Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

smorris405 I watched this last night and was very impressed. From the opening of the film to the beautiful expansive shots of the cabin location, I would never have known it was shot on such a small budget. It is obvious this is someone's baby. I'm certain a great deal of gratis work went into it. I can only say well done!This film is a treasure for anyone interested in a great character study! I watch low budget indie films a often. I know it was not an easy thing for the team that made a fine film! I highly recommend. When I first rated this, I gave it a 7. After seeing the micro budget, I happily raise it a point! Cheers!

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."

MBunge Movies, like all other stories, are aimed at and suited for different audiences. Some are meant for children, some for adults and some for adolescents who like to think they're adults. Movies that come out in the Summer are aimed at a mass audience that doesn't want to think to hard about their entertainment. Movies that come out toward the end of the year are aiming for awards and want to be admired more than they want to entertain. Subject Two is, or at least should've been, intended for a small but unique audience - students taking classes in film criticism.That's because reviewing this film would be a great final exam for such a class. It's made with care and skill and is definitely good enough to hold your interest, yet it also has some very large and glaring flaws. Those flaws shouldn't really detract from an otherwise worthy effort, but you shouldn't overpraise a movie because it's better than those soul-numbingly bad original films on the Sci Fi Channel.Subject Two concerns Adam Schmidt (Christian Oliver), a medical student who can't abide the ethical constraints of modern science. He's summoned to the snowy wilderness of the Colorado mountains by an anonymous offer of mysterious employment. After trudging his way up to a secluded cabin to meet a Doctor Franklin Vick (Dean Stapleton), Schmidt is asked if he'd like to assist in experiments in cryonics, nanotechnolgy and such stuff. Schmidt agrees…and is then strangled to death with a garrote. It turns out the experiment is Schmidt being repeatedly killed by various means and then resurrected through a special serum.That's a genuinely clever idea for a story. Just when you think there's nothing more to be done with the Frankenstein concept, you find Subject Two sitting on the shelves in your local video store. In addition to that clever idea, the movie is also competently directed and, since it was actually shot at a mountain top cabin in Colorado, uses the gorgeous natural scenery to great effect. And after such a strong start, you'll want to see where the story ends up going.Unfortunately, it doesn't go very far. The idea of Subject Two could have led to some fascinating explorations of life, death and killing. What would it be like to kill someone yesterday and have lunch with them today, all the while knowing you're going to kill them again tomorrow? What does it mean to kill someone over and over and over again? What is it like to know you're going to die, but also know it isn't going to last? Subject Two is exactly what science fiction was meant to be, taking human beings and putting them in unreal situations and thinking out how they would respond. The movie never lives up to that promise, though. The filmmakers had a clever idea, but they were content to stop with just that one idea. It falls back into a predictable and conventional narrative where the experiment starts to go wrong and…honestly, it kind of peters out after that. As it doesn't delve deeply into the human elements of the story, it's also fairly vague on the sci fi aspects of the tale. The movie implies that the resurrections are changing Adam Schmidt, but how and into what is never specific. When the experiment starts to go wrong, why it's not working is never clear and what is done to try and fix things is never explained at all.The actors do a fine job but even though just two characters are on screen for almost the entire film, they're never clearly defined. We're introduced to Adam Schmidt as one sort of person but he then becomes totally different after dying the first time. The man he meets in the cabin switches from calculating mad scientist to scared and uncertain at random times throughout the film, not because the actor is doing a poor job but because that's what the story requires.The only unequivocally negative thing about Subject Two is a glaringly lame "twist" ending. It wouldn't have been a good twist in even the best of circumstances but because the movie doesn't have much of a real ending, the lameness of it smacks you in the fact like 7 day old salmon.It's easy to rip a bad film and just as simple to gush over a great one. Movies like Subject Two, though, deserve more praise than lambasting because they start out strong and fall short. That puts it far ahead of many films and filmmakers that aren't even trying.

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