room from the protagonist's dead family members, and the utter demolition of the space not just once, not twice, but three times. At times it felt like a Three Stooges movie directed by Franz Kafka.
To gage a film's quality try looking at what it grossed in the box office its second week compared to its first. I think this one dropped 75%. Still, some people seem to like this film. It's not a bad attempt on the King story. But if you are looking for something unique, you'll feel like you wasted your money on this one.