Cast: Brad Renfro, Ian McKellan, Bruce Davison, Joshua Jackson, David Schwimmer, Elias Koteas

Director: Bryan Singer

Previews: Very Bad Things, I Still Know What You Did Last Summer

Since reading the story 12 years ago, I have often, as most of us do, envisioned how it would look onscreen. When I found out it was being done, and heard the casting, I was excited. Add to that the fact that the story was by one of my favorite authors, Stephen King, and my elation increased. Even though I read the story so long ago, I felt that it wasn’t really going to cloud my view completely. The basics were still in my head, and came back to me once I saw it. Also, it was being done by the director of one of my favorite movies, so I anticipated fair treatment of the story.

On the downside of this anticipation, was the fact that the subject matter (Holocaust, Nazism, etc.) is controversial, and disturbing. The movie was also surrounded by a bit of bad press, involving a lawsuit over underage models, and a shower scene. (The scene is still in the movie, although it looks like it may have been toned down a bit.) Finally I remembered the past track record of Stephen King horror adaptations (Cujo, Firestarter, Christine *shudder*). However, on the other side of that, this story comes from the novella Different Seasons, which also produced King’s best two adaptations to date, The Shawshank Redemption, and Stand By Me. So as you can see, a bit of a dilemma existed inside my brain, over this movie, as I entered the theater to see Apt Pupil.

I am beginning to wonder, however if my anticipation of movies is necessarily a good thing, sometimes it can taint, or influence unfairly, my view of a movie. If my expectations are too high, then I could be setting goals that very few, if any movies could ever reach. However, if they are too low, I can be pleasantly surprised, because it exceeded my set goals, but hey..it’s my opinion, I am free to express it, you can take it with a grain of salt, so here goes.

Apt Pupil wants to be a thinking man’s horror movie. A journey into the darkest reaches of your mind and soul. Stephen King has always been a master of putting horror into your brain by making you think about it, rather than just showing it to you. That is the power and mastery of his stories. He plants the seed in your mind, and lets your imagination and emotions fertilize into your own personal vision of horror. He lets you into the minds and thoughts of the characters. He allows you to see not only their physical actions, but their thoughts, and feelings, and the effects that all of those factors have on the story. The failure of most King movies in the past is that the filmmakers fail to convey that vision inside the psyche of the characters. The focus, instead, was only on the characters' actions, never really focusing on why they do it. Similar to its predecessors, this is where the movie fails, although not as badly. The wonderful direction, and strong, effective (for the most part) performances, are a bit of a saving grace.

Apt Pupil tells the story of 16 year-old (he has aged 3 years from the book) Todd Bowden (Brad Renfro of the Client, Tom and Huck and Telling Lies in America). Bowden is a curious California teen who discovers, while studying the Holocaust in school, that he is living next door to Nazi war criminal Kurt Dussander. (British Shakespearean actor McKellan, also of Swept From The Sea and 1995s Richard III). In exchange for his silence, Bowden wants to hear details of the Nazi atrocities, to satisfy his innocent youthful curiosity. The increase in the character's age from 13 to 16 was a bit suspect to me. It diminished the innocence factor, since most 16 year-old boys are not as innocent minded as you may believe. (Side note, I figured it out that I was approximately the same age as Bowden, during the setting of this movie.) This sets into motion the ultimate chess game between Bowden and Dussander, and the effects of this mind game is the basis of the story.

In the beginning, this is powerful, as we slowly see the effects that the stories are having on Bowden, via his visions, thoughts and dreams, thus justifying his actions and reactions. Suddenly, the visions disappear, and we are left with unexplained reactions, to those who have not read the story. These reactions are still chilling, and a bit understandable, but could’ve been better envisioned, as was done in the book. The movie seems to lose focus, for a bit, about halfway through, but does pick up and finish strong. Whether this loss of focus is a result of bad directing or editing, considering the lawsuit, or fearful gutless studio heads, is unknown to me. (Bad direction is a doubtful culprit, since Singer has proven that he has a powerful way of putting his vision onto the screen.) The ending here, once again, shows me that Singer knows how to finish a movie. His use of camera angles, interspersed shots, and dialogue, gives a powerful conclusion, to a muddled, watered down vision.

The strengths of this movie are in the directing, production and performances. This is a well-made movie. Singer is an intelligent filmmaker who uses the characters, and dialogue to create tension, and emotion, without completely engorging you in it (although in King stories, a bit more mind-based gluttony would have been acceptable). The movie looks incredible too. The house of Dussander, the scenery, the brief glimpses that we get of Bowden’s tortured mind, all effectively convey the mood and chill you. Truly chilling scenes involve, progressively, Dussander, in uniform following Bowden’s marching orders, then getting into it more than the boy expected. (His Seig (sp) Heil salute chilled me) Dussander, with a cat and an oven, and his exuberant gloating glee at seemingly having trumped the young boy by recording the escapades. I am unfamiliar with McKellans previous work, a fault that I will remedy, but he is truly impressive here. He runs the gamut from innocence, to acceptance, to an eerily powerful and intense. He plays Dussander to intelligent perfection, a seething cauldron always in control, but able to boil over at any point. Renfro is an actor I have been a fan of, in the few movies in which I have seen him. He conveys innocent curiosity, and a darker side, with innocent perfection (best seen in The Client, but also present here). The rest of the supporting performances are average. A refreshing performance is given by Dawson’s Creeks obnoxious Joshua Jackson. (He really is not enough screen time, but I do not really remember his character in the book.) A slightly wasted Elias Koteas (Crash, Fallen, The Prophecy) makes a brief as a transient with less than 10 minutes of screen time. Koteas is a great up and coming talent, and could have been better utilized I believe. The biggest disappointment in the performance category comes from a lost, out-of-place David Schwimmer as Bowden’s guidance counselor. His mustache looks as if he raided the dumpster of Matt Dillon’s trailer on There’s Something About Mary, and failed to ever get it on straight throughout the shoot. Schwimmer’s character is fairly important to the story, and he annoyed me every time he was on screen. (I expected Marcel to hop on his shoulder at some point and put that silly ‘stache off his lip).

I recommend this movie, but not to everyone. If you are unfamiliar with the story, read it first. I usually do not recommend reading a book before seeing a movie based upon it. However in this case, I feel it is a requirement. This movie works best as a companion piece to the story, rather than a replacement and retelling. Between the story, and the movie, it creates a chillingly memorable vision in your mind

See this one, at a matinee, or rental, only if you are a King fan, or have read the story, otherwise, you may be disappointed. ($$ of $$$$)

Go To Reel Rambling Page
Go To Main Page