Directed by Philip Chidel
Subject Two is exactly the kind of horror movie you really want to like. Director Philip Chidel and a crew of nine spent sixteen days in a remote Colorado cabin without electricity or running water filming their intimate and independent post-modern Frankenstein film. Unfortunately, a smarmy characterization backed up by a poor performance from one of the two lead actors greatly compromises film.
Subject Two tells the story of Adam (yawn), a brash young medical student who believes ethics are a barrier to advancement in medicine. He is contacted by the mysterious Dr. Vick and invited to a job interview at the doctor’s remote cabin laboratory resting atop Aspen Mountain. Once there, he is informed by Dr. Vick that cryonics, the science of freezing and reanimating a corpse, is now possible due to advancements in nanotechnology. Unfortunately, nothing is really made of the nanotechnology angle in the story as it serves only as a lazy way to inject some modern science into the proceedings.
Before you can scream “Nanites are repairing my frozen cells!”, Dr. Vick has murdered Adam in order to utilize him as the titular “subject two” of his twisted experiments. Up to this point the film is rather promising, playing out as a humorless, snowbound take on Stuart Gordon’s Re-Animator. However, as soon as Adam is brought back to life, the film takes a serious downturn into unintentional camp territory.
A good chunk of the film is preoccupied with Dr. Vick’s trying to stifle Adam’s overwrought emotions by re-murdering him and surgically severing more and more of his nerve endings. There’s not a lot of drama to be found here, apart from the audience’s desire to have Adam stop being such a poetry-spouting pansy and finally get angry at Dr. Vick for killing him (repeatedly). This confrontation never comes to pass, however, as Adam is more preoccupied with the idea that he is contagious than he is with exacting revenge on the doctor for his death. I suppose the idea is that Adam believes the cryonics work is so important that his own life is insignificant in comparison, but the whole idea of Adam thanking Dr. Vick for re-animating him over and over again just never rings true.
Ultimately, Subject Two is an intriguing modern retelling of Frankenstein that falls short in its depiction of the monster. Adam’s sensitive nature is clearly consistent with Karloff’s childlike characterization but lacks the accompanying sense of uncontrollable anger and tragedy that other depictions of the monster have conveyed. In the end, rather than empathizing with Adam’s plight, viewers are more likely to empathize with Adam’s surgically severed feelings. Subject Two makes for an oddly inert viewing experience.
2 1/2 out of 5
Discuss Subject Two in our forums!