Unsuccessful student Christian Oliver (as Adam Schmidt) is smart enough; but, he is failing to make the medical school grade. Possibly, this is due to his frequent headaches, and an anti-social disposition. Mr. Oliver explains, "I think I'm allergic to people." After receiving a "F" on his ethics essay, Oliver decides to "drop out"; and, quickly, he responds to an invitation from mysterious doctor Dean Stapleton (as Ethan, aka "Dr. Vick"). So, Oliver goes to live with Mr. Stapleton, in an isolated, snowbound cabin. You should know Stapleton has gruesome plans for Oliver. Stapleton wants to murder his house-guest, and bring him back to life."Subject Two" is quite an intriguing take on the old life-creating "Frankenstein" plot. The film is very bright, and well-photographed. The lonely cabin, set in the vast and sparsely populated mountains, is a worthy setting. Rich Confalone's photography is beautiful. Writer/director Philip Chidel, who also appears as "Subject One", and the two lead actors are also excellent. The story could have been a little clearer. For example… well, you'll see… Still, it's an interesting slice of intellectual gore, and a definite career peak for those involved.Its very weirdness is most welcome.******* Subject Two (2006) Philip Chidel ~ Christian Oliver, Dean Stapleton, Philip Chidel, Courtney Mace

When someone or something dies in a movie, you know, "crosses over" and then "crosses back" we expect there to be something very wrong. We expect there to be something very frightening. We have seen this many times in stories like "Pet Sematary" and George Romero's "Dead Trilogy" to name merely two. Thing always come back nasty and vile and they really want to kill us for some unexplained reason. That unexplained reason, admittedly, adds to the horror, but after so many stories it has become something of a cliché."Subject Two" is a small film that takes on that cliché and instead of presenting us with the horrors of the undead it deals more with the emotions of life and death. What makes it interesting is that it deals with these emotions from both sides - the one who killed and the one who was killed and subsequently revived. To put it bluntly it's taking H.P. Lovecraft's tale of Herbert West the Re-Animator and taking it a step further. The nightmarish tone in that story is also removed and what's left is a delicate and personal tone shared by the only two characters in the story. There is no sensational jump scares or elaborate nightmare sequences just a tranquil look at what it is to lose life.However, the film could have used at least one nightmare sequence or some more elaborate horror imagery just so we could get a taste of what Adam is going through. The "I feel death" explanation suffices, though it is a kind of dull choice of words, but on the other hand, it just might be the only choice of words! Therefore, the film could have done with that nightmare sequence or something visual to accompany it.Overall, though, this is a well made film with a very interesting subject. --- 8/10Rated R for violence and gore. Ages 13+

"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

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).