Subject Two

Two young men, isolated up in the mountains, performing bizarre and questionable experiments on each other… No, it isn't an early sequel to "Brokeback Mountain" but a new & clever independent horror film that I hope will be regarded as a minor cult gem within a couple of years! The screenplay of "Subject Two" is based on Mary Shelley's almighty "Frankenstein"-tale in which an intelligent but overly obsessed scientist brings back an unwilling victim from the dead. Only, times have severely changed by now and, instead of lightening storms or voodoo rituals, science now uses Nano-technologies, cloning techniques and loads of other hi-tech stuff I totally didn't understand! Dr. Franklin Vick (got it? Victor Frankenstein? Yeah OK, you get it…) lures the anti-social medical student Adam to his remote mountain cabin where he kills him repeatedly…but successfully brings him back to life every single time. These intense experiments have a severe impact on Adam, of course, and pretty soon he turns into an emotional and physical wreck. This film contains multiple praiseworthy elements that I haven't spotted in other, high-budgeted horror productions in a very long time already. First and foremost, there's the hugely original Aspen, Colorado filming location! The total lack of civilization and the false hope for rescue is perfectly illustrated by the snowy mountains and unbearably cold winds. The limited number of cast members contributes a lot to the power of "Subject Two" as well, also because the male leads give away great performances. Dean Stapleton (who tremendously resemblances Jack Nicholson when he was younger) is genuinely sinister as the doc and Christian Oliver is very convincing as the mentally unstable guinea pig. This isn't exactly a full-blooded horror film, but there's quite a bit of gore and raw violence on display. The dialogs are witty and – entirely unexpected – the plot takes an ingenious turn near the end! Just for that, "Subject Two" receives one well-deserved extra point. If you have the opportunity to see this smart film by Philip Chidel, don't hesitate!

Here is what could have been an interesting movie for the Frankenstein/Re-animator fan.....Mad scientist living in the seclusion of a snowy mountain cabin seduces young, gifted, and rebellious medical student into his remote log cabin lair to work with him as apprentice to his experimentation on an unknowing test subject number "two". That is about the gist of it and number two is what this stinker of a movie is laced with from that point onward.... From the start to the end (if it can be called an end), it is too long, too slow, and filled with too much ridiculousness to maintain interest. Unlike Frankenstein's countless remakes each of (which could win an academy award compared with this movie), Subject 2 has no purpose.... oh, other than what the Professor states - "We have much more work to do"....???? What work? Vic's random note taking as he speaks into an miniature recorder? Unlike Re-animator, Subject 2 has no entertainment.....well, there is some minor laughter listening to the Professor scold his apprentice. The sad thing is that it wasn't meant to be a comedic scene. The shot of the subject wandering aimlessly through the mountains in hopelessness defines this movie...and is ultimately passed off to the viewer after watching - hopeless to get time or money back. Where, what, who, huh? At least it is over....

Don't say I didn't warn you.

What a surprise this film is! It's a quiet, get-absorbed-in-it sort of horror film, and properly light on gore. The story is similar to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, whereas life is created from death in the name of science. The acting is solid and moving; there is no mugging, no sly popular culture wink-winks. The focus is on the story, not special effects, not body count, and there's a steady sense of sadness and madness that made me not want to watch the bonus features afterward; I got so drawn into the characters that I did not want their effect on me altered by watching the actors goof around or discuss the film.

The actor who played Adam, the loner medical student, was wonderful -- and very handsome, to boot. He conveyed very well the pain and isolation that Adam felt, and it made sense why Adam would take part in Dr. Vick's experiment for, in part, he'd finally have a connection with another person, regardless of any personal consequences.

Any faults I found with the film were too minor for me to give them much consideration. It's too nice to finally see a low-budget film that obviously was a work of love and is dedicated to its story, not to getting its talent noticed by making yet another indistinguishable gorefest that is a checklist of a dozen other horror films.

And not once does a screeching cat leap out from a closed cupboard door. Mad props for that, guys.

I saw a screening of this indie film at the San Francisco Independent Film Festival and enjoyed it a great deal. Nicely done, especially on the low budget they had for this. I'm not generally a fan of "horror" (although this may be more suspense/thriller than horror), but found this film keeping me interested with both the plot and the editing that kept things moving. I hope "Subject Two" can find distribution so this filmmaker can bring us more. The choice of Aspen is beautiful to look at and well captured. The isolation the winter scenes promoted helped keep the story taught, and the visuals lovely. The acting is natural and well captured, and even the director has a fascinating part in this film.

Full disclosure: Re-Animator is one of my all-time favorite movies. So, Subject Two, about a "doctor" who lives secluded in the mountains of Colorado, and experiments with death and reanimation, with a willing subject to be killed and brought back to life for as many times as he pleases... That's gotta be good, right? Well, not particularly.

Save for possibly "the original" Dr. Vick, I found the acting in this to be pretty sub-par. And even he could've played it up more, he IS a demented, mad doctor, after all. (Oh, a mad doctor does show up... for one embarrassing performance). The "subject" is all too chill, and when things get dramatic, sappy, and/or philosophical, well let's say these 3 subjects are not this actor's strong suit. Does not help the musings on life and death are written poorly.

Subject has side effects, ceases to feel, ponders life outside of the cabin. Toward the beginning of the movie, subject catches a ride with a pretty girl... and asks for her number. They ride that horse for a while, as his sole motivation to get back out into the world. Then he loses the number. Oh well, that's it for him, I guess. They show him aimlessly wandering down the mountain under the closing credits.

Man, I really like a good premise. And they left this movie open-ended on a few fronts. A little ambiguity can be good, too. This could've easily spun off into a sequel, and the twist gives bearing for a prequel. (Of which I'm sure we'll never see).