APT PUPIL (1999)

Stephen King has seen more adaptations of his written body of work than any other writer living or dead, except maybe for Bram Stoker, whose novel, Dracula, has been adapted for a literal, accurate, and confirmed figure of ninety bajillion times. As such, among these King adaptations, some are classic, some are decent, and some are best forgotten. His 1982 four-novella collection, Different Seasons, contained the original stories that would later be adapted into Stand by Me, The Shawshank Redemption, and then Apt Pupil. The fourth story, The Breathing Method, is in the works under the direction of Sinister’s Scott Derrickson, so the Different Seasons adaptation game is looking like a clean sweep. Not bad for one book. (The jealous author in me weeps bitterly.)

Until Derrickson’s adaptation sees release, Apt Pupil remains the dark horse adaptation of the book. Having been released to mixed-to-positive reviews back in 1999 (and mired in controversies/production difficulties), and directed by a post-Usual Suspects Bryan Singer (the X-Men series, Valkyrie), Apt Pupil has always remained just under the radar in the King world. Headlined by Brad Renfro (The Client), who died at the age of 25 in 2008, and whose death was overshadowed by the passing of Heath Ledger one week later, Apt Pupil presents a young, well-to-do high school student and all-around sociopath Todd Bowden, who deduces that an elderly member of his community, Arthur Denker (Ian McKellen), is a former Nazi living in hiding under an alias. Bowden, fascinated with Nazi atrocities (or perhaps just atrocity in general), first blackmails Denker before cautiously befriending him, wanting nothing more than to hear all of Denker’s vile holocaust stories. And Denker, at first backed into a corner, slowly begins to spin the arrangement to his advantage, until the two get to a point where both are manipulating each other. As such, only one will likely walk away.

As can be expected by a King work, Apt Pupil is very dark – not in terms of gory visuals, but more its tone and its subject matter. There’s no blacker stain in the world than the atrocities of Nazi Germany during World War 2; even without the grainy black and white photographs of stacked bodies and emaciated figures, the mere discussion of it is still upsetting enough that Apt Pupil presents as a somber and by-design upsetting experience. Singer and screenwriter Brandon Boyce don’t back away from the darkness of the story’s subject matter, although it does update certain aspects, such as its much more explosive finale (to be expected in 1999’s immediate post-Columbine era).

Ian McKellen is chilling in his role as the runaway Nazi, whose villainous turn almost laughs in the face of his more well-known, and by comparison, lovable, take on the X-Men series’ Magneto (ironically, a survivor of the holocaust). But in a way, it’s Renfro as Bowden who walks away as the film’s bigger sociopath, and that’s because he wears the façade of a sixteen-year-old kid in a varsity jacket and has a pretty girlfriend on his arm, who society would dictate has the perfect life, and hence, is no one to worry about. Renfro finds a way through all that and presents an angry, confused, and severely psychotic kid for whom more teachers would write a letter of recommendation than recommend him for psychological counseling. (Sadly, Renfro battled with drug addiction throughout his 20’s, nearly obtaining the lead in Freddy vs. Jason before a bizarre incident in which he stole a yacht cost him the role.)

On the triple tier Stephen King adaptation scale, Apt Pupil rests comfortably in the upper-middle ranks. The lead performances and Singer’s direction are top notch, while the screenplay can sometimes meander, with its neutered ending sacrificing much of the impact of King’s original story. Still, it’s certainly one of the better King adaptations, with immense talent on both sides of the camera. Sadly, it’s also more relevant in the modern climate than it’s ever been before.

IT AIN'T THAT BAD: HELLRAISER: INFERNO

In this column, movies with less-than-stellar reputations are fairly and objectively defended. Full disclaimer establishes that said movies aren’t perfect, and aren’t close to being such, but contain an undeniable amount of worth that begs you for a second chance. Films chosen are based on their general reception by both critics and audiences, more often than not falling into the negative. Every film, no matter how dismal, has at least one good quality. As they say, it ain’t that bad. 

Spoilers abound. 

I know what you must be thinking: I’ve lost my mind to even consider a direct-to-video sequel to Hellraiser (a Part Five, even) as not just good, but deserving of your praise and attention.

As long-running horror franchises tend to do, the Hellraiser series fell further off the rails with each new entry—many would argue as early as its third, after which the Hellraiser brand never really recovered. Following the debacle that was Hellraiser: Bloodline (featuring a revolving door of directors and consistent script changes), there was really nowhere else to go, continuity-wise. Perhaps that’s why each sequel to follow Bloodline (Inferno, Hellseeker, Deader, and Hellworld) were original non-Hellraiser scripts doctored to appear part of the franchise. (The Weinsteins were somewhat infamous for doing this to their horror properties – I believe Children of the Corn suffered the same fate.) And maybe that’s why these entries were better than any of the theatrically released sequels. (Yes, I am including Hellbound in that group, for I was never a fan of that entry.)

With interest, I delved into negative reviews by movie fans to ascertain what it is about this entry they just didn’t like. After all, Inferno had all the requisite Hellraiser iconography: chains tearing through flesh, creepy sexual intonations, an array of masticated cenobites, and gruesome bloody deaths. “Pinhead is barely in it!” I read. (Count his screen time in the first Hellraiser.) “He’s not even the villain!” (Was he ever meant to be?)

If a person wanted to argue with me that Inferno was a weak Hellraiser film because it failed to carry on the spirit established by Clive Barker in the first two films, I wouldn't have much of an argument. That person would be right. But that doesn't mean Hellraiser: Inferno should be outright dismissed, either. Because it's a rather strong film with strong performances, creepy imagery, and unflinching gore gags.

Detective Joseph Thorne (Craig Scheffer) is a born puzzle solver. His affinity for chess and word riddles alludes to his natural decision/desire to become a detective with the police department. He's not exactly a model human being, however. This comes across rather quickly.

While tending to the scene of a homicide along with his partner Tony Nenonen (Nicholas Turturro), he discovers that the slain was actually an old school mate of his. Discovered at the scene are a child's dismembered finger (somehow embedded into the wax of a candle) and the infamous puzzle box—one, if opened, that releases all manner of evil onto the world. Being that it's in Joseph's nature, he opens the box...and his private hell begins. He's soon thrust into a nightmarish world where he begins tracking a faceless figure responsible for the methodical killing off of individuals who played a part in Thorne's own misspent life. This investigation leads him into the most wild of places—even crossing paths with a cowboy for whom the faceless figure seems to be working. By film's end we realize that Thorne isn't just trying to find the mastermind behind all of this—dubbed The Engineer—but he's also trying to salvage his own innocence.

Craig Scheffer was born to play a douche bag. He’s immensely talented as an actor, but with that grating voice and that evil smirk, he was genetically designed to be a character that dares you to sympathize with him. He plays Joseph incredibly close to the vest, pushing the idea of “unlikable” to its limits, but yet you still do manage to hope he can somehow find his way out of the rabbit hole through which he descends for nearly the entire running time. Watch him steal money from a crime scene, blackmail his partner, do coke and bang whores, and physically assault suspects—all while his family waits for him at home. But also watch him feel compelled to do his job and attempt to save this child he believes kidnapped and in the possession of a severely fucked-up madman. Watch him care about another human being that he’s never met. The character of Joseph is as gray as they come: not all good, but not all bad, either. He’s flawed, as we all are, but not undeserving of empathy.

Doug Bradley returns for his fifth time, donning the pins and leather bondage costume to play Pinhead, and though in later years he never withheld his extreme dissatisfaction with the film’s end result, he does his typical job here. Pinhead, as well as Bradley’s interpretation of him, hasn't really changed since the first film, so the continuity is serviceable and satisfying. Bradley, a self-proclaimed atheist, claims that the “hell” featured in the first two Hellraiser films wasn’t of the Christian idea of hell, but the indefinable idea of hell. He sums up his presence in the film as being a “folksy moralist”—a sort of “Uncle Pinhead” who equates his monologue at the film’s conclusion to him warning children to look both ways before they cross the street. Clearly he’s not happy to have been a part of the experience (and is even one of those who claims he was barely in it—which, again…count his screen time in the first film). While I don’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of his opinions on each entry, I’d be utterly mystified to hear that he considered something like Hellworld or Deader to be superior. Still, Pinhead remains very much a behind-the-scenes figure (as his character works best in small doses) and acts more as a judge and jury rather than the executioner. It’s less like he’s the primary motivator in all of Joseph’s victimization, and more like he happened to be walking by Joseph in hell and opted for a closer look.

Dad from "Dexter" (James Remar) shows up, nearly unrecognizable behind his beard and priest garb, to play Joseph's psychoanalyst of sorts. He offers a rather soft and paternal performance—one of the rare uncorrupted characters in Inferno's line-up. He helps Joseph to organize his frazzled mind and provides him with a rational voice.

Hellraiser: Inferno was directed by Scott Derrickson, with whom I like to think horror fans have grown quite familiar. He did, after all, direct this year’s creepfest Sinister (sequel coming soon!) and the similarly dismissed and unheralded The Exorcism of Emily Rose. His script (co-written with Paul Harris Boardman, who is also providing the screenplay for the Memphis Three film Devil’s Knot) is certainly unlike the other films in the series, but not unlike films we have seen before. There is a reason why the film is called Inferno, after all, as it’s about a man journeying through his own private and specific hell. Only this time his goal isn't to save his departed beloved, but to confront a life lived poorly and selfishly with little regard for how he treated others.

One of Derrickson's strong points as a filmmaker is his ability to create unnerving imagery. Except for his overblown (and studio-tampered) big budget remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still, he has yet to make a genre film that doesn't contain at least one legitimately creepy set piece. The Exorcism of Emily Rose was bolstered by passersby with dripping faces and Jennifer Carpenter's own unnatural abilities as a dancer to contort her own body to uncomfortable positions. And Sinister was dripping with eerie visages—namely the creation of main boogey baddie Bughuul. Inferno's new Cenobites (featuring a new take on 'The Chatterer") are quite effective—they tread that fine line Barker established by making them horrifying, but also undeniably erotic.

Being that I am a horror aficionado, I have quite a few films at home on the ol' shelf. I used to be of the mind that if you owned one entry in an established series, you should own all of them. I was a completist in that sense. Which means that even though I may have only liked Child's Play 1 and 2, I owned all five. I eventually defeated that mindset and cleaned out a lot of garbage. As far as the Hellraiser series is concerned, I own two entries: the first film, and this one. If you remove yourself from the idea that the Hellraiser series tells one continuous story (and dear god, you know it doesn't—they gave up on that long ago), you'll find a lot to admire about Inferno. Yes, the name Hellraiser was bulldozed into the title, but blame the Weinsteins. Don't blame the filmmakers. Because they contributed a pretty solid horror film—one that predates the 1987 release of the first film and harks back to the real inspiration: a divine poem from the 14th century.

JUMP SCARE

REVIEW: SINISTER

Within the first ten seconds of Sinister, I knew I was seeing something fresh, new, exciting, and creepy. And within that first ten seconds, I knew I would love it.

When Sinister was announced as far back as May of 2011, I began keeping an eye on any developments almost immediately because of the director attached to the project: Scott Derrickson. While he’s not a household name, at that point he had already given us the extremely undervalued The Exorcism of Emily Rose and the unfairly maligned Hellraiser: Inferno (my personal favorite entry in the Hellraiser franchise, even though it was never meant to be a Pinhead movie, anyway). I don’t really blame him for the completely inept remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still, being that it was a Fox Studio movie, and as many know, they are a studio that can’t keep their grubby mitts off their larger, tent pole films.

Developments on Sinister began rolling in, using the terms “found footage” and “true crime.” Being that I’m a found footage nut ball, this sounded only but good to me. Then Ethan Hawke was announced for the project, and I was completely confused.

“Why are they casting such a big name celebrity for a found footage movie?,” etc.

Now that I’ve seen the film, and know how the found footage is incorporated, it all makes perfect sense.

Ethan Hawke plays true-crime writer Ellison Oswald, who rose to prominence and fame with his book Kentucky Murder, written ten years prior to the events of Sinister. His prominence and exposure came when his book made known the fact that law enforcement had dropped the ball in a number of places while investigating during whatever murderous crimes that took place (they’re kept purposely vague), and Ellison’s book brought to light a lot of information that had been left behind. This is all well and good, and resulted in a bestselling book and a tidy little sum of money for the author and his family. However, there’s a blemish on Ellison’s career called Cold Denver Morning, another true-crime tome that unfortunately got some things wrong and allowed a murderer to walk free of his crimes.

Ellison moves his family, unbeknownst to them, into a Pennsylvania house where the previous family had been hung from a tree in the back yard. He hopes to investigate the unsolved murders and write the book of his career –  one that will erase all his past indiscretions and award him with all the fame and fortune he claims not to desire.

After discovering a box of super 8 films marked “home movies” up in the attic, Ellison begins going through them one by one, and what he sees before him are mere moments of idealized familial happiness and togetherness before the films jump cut and see those very same families being killed in some gruesome or intricate way. They aren’t just shot or stabbed – they’re tied to lounge chairs and pulled one by one into a swimming pool, or they're bound and gagged and pushed into a car filled with full cans of gasoline, only to burn alive. What’s important to note is this murderous footage features not only the family who had previously lived in Ellison’s new house, but other families from other houses from all across the country – and all involving one member of the family, a child, going missing soon after. The footage is genuinely unnerving, made all the more so by the very unorthodox musical choices of such avant garde/ambient musical groups like Accurst and Ulver, while Christopher Young, goddamn legend that he is, scores the more traditionally shot portions of the film.

Though Ellison tries as best as he can to isolate his family from his creepy discoveries, his son's previously conquered night terrors begin happening again with much more intensity, and his daughter begins to draw on her bedroom wall images featured in his ghastly filmstrips.

As Ellison investigates each murder, he begins to slowly realize that he’s not just dealing with terrible murders, but something much more than that…something beyond that boundary he never thought he would cross…something supernatural.

Something named Bughuul.

Blumhouse Productions, who produced Sinister, is quickly becoming a best friend to the horror community, having produced the Paranormal Activity trilogy (make that quadrilogy), Insidious, and the television series "The River." Blumhouse et al. and director Derrickson (along with first-time writer C. Robert Cargill, who knocked this out of the park for his first time out) work well together, and all seem to be on the very same page in terms of realizing this project and bringing it to the forefront. Sinister plays out very much like a kindred spirit to Insidious, with a heavy focus on quiet horror mixed with legitimately creepy imagery, non-melodic music, even down to a monstrous face appearing in every filmstrip Ellison watches.  It contains the perfect balance of quiet terror, disturbing images, and comic relief (which we end up relying on to take a breather from the mounting terror that befalls Ellison every night when the antiquated projector in his locked-up office kicks on by itself…)

What works in Sinister’s favor is that it’s a very simple and very contained story. There are only six people featured prominently in the movie (alive, anyway) and the action hardly ever leaves the Oswald family’s new home. And as for the story being simple, that’s not a slight against the film. Some of our best horror films – Halloween, Psycho – had simple stories, and because Sinister's filmmakers didn’t feel bogged down with having to provide exposition, this allowed them to create sequences to unnerve the audience.

It goes without saying that Sinister is Derrickon's best effort as a director. Watching the film gives you a feeling he's achieved a new way of approaching his material, and it's one that also feels the most unrestrained. It feels as if he was given nearly carte blanche to make this film the way he intended without a studio looking over his shoulder.

Sinister also features a strong supporting cast, featuring Juliet Rylance as Ellison’s wife, Vincent D’Onofrio as a local university professor (featured only in a Skype video chat), James Ransome as Deputy So-and-So (see the movie and you’ll understand), and even Fred Thompson as the town’s grizzled sheriff.

Horror needs more movies like Sinister. It needs high-concept and original ideas that are only out to scare audiences in the purest ways – with images, mood, music, and good story telling. I can only hope that Sinister sees success at the box office when it opens in a wider release on October 12th – not so it can be sequalized, but so once again, like Insidious and the PA films before it, studios can see that low-budgeted original horror fare can and will be successful, so long as you give it a chance.