I had a lot of hopes for "Subject Two" when I started, but the movie didn't live up to them.
That's perhaps harsher than the movie deserves. It's an intriguing premise, the movie looks great (especially considering the tiny budget), and there are several setups and payoffs that are well done. But the big payoff, when it finally comes, isn't worth the wait. If the screenplay had been trimmed down to a 60 minute horror anthology episode (for the modern equivalent of the Twilight Zone), I think it would have been punchier and worked better.
The major problem : everything depends on the interaction of the two main characters and the chemistry between them; and in spite of the fact that one repeatedly murders the other, there aren't a lot of sparks flying around, not even homo-erotic or sadist/masochistic. The test subject remains the mildest of men, almost completely passive, and the doctor is (aside from a certain of Jack Nicholson derived snark) not especially worked up about the situation either.
The second problem (for me) is that the screenplay is mostly psychological horror; the repeated death traumas Subject Two suffers don't turn him a monster, a psycho, or a Jason-like serial killer or anything interesting in a cinematic sense; he just becomes more and more detached and unconnected and lost within himself. And that's really no "fun" to see at all. I guess the director wanted to create something more complex and Pinteresque than a typical monster movie...but the extended length here actually works against him, because he really doesn't have that much to say about the results that a mature 10th grader wouldn't know: Death diminishes a person. (I never would have guessed).
In its favor: the introduction of the hunter 2/3rd from the end breaks up the monotony a bit, and the ****SPOILER ALERT***
reintroduction of the character you thought was murdered in the first three minutes
***END SPOILER ALERT provides a nice twist that makes some of the previous events make more sense and provides a quirky feel more common to a British take on this kind of movie.
An aside: if you think about it, although Subject Two may appear hopelessly alienated and alone as he wanders off into the landscape in the final shot (which is gorgeous, BTW), unlike the original Frankenstein monster, he still looks "normal" and not all monstrous....so if he no longer wants to be part of the experiment, and he wants to die, and he isn't infectious...all he has to do is turn himself into any research or university hospital, and all of Western medicine will jump into to research his "undead" condition and find a cure or improvement. But the screenplay is hoping you won't think of that.
So: some good work was done here. Again, it's amazing how good they managed to make the movie look. The actors may not make the parts actually work, but they both seem to be hardworking pros and I wouldn't hesitate to watch them again in less problematic material. And there are some good moments here and there. But in spite of the Gothic gleam of the plot elements, this one just sits there and doesn't really grab me.
Your mileage, of course, may vary. And if it does grab you, well, then good for you.
That's perhaps harsher than the movie deserves. It's an intriguing premise, the movie looks great (especially considering the tiny budget), and there are several setups and payoffs that are well done. But the big payoff, when it finally comes, isn't worth the wait. If the screenplay had been trimmed down to a 60 minute horror anthology episode (for the modern equivalent of the Twilight Zone), I think it would have been punchier and worked better.
The major problem : everything depends on the interaction of the two main characters and the chemistry between them; and in spite of the fact that one repeatedly murders the other, there aren't a lot of sparks flying around, not even homo-erotic or sadist/masochistic. The test subject remains the mildest of men, almost completely passive, and the doctor is (aside from a certain of Jack Nicholson derived snark) not especially worked up about the situation either.
The second problem (for me) is that the screenplay is mostly psychological horror; the repeated death traumas Subject Two suffers don't turn him a monster, a psycho, or a Jason-like serial killer or anything interesting in a cinematic sense; he just becomes more and more detached and unconnected and lost within himself. And that's really no "fun" to see at all. I guess the director wanted to create something more complex and Pinteresque than a typical monster movie...but the extended length here actually works against him, because he really doesn't have that much to say about the results that a mature 10th grader wouldn't know: Death diminishes a person. (I never would have guessed).
In its favor: the introduction of the hunter 2/3rd from the end breaks up the monotony a bit, and the ****SPOILER ALERT***
reintroduction of the character you thought was murdered in the first three minutes
***END SPOILER ALERT provides a nice twist that makes some of the previous events make more sense and provides a quirky feel more common to a British take on this kind of movie.
An aside: if you think about it, although Subject Two may appear hopelessly alienated and alone as he wanders off into the landscape in the final shot (which is gorgeous, BTW), unlike the original Frankenstein monster, he still looks "normal" and not all monstrous....so if he no longer wants to be part of the experiment, and he wants to die, and he isn't infectious...all he has to do is turn himself into any research or university hospital, and all of Western medicine will jump into to research his "undead" condition and find a cure or improvement. But the screenplay is hoping you won't think of that.
So: some good work was done here. Again, it's amazing how good they managed to make the movie look. The actors may not make the parts actually work, but they both seem to be hardworking pros and I wouldn't hesitate to watch them again in less problematic material. And there are some good moments here and there. But in spite of the Gothic gleam of the plot elements, this one just sits there and doesn't really grab me.
Your mileage, of course, may vary. And if it does grab you, well, then good for you.