|
| King of the Ants |
|
  (8/10)
|
Runtime: 102 |
| Public Rating: 7.86 (14 votes) |
Director: Stuart Gordon |
MPAA Rating:  |
| Genre: Horror |
Year: 2003 |
| Writer(s): Charlie Higson |
| Distributor: The Asylum |
| Reviewed by: David Trier |
| |
The B horror film may be making a comeback and who better to take the reins again than Stuart “Re-Animator” Gordon?
Regular guy Sean Crawley (Chris L. McKenna) is hired by Duke (George Wendt) to keep an eye on a businessman (Ron Livingston) on behalf of shady character Ray Mathews (Daniel Baldwin). He’s doing a decent job until Mathews gets drunk and asks Sean to commit murder. Sean works up the courage to do it, but it seems Mathews has changed his mind and Sean is in big trouble. But Sean has the secret “files” hidden and won’t give them up. Mathews, Duke and henchmen figure they can bash Sean’s brains in far enough so he won’t remember what he did the files and no one will ever find them. But after having his head whacked on a regular basis, and still surviving, a new, less sympathetic Sean arises and takes revenge on his captors.
King of the Ants is not a horror movie in the traditional sense, although elements of it are signature Stuart Gordon. It’s not a supernatural story and the violence is held back and then released in gory spurts. The script is quite clever, with the characters being believable (enough) and the viewer wondering what will happen next. Gordon, of course, is best known for his super-gory Re-Animator, silly From Beyond and the underappreciated Castle Freak and Fortress.
Newcomer Chris L. McKenna is excellent as the innocent, likable and yet morally challenged protagonist. He is able to sell Sean Crawley as a free agent, someone likable enough to be a regular guy, but open enough to engage in seedy behavior. Supporting players do well, especially George Wendt, who personally helped get the project made. Charming actor Ron Livingston seems wasted on a rather insignificant role, though. Beautiful Kari Wuhrer is lovely as the victim’s wife and subject of Sean’s fantasies. Daniel Baldwin, one of the better actors in the clan, is comical but not particularly convincing.
The first hour is actually quite engrossing and better written than one would expect, but then the script devolves into a standard revenge story, much like Darkman, where we simply wait to see all the bad guys taken care of. The makeup effects are decent but it requires a little suspension of disbelief that Sean’s brain would work at all considering what he’s put through.
King of the Ants attempts the philosophical in its literal beating of the head and its effects on the mind, but it fizzles away as soon as the hero becomes the monster. It’s as if we know the rest of the movie and we’re just waiting for it to end. This is a shame, because for the most part, the film represents something unique – horrific, irreverent and yet still compelling.
King of the Ants, like last year’s May is part of a new chapter in B horror where money and sensationalism comes second to story and creativity, while at the same time being sick and uncomfortable. Bravo.
|
 Printable Version
|
Do you agree/disagree with this review of King of the Ants? Let your opinions be heard in our forum.
|
Buy the Poster of King of the Ants (Click Here)
|
|
|
|
