IMDb user comments for
Subject Two (2006)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Index

26 comments in total

---

29 out of 48 people found the following comment useful :-
It's Alive!! It's Alive!!! ... x50!, 14 March 2006

Author: Coventry from the Draconian Swamp of Unholy Souls

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!

---

22 out of 35 people found the following comment useful :-
Worth seeing, 12 February 2006

Author: jonathan-446 from United States

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.

---

10 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
I don't understand the positive commentary...you guys were paid, right?, 7 September 2006

Author: Gorgon Zola from Belgium

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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).

---

10 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Worth a watch? oh pls!, 6 September 2006

Author: CineCritic2517 from Netherlands

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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

---

12 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
Just A Bad Twilight Zone Episode, 18 September 2006

Author: youfunnytoo from United States

Anybody who hasn't guessed the surprise ending of this one by five minutes in deserves what he gets.

Which is not much.

Some goofy and abortive mooning over the meaning of life, a couple of boring chases on a snowmobile, some special effects that woudn't cut it on Halloween.

And Vick's repetitive killing of Adam actually gets funny after a while. Like a Roadrunner cartoon without the Acme products.

And can anybody explain why almost the only time Vick wears a hat is when he's indoors?

---

21 out of 38 people found the following comment useful :-
Modern "Frankenstein" story in an isolated cabin in the mountains., 19 February 2006

Author: me_methos from United States

This was a great movie. Modern Frankenstein story with a twist. The story centers around Dr. Vic and his new assistant (an unhappy medical student named Adam). Separated from the world, hours from any town, Dr. Vic's experiments take a twisted turn. It was filmed entirely around Aspen, CO. The actors literally had to snowmobile hours on end to get to the film site. I really loved this movie. The horror aspect was less apparent, but I didn't mind at all. It speaks a great deal towards the nature of man, and towards our arrogance. The story was great and the acting was awesome!! The special effects were believable and not at all cheesy. Dean Stapleton is incredible. I am curious as to why he has not had other roles. Christian Oliver plays an amazing Adam. The emotion he brings to the part makes the movie. I recommend this to everyone!!!!!

---

8 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
Awful, 2 October 2006

Author: miruza from London, England

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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.

---

7 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
How utterly boring...., 3 September 2006

Author: l-block from United States

How utterly boring. Just because this film is different from the usual horror flicks I don't know how anyone could possibly like the film. True it did not contain any of the usual elements of gore & horror that we've seen before but how can that be an endorsement for boredom. Waiting for some character development to resume between the student & the girl but it never did. About the only thing I liked was the portrayal of Dr Vic by the Jack Nicholson lookalike actor. Didn't anyone else see the resemblance?? Oh and the last scene where the real doctor comes back to life was pathetic to say the least. Sorry but I could not rate this any higher.

---

16 out of 31 people found the following comment useful :-
Well-worth seeing, 24 July 2006

Author: davitalvitch from United States

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.

---

5 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
White-out wipe-out..., 23 December 2006

Author: merklekranz from United States

"Subject Two" gets two stars, one for the acting which was passable, and one for the scenery, which was pretty. Now, imagine two actors with no script, in a mountaintop cabin. One kills the other, revives him for a nice scenic walk in the snow. Fifteen minutes further along one actor again kills the other, and another stroll in the snow ensues. That pretty much sums up this tedious, and boring movie. In fact, you could do better watching a 20 minute short on skiers in the Rockies, and save the other hour plus that is wasted watching "Subject Two". I would not attempt to compare this to another film, although the subject has been done far better innumerable times. - MERK

---

---

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
External reviews	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history