King of the Ants

The plot: A double-crossed hit-man has to choose between redemption and vengeance, until the the choice is made for him.

Many of Stuart Gordon's movies have an amoral streak in them, but this is probably the most amoral movie that he's ever made. The lack of tension-relieving, wacky humor, like in most of his movies, highlights it and makes it even more disturbing. The gory violence just makes it even more disturbing, unlike the splatter comedies that he's commonly associated with (such as Re-Animator and From Beyond).

Long-time fans of Gordon have probably sat through many movies that were critically despised (perhaps none more so than Space Truckers, which attracts way too much hate, in my opinion). King of the Ants, however, is a real return to greatness. Yes, there are many disturbing, weird, and violent scenes, but underneath it all is a story that's actually quite intelligent and mature. Admittedly, this is a bit rare for Gordon, who tends to wallow in direct-to-video exploitation. I'm really glad that he chose to do something that he obviously believes in, because I've known for years that he could do a truly great film, if he just got the budget and proper inspiration. I might compare it to A History of Violence, an intriguing deconstruction of violent exploitation movies, made by a lauded director known primarily for his own exploitation movies. Unlike Cronenberg, however, I think Gordon shows no desire to break into the mainstream. His films remain too dark and disturbing.

If movies like King of the Ants and A History of Violence show us just one thing, it's that characters from these kinds of violent movies are incredibly disturbing when transposed into real world situations.

A young drifter discovers his true calling when he's hired by a mobster to stalk and kill a prominent accountant, and then decides to seek revenge when the stingy thugs try to kill him rather than pay him. For me it was kind of hard to get a grip from the beginning because there was nothing that would have explained who the main characters were and what was their goal and so on. This left the characters really shallow and the dialogue between them was something out of a bum disco. While there is some strong personality being displayed, it is done in a way that is truthful to human nature. I think it could use some editing to speed the pace a bit. The film is hard to watch at times and difficult to call enjoyable. 7/10.

Stuart Gordon is not one of the most famous horror directors, but he's made a number of excellent movies (RE-ANIMATOR, FROM BEYOND, EDMOND) and only a couple of truly bad 'uns (DAGON, ROBOT JOX). Like EDMOND, KING OF THE ANTS is more of a thriller... but ANTS has a number of truly horrific scenes that should ensure its appeal to horror fans.

The story is about Sean, a twenty-something housepainter. He's working with George Wendt, who played another housepainter (Norm) in CHEERS and branches out into being an electrician in this role as "Duke". But while Norm and Duke look damn similar, Duke is a scary guy and a complete a**hole.

Duke quickly realises that Sean is desperate for money to escape his ratty daily grind. Sean is sent to see Matthews... another a**hole played by the reliably loopy and sweaty Daniel Baldwin. Turns out Matthews is a low-level gangster who's willing to pay Sean $13K to kill a lawyer for him. But - after Sean commits the murder - both Duke and Matthews refuse to pay up. Turns out they never believed Sean would take a measly 13K to kill someone, resulting in this great little speech from Duke: "You're nothing. You're a worthless piece of sh** who messed around in something you should have left alone. I don't want to ever see you again... and if I do, I'll kill you and I won't even break into a sweat... You're an insect... you're king of the ants." Yet Sean doesn't give in. Even when he's beaten up, captured and threatened some more. Killing him isn't an option because Sean says his buddy will release information to the police that'll nail Duke and Matthews.

What follows is relentlessly bleak; using violence intelligently (and rarely) to maximise the impact of certain scenes. The brutality - and realism - of the murder makes you feel desperately sorry for the victim. Equally, the torment that Sean is put through - being strapped to a chair and beaten by a golf club until he suffers hallucinations - is very uncomfortable viewing. And that's how a good horror should operate. KING OF THE ANTS doesn't sugar-coat the violence, but it also never allows you to become numb to it.

KING OF THE ANTS works on every level. The bad guys are so vile, you feel like cheering when the disfigured Sean manages to break free. Equally, Sean's descent from a feisty guy to a psychopath is well played. Stuart Gordon isn't flashy in his direction, but the movie's nicely paced and creepily lit. There also some natty latex effects (the wound on Sean's head is particularly impressive) and a truly horrific nightmare sequence, which includes a giant monster eating its own faeces, and a chick with an impressively large chainsaw... oh, and an impressively large penis.

Another thing that lifts KING OF THE ANTS above standard horror/thriller fare is the script, which is adapted from his own novel by British comedy actor Charlie Higson (SWISS TONY, THE FAST SHOW). It's got natural dialogue and a few characters that stick in the head. It's also a clever, deft study of how far a human can be pushed... and what happens when they eventually get chance to push back.

Even as Sean becomes progressively more insane, and dangerously obsessed with his victim's wife, it's still hard not to feel sorry for the guy. You admire him for surviving. And because you feel something for Sean, you're eager to see how things'll turn out for him.

As with other strong low-budget films, it's pretty easy to figure out why KING OF THE ANTS wasn't even a minor hit when it was released. Yes, it doesn't have big stars or a marquee director, but it also didn't do the little things right. It had a dated-looking trailer, poor stock music and a badly designed poster. But its aim is purely to be a good movie, rather than one that revolves around a marketable gimmick. In the long run, the film will win out. Eventually, it'll become a cult movie... so be amongst the first to notice that.

You'll probably have pretty low expectations beforehand, but that's what makes finding a little gem like KING OF THE ANTS all the more gratifying. Give it the good home it deserves, and dig out of the bargain bin at your DVD shop.

A very strange little gangster film, even stranger when you consider that it's written by Charlie Higson, best known as a British author and comedian who once starred in THE FAST SHOW. It's a story of murder and revenge with plenty of surreal elements, which is unsurprising given the presence of horror director Stuart Gordon. It's also a very low budget movie, but one that's fairly entertaining despite its shortcomings.

Chris McKenna works hard as the everyday Joe who finds himself caught up in events spiralling out of his control when he's introduced to slimy gangster Ray (played by the well-cast Daniel Baldwin). Driven to murder, he then ends up at the mercy of some slightly bumbling gangsters; one of the most interesting things about the film is the cast, which includes George Wendt and Vernon Wells (COMMANDO) as the bad guys. There's also time for a little romance with the lovely Kari Wuhrer until things take a turn for the very dark.

We end up with a traditional revenge plot, but along the way there are fresh touches of inspiration and surprise, including a very gruelling torture sequence which shows you don't have to be graphic to be deeply unpleasant. Come the end credits, I was left feeling that the total is less than the sum of its parts, but fans of bizarre B-movie outings might find something to savour here.

The last good film Stuart Gordon made was 1985's "Re- Animator," which I also give a 7 of 10.

I mention the former mainly because this film is just as gripping and disturbing. This is not a horror-movie like the former, but it is "horrific" with its peculiar violent realism.

Not much by way of character-development for the protagonist, but in this case, the less said about him the better, or we may not come around to be sympathetic with him when it counts. What we do know of the character Sean Crawley is pretty damn ugly, but unknown actor Chris McKenna has a screen presence that makes him somewhat likable, or at least puts us in his corner in the end.

This film is not a good choice for mixed company, much less a date, but worth watching when home alone and prepared to be wonderfully disturbed.