Subject Two

2006 "Death has its side effects."
5.4| 1h33m| en| More Info
Released: 20 January 2006 Released
Producted By:
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A doctor invents a resurrection formula and tests it by killing his assistant over and over and over again

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

Trailers & Images

Reviews

David Roggenkamp One mad scientist's dream, results in one man's downhill journey from death to oblivion as an otherwise dead man, brought to life again and again, slowly becomes tortured with the process and goes insane; his only wish is to die.The rest of the film is spent exploring what it means to be the dead brought back to life and if the human body can survive without being able to feel. The mad scientist and the medical student continue their experiment to see what the eventual outcome will be.The movie shares an interesting premise. It is not uncommon for movies go to into great detail of how humans may spiral out of control with their sanity as they become the victims or willingly as the test subject of an experiment.I cannot say the movie is bad; it seems to be aiming at being a suspense film with slight bits of horror involved. The movie takes a look into the human mind and the philosophy behind trying to make the dead live once again. The movie is far from cheerful and would be quite disturbing to normal television. This movie will certainly fill that niche if you are looking for semi-horror with a good plot behind it.Originally posted to Orion Age (http://www.orionphysics.com/? p=5183).
MetalGeek 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."
youfunnytoo 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?
Gorgon Zola 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).