User Reviews

I'd never heard of "Subject Two" but when it turned up on Sundance Channel recently the description sounded interesting so I recorded it and checked it out. Sundance's program guide described it as a "horror" film but that's not entirely accurate. Perhaps it's a "Horror/Drama?" Either way, I was hoping for more horror and less drama. Maybe this would be considered a horror movie for people who don't watch horror movies.

The story is intriguing enough: Adam Schmidt is a slacker medical student who takes a job offer sent to him via e-mail (doesn't he know that those never turn out to be good ideas?) by Doctor Vick, a mysterious scientist who lives and works in a remote mountain cabin in Colorado. Their initial meeting has shades of "Re-Animator," as the doctor fills him in on his research into life and death, then without warning, strangles Adam and injects him with his experimental rejuvenation serum. Adam eventually wakes up, of course, and he then spends the rest of the movie as Vick's guinea pig, getting killed and brought back, killed and brought back, over and over again. Of course, each revival comes with its own set of problems, both physical and emotional, for Adam.

Sounds intriguing, but after the first couple of "revival" scene the novelty wears off. In between each death scene Adam and the Doctor do a lot of talking and not much else. The monotony is briefly broken when Adam encounters a deer hunter trespassing on the property who has to be dealt with (lest he bring unwanted attention to the project) but by the three quarter mark I was yawning and wishing the Doc would just put poor Adam down for good and leave him there.

"Subject Two" has decent performances, gorgeous wintertime Colorado scenery, and a couple of shocks, but it runs out of steam quickly. Count me out if there's ever a "Subject Three."

Movies, like all other stories, are aimed at and suited for different audiences. Some are meant for children, some for adults and some for adolescents who like to think they're adults. Movies that come out in the Summer are aimed at a mass audience that doesn't want to think to hard about their entertainment. Movies that come out toward the end of the year are aiming for awards and want to be admired more than they want to entertain. Subject Two is, or at least should've been, intended for a small but unique audience - students taking classes in film criticism.

That's because reviewing this film would be a great final exam for such a class. It's made with care and skill and is definitely good enough to hold your interest, yet it also has some very large and glaring flaws. Those flaws shouldn't really detract from an otherwise worthy effort, but you shouldn't overpraise a movie because it's better than those soul-numbingly bad original films on the Sci Fi Channel.

Subject Two concerns Adam Schmidt (Christian Oliver), a medical student who can't abide the ethical constraints of modern science. He's summoned to the snowy wilderness of the Colorado mountains by an anonymous offer of mysterious employment. After trudging his way up to a secluded cabin to meet a Doctor Franklin Vick (Dean Stapleton), Schmidt is asked if he'd like to assist in experiments in cryonics, nanotechnolgy and such stuff. Schmidt agrees…and is then strangled to death with a garrote. It turns out the experiment is Schmidt being repeatedly killed by various means and then resurrected through a special serum.

That's a genuinely clever idea for a story. Just when you think there's nothing more to be done with the Frankenstein concept, you find Subject Two sitting on the shelves in your local video store. In addition to that clever idea, the movie is also competently directed and, since it was actually shot at a mountain top cabin in Colorado, uses the gorgeous natural scenery to great effect. And after such a strong start, you'll want to see where the story ends up going.

Unfortunately, it doesn't go very far. The idea of Subject Two could have led to some fascinating explorations of life, death and killing. What would it be like to kill someone yesterday and have lunch with them today, all the while knowing you're going to kill them again tomorrow? What does it mean to kill someone over and over and over again? What is it like to know you're going to die, but also know it isn't going to last? Subject Two is exactly what science fiction was meant to be, taking human beings and putting them in unreal situations and thinking out how they would respond. The movie never lives up to that promise, though. The filmmakers had a clever idea, but they were content to stop with just that one idea. It falls back into a predictable and conventional narrative where the experiment starts to go wrong and…honestly, it kind of peters out after that. As it doesn't delve deeply into the human elements of the story, it's also fairly vague on the sci fi aspects of the tale. The movie implies that the resurrections are changing Adam Schmidt, but how and into what is never specific. When the experiment starts to go wrong, why it's not working is never clear and what is done to try and fix things is never explained at all.

The actors do a fine job but even though just two characters are on screen for almost the entire film, they're never clearly defined. We're introduced to Adam Schmidt as one sort of person but he then becomes totally different after dying the first time. The man he meets in the cabin switches from calculating mad scientist to scared and uncertain at random times throughout the film, not because the actor is doing a poor job but because that's what the story requires.

The only unequivocally negative thing about Subject Two is a glaringly lame "twist" ending. It wouldn't have been a good twist in even the best of circumstances but because the movie doesn't have much of a real ending, the lameness of it smacks you in the fact like 7 day old salmon.

It's easy to rip a bad film and just as simple to gush over a great one. Movies like Subject Two, though, deserve more praise than lambasting because they start out strong and fall short. That puts it far ahead of many films and filmmakers that aren't even trying.

When the antisocial and lonely medical student Adam Schmidt (Christian Oliver) receives a mysterious e-mail inviting him to participate of a unique medical research, he accepts the job opportunity and travels to an isolated snowing area to a cabin in the middle of nowhere. He meets Dr. Franklin Vick (Dean Stapleton) that kills him cutting his throat with a hunting knife. When Adam resurrects, Franklin calls him Subject Two and explains that he is engaged in an unethical medical research, bringing dead to life. Along the days, Adam is killed and resurrected over and over again, with Franklin improving his research, until the day Adam decides to leave the isolated spot.

The weird "Subject Two" has a promising and intriguing beginning, with a youngster being killed and resurrected as part of an experiment. However, the pointless story becomes repetitive and boring, with the repetition of the same situation (Adam killed and brought back to life by a guy playing God), having a terrible ending. The best this movie can offer is the wonderful landscapes in Aspen and the blue eyes of Courtney Mace. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Cobaia" ("Subject")

The reason I went ahead to see this flick was because of the near 6 vote it had and much of the commentary which was rather positive. It is usually a good way of checking out a movie beforehand but in this case I felt cheated.

Because even with the best intentions, its impossible to find this movie anything other than it being a complete disaster in every aspect.

Story: The story is no more, no less just as the tagline on the cover. Nothing else happens but a guy being killed, brought back to life, killed, brought back to life etc. There is no sub direction, no subplot or any other elaborate magnification on the whys or the hows. Some have tried in their comments to led u to believe that it has, but there are none. The conversations go like this:

Guy1: "How about that weather ey?" Guy2: "What about it?" Guy1: "Bit moist don't u think?" Guy2: "now that u mention it.." Guy1: "I hate walking in the rain, don't u?" Guy2: "yeah I did that once, I got all wet!" Etc.

Plot: There is no plot, the stuff is just happening without any redeeming explanation as to why or what. They just mention some words as Nanotechnology (which isn't used) and cryogenics (not used either) and this is supposed to interest the viewer to go ahead and see it through. They could just as well have mentioned Kamasutra techniques which would have had no baring on the plot either.

<---here is that spoiler but since u should really skip this film u might as well just read it--->

Plot twist/ending: They tried to have one, but hopelessly failed and again I can not believe someone actually wrote that it had an unexpected twist at the end. Anyone who has ever seen a horror flick before in his life must have secretly been praying at the beginning of the movie that the corpse in the snow was not going to be alive again at the end. But OMG!!! that's exactly what happens. My wife and I couldn't stop laughing when it did. And the living corpse turned out to be the real doctor. "So what?" I ask u. It's not like the real doctor would have done anything different opposed to the guy impersonating him (the assistant, subject nr. 1). that's not a twist, it's lamer than lame and just about the worst thing they could have come up with.

Performance: The performance of the actors was overall good. Some did claim that dr. Vic bore a too striking resemblance to Jack Nicholson, to me a young Michael Ironside came to mind.

Special effects: Someone wrote about special effects, like if they were even in this movie. Or maybe this person was talking about those pathetic looking contact lenses the main character had on his eyes which made it hard to keep a straight face watching the guy from that point on.

Location: The location of the set is praised by many in the comments, but lets be honest people; a horror/thriller set in an overly sunny and bright snowy environment could not ever work. It made it look like a holiday brochure for crying out loud.

Overall only the acting could have been a lot worse but please, regarding the rest, who in their right minds would seriously find this an enjoyable pastime?

I rate this stinker 2/10. The extra point given for those beautiful blue eyes of Kate (Courtney Mace).

I have to admit I was intrigued by this new look at the Frankenstein ideal, but despite the number of times Adam (Christian Oliver) died and was resurrected and Vick (Dean Stapleton) battled with the complexities of his formula and its side effects, the story never seemed to go anywhere. How about a insight into death and what may lie on the other side? How about some moral or ethical message? I will say this, the acting was quite good and I liked all the performances even though Stapleton bore an uncanny resemblance to Jack Nicholson (probably intended) but this was one of those movies I was waiting to end so I could put something else in.

Unsuccessful student Christian Oliver (as Adam Schmidt) is smart enough; but, he is failing to make the medical school grade. Possibly, this is due to his frequent headaches, and an anti-social disposition. Mr. Oliver explains, "I think I'm allergic to people." After receiving a "F" on his ethics essay, Oliver decides to "drop out"; and, quickly, he responds to an invitation from mysterious doctor Dean Stapleton (as Ethan, aka "Dr. Vick"). So, Oliver goes to live with Mr. Stapleton, in an isolated, snowbound cabin. You should know Stapleton has gruesome plans for Oliver.

Stapleton wants to murder his house-guest, and bring him back to life.

"Subject Two" is quite an intriguing take on the old life-creating "Frankenstein" plot. The film is very bright, and well-photographed. The lonely cabin, set in the vast and sparsely populated mountains, is a worthy setting. Rich Confalone's photography is beautiful. Writer/director Philip Chidel, who also appears as "Subject One", and the two lead actors are also excellent. The story could have been a little clearer. For example… well, you'll see… Still, it's an interesting slice of intellectual gore, and a definite career peak for those involved.

Its very weirdness is most welcome.

******* Subject Two (2006) Philip Chidel ~ Christian Oliver, Dean Stapleton, Philip Chidel, Courtney Mace

No kind words come to mind looking back on whatever it was I just fast-forwarded. And I just can't believe anyone would write kindly about it which was the reason I gave this flick a shot. Silly me ey?

And just to counter the obvious statements in the "worth a watch" section; it being low budget doesn't give it merit by default. Sewage is sewage and a 100$ turd reeks just as much as one in the lower pricerange.

But...something that is worth a watch is also worth a telling, right? so allow me to just sum up this movie for u then: (spoiler, but please be spoiled)

-Guy goes to a mountain shed in the snow to undergo an experiment with a doctor, guy gets killed, guy gets revived but now his eyes look exactly like those of master Poo in Kung Fu, guy gets killed another 9 times, gets revived 9 more times and then he walks back down the mountain. Oh..and the dead guy in the snow turned out to be the real doctor.-

Honestly folks:..thazzall...

Now if this brilliance of a story would have had some cunning dialog or sublime wit in it, it might have been passable. But to top the cake; it had none of it. U will find the dialog between two amoeba more entertaining.

Anyone rating this more than a 3 or even having the nerve to find this worth watching, has either been paid to say so or has been paid to say so.

This's not even a stinker! 0/10

This is the worst crap I've ever seen. I would like to hear the opinion of a real doctor about this film. What kind of doctor doesn't wear any surgical clothes for making a 'surgery'? Why you never see a tube or lab in that house? What is that green stuff he forces Adam to drink supposed to be? Why are they such bad actors? What those cheap blue contact lenses Adam wears after coming back to life mean? In the scene when Adam's wrists are cut, why do you hear the blood dropping only when the camera moves down? Who gave the money for making this awful abomination of a film? Is just funny the way this film is so terribly bad.

Now mind you-- I was 'intrigued' by it-- but a Saturday Night Horror Splatter flick it is not what you will see. It wasn't even all that talky-- which was surprising-- which made it go even slower.

SO as a horror Fan you see disaffected, brilliant med student answers phone-- opens email-- and BOOM! he heads up up into the High Frosty Trackless Aspen Wilderness , get picked up by beeyootiful single bluejean gal, dropped off at foot of snowy trail-- heads up to lone cabin and meets a fella with Jack-Nicholson-Homicidal-Maniac written ALL OVER HIS FACE. . .

You say-- Okay-- All the ingredients are there: Clueless Kid, Beeyootiful Gal, Homicidal Maniac, Isolated cabin, lots of clean white snow. . .Let the Splattering Begin!

So the viewer settles back with his nachos, watches as Clueless Kid actually turns his Back on Homicidal Maniac and BAM! he's whacked!

I'm like "Huh? Dead Already?"

And that's when the movie goes off into the Twilight zone.

Without Spoiling the plot-- I will say I give the movie points for taking the concept in a totally unexpected direction. But on the whole it was a little tedious, moved too languidly and left the viewer frustrated-- I mean when is the Homicidal Maniac gonna Get Whacked!?! It was frustrating watching the Clueless Kid get Whacked--and whacked--and whacked--and whacked some more--and you say to yourself: "It isn't even Funny-- I mean give me a break-- Okay Death and Side-effects, I get it!-- STOP WHACKING HIM ALREADY! Jesus!"

I give the movie a Half-Grade 50-50. It mainly messed up in the expectation department for me. I was 'intrigued'-- but because it didn't cover my expectation as a horror flick, so I wasn't really entertained as much as I thought I would be. I settled down thinking I'd get a splatter flick-- and instead was caught in a mental-karmic-existential exploration about Death and the creepy relationship between Clueless Kid and Homicidal Maniac.

It literally left me scratching my head-- If that is what the Movie Makers wanted-- kudos to them. . .I guess. But most of my friends would have been screaming "BORING" and hitting the Eject stud.

Nano technology which has created wondrous things like non-stick ketchup bottles can now resurrect life. Adam Schmidt (Christian Oliver) becomes a guinea pig in this experiment as he is repeatedly killed and revived in a remote snowy cabin. It was cute and clever the first few times, but the interest of this new technology and Adam's "Gary Mitchell" contacts becomes boring as you wait for some new revelation that never occurs.

The film has a slight twist, although by that point I had lost interest. The acting was decent in what was basically a two man play. The movie is more interesting than entertaining.

Parental Guide: 1 quick F-bomb, no sex, no nudity.

The first 30 minutes are fairly intriguing. Then, the film becomes repetitive and boring somewhat repeating itself for the next 20 minutes or so. Following that, the film could have been very interesting with the storyline including more of the hunter and a re-appearance from Kate, the delivery person. Instead the movie returns to the earlier repetitiveness and turns to silliness with an ending that is not only disappointing but stupid.