King of the Ants

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.

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.

I couldn't avoid relating it to the most disturbing novel I've ever read: "Lord of the Flies" (William Golding, 1954) I won't go into details, but suffice to say that both this movie and the book deal with the dark side of human nature and both have perturbing effects on our minds and consciences. Those who are familiar with the book will know what I mean.

The characters in both the movie and the book live detached from society, their rules and morals: In 'Lord of the Flies' British kids, educated in a private school, are castaways stranded in a wild island. Eventually their civilized coat wears off and their inner savagery shows (safe a few characters who remain civilized). Sean Crawly (Chris McKenna) is a current boy, but he is also a dormant killer. Favourable circumstances(money and impunity) will trigger his wicked self.

I've read fuming comments here in the style of "how on earth such normal boy is able to become a killer? This movie is bad!" What turns our stomachs is that his victim is innocent. The scene of the killing is horrifying but what makes it unbearable is that we know that Crawly knows he is killing an honest man. We don't feel so uncomfortable anymore when Crawly takes his revenge.

The scene with Sean Crawly and Duke (George Wendt) at the zoo is also significant. Duke explains how humans can be compared with animals. Notice the pun in Sean's surname (Crawly) and how he is compared with a reptile and also with an ant.

I find that the title of the movie and Duke's cut-of head may be a conspiratorial wink to 'Lord of the Flies'. Maybe it's a coincidence, but the similarities are too obvious to be ignored.

This is a horror film. We may like the plot or not, agree with its development and ending or not, but.. kudos for all the actors and their director. In my opinion their performances are convincing and irreproachable.

Apart from some moments of shoddy photography, an ending that for me fell emotionally flat and Daniel Baldwin annoyingly chewing the scenery to pieces, I found myself quite liking King of the Ants. Not all the photography is bad, on the most part it does look good and the same goes with the rest of the production values. The dialogue at least engages thought, while the story is cleverly written with suspense, thrills and a truly shocking murder scene, not predictable and held my attention all the way through. The characters are the sorts that are extremely flawed but in the end you identify with them, the lead character especially. The direction is taut, while I was surprised at how good the acting was. Chris McKenna is likable in the lead role but it's George Wendt's funny and frightening performance that makes the strongest impression. Overall, while not perfect King of the Ants was really quite good. 7/10 Bethany Cox

From some of the recent reviews of this film, I expected gore like none I'd ever seen before. Frankly, I thought they were a little off base. The "torture" consists of the same act each day, and while it isn't something I'd particularly like to experience myself, it could have been much worse. I found the torture scenes in "Marathon Man" and "Braveheart," to name just two, to be much more disturbing.

One thing I really didn't like about this movie was that none of the major characters is particularly likable. The tortured fella probably deserves what he gets, and the revenge he exacts isn't particularly just considering one of his victims treated him rather well when he was a captive.

All in all, I wasn't bored watching this movie, but I wouldn't recommend it. The story isn't particularly compelling, the romance isn't believable, and the gore factor isn't even that high.