King of the Ants

The last good film Stuart Gordon made was 1985's "Re- Animator," which I also give a 7 of 10.

I mention the former mainly because this film is just as gripping and disturbing. This is not a horror-movie like the former, but it is "horrific" with its peculiar violent realism.

Not much by way of character-development for the protagonist, but in this case, the less said about him the better, or we may not come around to be sympathetic with him when it counts. What we do know of the character Sean Crawley is pretty damn ugly, but unknown actor Chris McKenna has a screen presence that makes him somewhat likable, or at least puts us in his corner in the end.

This film is not a good choice for mixed company, much less a date, but worth watching when home alone and prepared to be wonderfully disturbed.

Stuart Gordon, considered a master of the horror genre thanks to classics like Re-Animator and Dagon, decides to do a different move in this strange trip to human morals.

"King of the Ants" is about a regular guy, Sean Crawley(newcomer Chris McKenna), a man without any aspiration who just live in his apartment doing the necessary job to live to the next day. In one of his jobs he meets Duke(Gearge Wendt), who introduces Sean to his boss, Ray Matthews(played by Daniel Baldwin). Ray hires Sean as a spy, and orders him to follow Eric Gatlin(Roy Livingstone), an accountant who has been investigating Ray's company. Problems start when Ray, while drunk, orders Sean to kill Eric. And he does it. Things go wrong when Ray decides to make Sean disappear destroying his mind with violent punishment and humiliation.

From the point where Sean kills Eric, we go in the same boat with him, as he goes through a downward spiral of human degradation, traveling from guilt, to confusion and finally to his rebirth, in a state where humanity, morals and values are not important anymore. Chris McKenna acting is very important because he manages to be likable even when he is part of gruesome acts, both as victim and/or criminal. He has that look of innocence that hides a dark side and he manages to carry the film.

The support cast also includes Kari Wuhrer, as Eric's widow who also becomes a central part of Sean's trip to hell. She gives a fine performance, although it's obvious that Sean is the main character. He is the most developed of all and McKenna's performance is up to the challenge.

The film has very disturbing images of violence, and while it may not be as graphic as "Kill Bill" for example, the strength of the violence is in the lack of humanity that the character manifest. He is more than an ant in this world. He is the king.

Stuart Gordon has managed to create a film that, while maybe it's not one of his best efforts; it's very well done, has a VERY interesting story to tell, and manages to capture the attention every second of it.

8/10

From some of the recent reviews of this film, I expected gore like none I'd ever seen before. Frankly, I thought they were a little off base. The "torture" consists of the same act each day, and while it isn't something I'd particularly like to experience myself, it could have been much worse. I found the torture scenes in "Marathon Man" and "Braveheart," to name just two, to be much more disturbing.

One thing I really didn't like about this movie was that none of the major characters is particularly likable. The tortured fella probably deserves what he gets, and the revenge he exacts isn't particularly just considering one of his victims treated him rather well when he was a captive.

All in all, I wasn't bored watching this movie, but I wouldn't recommend it. The story isn't particularly compelling, the romance isn't believable, and the gore factor isn't even that high.

I couldn't avoid relating it to the most disturbing novel I've ever read: "Lord of the Flies" (William Golding, 1954) I won't go into details, but suffice to say that both this movie and the book deal with the dark side of human nature and both have perturbing effects on our minds and consciences. Those who are familiar with the book will know what I mean.

The characters in both the movie and the book live detached from society, their rules and morals: In 'Lord of the Flies' British kids, educated in a private school, are castaways stranded in a wild island. Eventually their civilized coat wears off and their inner savagery shows (safe a few characters who remain civilized). Sean Crawly (Chris McKenna) is a current boy, but he is also a dormant killer. Favourable circumstances(money and impunity) will trigger his wicked self.

I've read fuming comments here in the style of "how on earth such normal boy is able to become a killer? This movie is bad!" What turns our stomachs is that his victim is innocent. The scene of the killing is horrifying but what makes it unbearable is that we know that Crawly knows he is killing an honest man. We don't feel so uncomfortable anymore when Crawly takes his revenge.

The scene with Sean Crawly and Duke (George Wendt) at the zoo is also significant. Duke explains how humans can be compared with animals. Notice the pun in Sean's surname (Crawly) and how he is compared with a reptile and also with an ant.

I find that the title of the movie and Duke's cut-of head may be a conspiratorial wink to 'Lord of the Flies'. Maybe it's a coincidence, but the similarities are too obvious to be ignored.

This is a horror film. We may like the plot or not, agree with its development and ending or not, but.. kudos for all the actors and their director. In my opinion their performances are convincing and irreproachable.

A young drifter discovers his true calling when he's hired by a mobster to stalk and kill a prominent accountant, and then decides to seek revenge when the stingy thugs try to kill him rather than pay him. For me it was kind of hard to get a grip from the beginning because there was nothing that would have explained who the main characters were and what was their goal and so on. This left the characters really shallow and the dialogue between them was something out of a bum disco. While there is some strong personality being displayed, it is done in a way that is truthful to human nature. I think it could use some editing to speed the pace a bit. The film is hard to watch at times and difficult to call enjoyable. 7/10.