King of the Ants

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.

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

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 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.