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

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

merklekranz "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
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).
l-block 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.