King of the Ants (I) (2003) User Reviews

Disturbingly Wonderful

[PulpVideo · 7/10 · 20 May 2005]

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.

Lord of the Flies

[Magdagator · 7/10 · 9 June 2006]

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.

Really quite good

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 10 January 2013]

Apart from some moments of shoddy photography, an ending that for me fell emotionally flat and Daniel Baldwin annoyingly chewing the scenery to pieces, I found myself quite liking King of the Ants. Not all the photography is bad, on the most part it does look good and the same goes with the rest of the production values. The dialogue at least engages thought, while the story is cleverly written with suspense, thrills and a truly shocking murder scene, not predictable and held my attention all the way through. The characters are the sorts that are extremely flawed but in the end you identify with them, the lead character especially. The direction is taut, while I was surprised at how good the acting was. Chris McKenna is likable in the lead role but it's George Wendt's funny and frightening performance that makes the strongest impression. Overall, while not perfect King of the Ants was really quite good. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Not as Gory As I Expected

[jordan2240 · 26 July 2004]

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.

Good

[manitobaman81 · 7/10 · 6 September 2014]

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.

You'll never look at Norm from Cheers the same way again

[MBunge · 7/10 · 17 May 2010]

There's about a zillion movies like King of the Ants sitting on video store shelves or floating around the internet to be bought or rented. You've never heard of them and you don't know anything about them. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of those films suck and suck hard. Some of them are so bad you can't understand why the filmmakers didn't save themselves the embarrassment and burn all the tapes rather than release it to public scorn. Every once in a while, though, one of those unknown films turns out to be pretty good. King of the Ants is one of those good ones.

Sean Crawley (Chris L. McKenna) is down on his luck. He lives in a crappy apartment and takes whatever menial jobs he can find to pay the bills. On a house painting job he runs into "Duke" Wayne (George Wendt), a rotund electrician who winds up asking Sean what is his dream in life. "Duke" laughs at Sean's fantasy of being a private eye like the ones in the movies, whose lives are filled with fast cars and faster women, but he takes something about it seriously. Sean gets introduced to "Duke's" boss, Ray Matthews (Daniel Baldwin). Ray asks Sean to spy on an accountant who works for the city. Sean follows him around, catches sight of the accountant's beautiful wife, and reports back to "Duke".

Then Ray shows up at Sean's crappy apartment, drunk and disheveled late one night, and asks Sean if he'll kill the accountant. Sean hems and haws and insists on a lot of conditions, but he agrees to do it. After the disturbingly difficult murder, Sean wants his money. "Duke", however, makes it clear to Sean that the murder was a mistake, Sean's not getting any money and should just get the hell out of town. Thinking this is just like the movies, Sean demands his money and lets "Duke" know that if anything happens to him a file will be sent to the cops, implicating Ray in the accountant's murder.

Sean thinks they may beat him up a little but they won't kill him as long as they don't have the file. That's when Sean gets dragged out to a shed in the desert and Ray informs him that they aren't going to kill him. They're just going to beat him until he's left a brainless vegetable. Maybe the file will come out and maybe it won't. Ray is willing to take his chances on that. What follows is a series of beatings that are closer to the unvarnished brutality of the original The Last House on the Left than most movies ever try to get and hallucinations that are honestly disturbing. If you want to know what happens to Sean after the shed and what becomes of the dead accountant's beautiful wife…you'll have to watch the film yourself.

There are a lot of nice things about King of the Ants. I think what's most praiseworthy is its untheatrical approach to violence. Beating and killing people in the real world is a hard, ugly and messy business and that's the way it is in this movie. On paper, the stuff that happens in this story is relatively tame by modern standards of cinematic carnage. But the acts of violence are so simply and starkly presented, with no effort to exaggerate or make it look more impressive, that it is all far more powerful and affecting than the vastly more elaborate ballets of death and destruction in other movies.

Acting-wise, Chris L. McKenna is okay and Daniel Baldwin chews a bit too much scenery. George Wendt, however, does a very fine job as "Duke". Wendt creates a frightening character without ever going over the top or being too stylish or mannered in his performance. "Duke" isn't crazy or casually vicious. He would have been happy to have Sean simply get out of town. He's just a guy who has no problem inflicting pain and suffering on other people if he's told it's necessary. The two henchmen who help Duke, played by Lionel Mark Smith and Vernon Wells, are also disconcertingly normal. Most movie villains are different than ordinary people. They're more charismatic or more disturbed, but they very much fit the role of The Other. "Duke" and his thugs are just like the guys who see down at the bar or sit next to you at the football game, making them and their actions more shocking and horrifying.

King of the Ants isn't perfect. There's some fairly shoddy camera-work throughout the film and the movie ignores the fact that Sean is just as bad (or maybe even worse) than Ray and his guys. That becomes a bit of a problem in the second half of the film and renders the ending somewhat emotionally sterile.

Quibbling aside, the folks who made King of the Ants had a real story to tell with a real point to make. If you just look at the DVD cover on the shelf or on your computer screen, you'll think it's just like all those other sucky movies you've never heard of. I'm here to tell you it's a lot better than that.

Decent little thriller.

[poolandrews · 7/10 · 27 January 2007]

King of the Ants tells the tale of a young guy named Sean Crawley (Chris McKenna) who does whatever he can to earn a living where he lives in California, he meets a guy named Duke Wayne (co-producer George Wendt) who introduces Sean to his crooked property developer boss Ray Mathews (Daniel Baldwin) who hires him to follow a TV news reporter named Eric Gatley (Ron Livingston). At first Sean is told to just follow him & see what he does, however Ray then offers Sean money to kill Eric which Sean agrees to. Sean does the dirty deed but then has trouble getting his money from Ray, very quickly things turn nasty as lots of pain is handed out & lots of blood spilt...

Co-produced & directed by Stuart Gordon who is well known amongst horror fans for various impressive gore filled splatter efforts including Re-Animator (1985), From Beyond (1986) & Dolls (1987) King of the Ants is a different kind of film from Gordon & one that I actually rather liked. The script by Charlie Higson based on his own novel takes itself extremely seriously & is a crime drama more than anything else & quite a brutal one at times. The thing which makes King of the Ants so effective are the character's & the sharp dialogue of the sort Quentin Tarantino made so popular in Pulp Fiction (1994), the little story Ray tells Sean just before he ask's him to kill Eric is one good example. All of the character's are well fleshed out & Sean is a suitably likable underdog to root for while Ray & his men are nasty enough villains. The film & narrative flows along at nice pace, the story unfolds in an engaging way that keeps you watching & just about enough is kept back for it not to be too predictable. I liked it, it's as simple & straight forward as that really.

Director Gordon goes for the hand-held approach, it's a little shaky to give it that gritty documentary style but he never overdoes it & the on screen action is always clear & concise. There are one or two violent moments including Sean being hit with golf clubs in a series of scenes which have a really unpleasant tone & atmosphere about them & Gordon does a great job during these scenes.

The budget probably wasn't that high but it looks good & is very well made for what it is. The acting is very good & George Wendt is just plain funny & fantastic to watch.

King of the Ants is actually a bizarre title that does have some relevance but not much & I don't think that the odd sounding title does it any favours but I liked it & I'm sure those who are looking for something a bit different will too, definitely worth a watch in my opinion.

Sick and unpleasant watch

[mkw-5 · 2/10 · 8 February 2006]

This movie is written by Charlie Higson, who has before this done the "legendary" Fast Show and his own show based on one of Fast Show's characters (Tony the car sales man). He's also written James Bond books for kids.

Actually I've seen before this only Gordon's movies that are based on Lovecraft's stories, and every one of those is marvelous. Here Gordon tries to do something different. The style is totally "contemporary", which means shaky camera, fast and strange cutting, cool chillout music in the background. It works quite well here, I guess, but it's still pointless and cheap. It makes me often think of the cameraman who's shaking his dv-camera in front of the actors/actresses and try to make stylish moves in the pictures (hoping that something tolerable would come out of it). The casting is good, and there is a whole atmosphere, which is the result of good directing. I think the main character, the "zero" young guy, is quite interesting in his "zeroness". The fat guy is also good. And the guy who looks like Alec Baldwin, but is not him. But pretty soon after the beginning the movie turns out to be something not-so-interesting: In this case I mean an endless line of scenes of sadism and sickness. There is not much humanity in this film/story: It's totally pessimistic, and every person in this movie is disgusting and hopeless, or soon dead. Needless to say that there is no humor either. It's a 1'40 long vomit without no relief in any moment. Anyway, Gordon remains to me one of the most interesting movie makers that are active today, and I think of this movie as an experiment, and as a failure in that. Everyone has to experience getting lost sometimes, just to learn and to find their way again. This might be Gordon's most uninteresting and empty work.

VERY interesting movie

[jluis1984 · 8/10 · 21 November 2005]

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

Surprisingly gritty shocker from Stuart 'Reanimator' Gordon.

[BA_Harrison · 7/10 · 9 August 2006]

Knowing nothing about this movie except that it was directed by Stuart Gordon, I was expecting something along the lines of a 50s-style monster movie, but with tons of gore. Boy, was I surprised when I popped in that disc and was confronted with this brutal tale of murder for money, double crossing scumbags and bloody retribution.

With King of the Ants, Gordon, master of schlock horror and crazy sci-fi, presents an altogether more gritty affair than his usual output. By combining a rough visual style (that utilises hand-held camera-work to great effect) with his unflinching eye for violent detail, he delivers a shocking film that is genuinely disturbing.

Sean Crawley (Chris McKenna) is a loser; he lives on his own and has a crap job painting houses—that is, until he meets an electrician named Duke (George Wendt), who gets him a job working for Ray Mathews (Daniel Baldwin), a decidedly shady businessman. Sean is hired to follow Eric Gatley, an accountant who has been investigating Ray's property company. When it becomes obvious that Eric is collecting evidence against Ray, Sean is offered a bonus... but only if he successfully manages to 'dispose' of the accountant.

Stuart Gordon is certainly no stranger to the gore having directed 80s splatter-fest Reanimator, but with King of the Ants, the horror is less to do with schlock and more to do with shock. The murder scene is savage beyond words and those of a sensitive disposition are advised to stay well away. This raw violence continues throughout the movie, making it a thoroughly gruelling experience.

Things really get interesting when Ray refuses to pay Sean for his heinous deed. Sean threatens to expose Ray and his goons, and ends up wishing he had stuck to painting. Ray's men submit Sean to days of mental and physical torture during which Sean is beaten repeatedly round the head with golf clubs. Sean eventually escapes and exacts revenge on his tormentors.

When both sets of protagonists are equally vile examples of humanity, it is strange to find yourself rooting for Sean when the bloody finale arrives. This is a guy who has destroyed a loving family unit for money, yet we still feel that somehow he has been wronged. This is the brilliance of Gordon's film; it makes the viewer uneasy about identifying with Sean after everything he has done, questioning our own sense of morality.

Watch King of the Ants and see what I mean.

Laughably Bad

[lwmswm · 2/10 · 10 August 2020]

Ha ha ha. It stinks. Needs editing - at least 30 minutes too long. Story is nonsense. Daniel Baldwin was the best actor - that should tell you something. Had to fast forward to see the ending which wasn't worth the effort to even do that. At best a C- as a student film. Two stars cuz I've seen worse.

One of Stuart Gordon's best movies in years

[krachtm · 8/10 · 20 December 2012]

The plot: A double-crossed hit-man has to choose between redemption and vengeance, until the the choice is made for him.

Many of Stuart Gordon's movies have an amoral streak in them, but this is probably the most amoral movie that he's ever made. The lack of tension-relieving, wacky humor, like in most of his movies, highlights it and makes it even more disturbing. The gory violence just makes it even more disturbing, unlike the splatter comedies that he's commonly associated with (such as Re-Animator and From Beyond).

Long-time fans of Gordon have probably sat through many movies that were critically despised (perhaps none more so than Space Truckers, which attracts way too much hate, in my opinion). King of the Ants, however, is a real return to greatness. Yes, there are many disturbing, weird, and violent scenes, but underneath it all is a story that's actually quite intelligent and mature. Admittedly, this is a bit rare for Gordon, who tends to wallow in direct-to-video exploitation. I'm really glad that he chose to do something that he obviously believes in, because I've known for years that he could do a truly great film, if he just got the budget and proper inspiration. I might compare it to A History of Violence, an intriguing deconstruction of violent exploitation movies, made by a lauded director known primarily for his own exploitation movies. Unlike Cronenberg, however, I think Gordon shows no desire to break into the mainstream. His films remain too dark and disturbing.

If movies like King of the Ants and A History of Violence show us just one thing, it's that characters from these kinds of violent movies are incredibly disturbing when transposed into real world situations.

Goerge Wendt steals this movie

[movieman_kev · 7/10 · 8 December 2004]

I was p***ed when I couldn't see this one when it was screening at the Philly Film Fest last year, so when I saw that it was going to be on cable tonight, I put it on remind as soon as I could. So was it worth the wait? Well let's backtrack a tad as I have yet to give you the plot. Sean Crawley is a young man who doesn't know what his path in life is. Enter Duke (George Wendt) who introduces him to his boss Ray (Danny Baldwin). One night Ray totally hammered asks Sean to off the guy that they had Sean following around. And it goes on from there. Which leads me back to the question posed. Was it worth the wait? Yes and no, the buildup was pretty good and George Wendt stole the movie for me. He just took the ball and ran with it. But it's nowhere near as violent as I was led to believe and somewhere along the movies running time the ball is not only dropped, but fumbled and taken in the other direction. I know where this point happened exactly, but can't say without spoiling the film. But needless to say it happened. The ending doesn't save the film either. Poor Stuart Gordon nothing can be good like "Re-animator" or "Castle Freak".

My Grade: C

Where I saw it: Showtime Extreme

Eye Candy: Kari Wuhrer shows her ta-tas in one fantasy and then in the next more ta-tas and it pans down and...OH MY GOD MY EYES MY EYES!!!!!

Lame....

[mugfart · 4/10 · 24 April 2005]

I read all these reviews on here about how this is a such a good movie. Jeez, this movie was predictable and pretty boring. The acting was below average most of the time, especially by Mckenna. I haven't seen a more pathetic attempt at making someone "badass" in a movie. Oh man, this movie was a letdown. I also read somewhere this might be a cult classic. I know there are followers of the director, but this movie was just a average piece of film.

The script was lame, for the most part the acting was lame, this movie was lame.

Oh and pray for the guy that used to be in Cheers. He looks really bad.

The best actor in this movie was probably the guy in Office Space, and he was only in this movie for about 8 minutes.

4/10

Wow! Caught this movie on late nite cable and was blown away

[muze2222-1 · 7 December 2004]

I caught this movie one night as I was surfing and stopped just long enough to catch this charismatic star in a really underrated little sleeper. The first half of this movie gave me an uneasy feeling; the same feeling I had when I watched "Last House on the Left" for the first time. Watching the lead character beaten mercilessly with a "driver" in a shed until his face is disfigured, generated an enormous amount of pity. I found myself in the awkward position of caring for a hit man who ends up killing several people.

That speaks volumes for the charisma and artistry of the actor playing Sean. This is definitely a cut above the average late nite fare; the script takes some amateur turns, but the cast keeps it from becoming camp.

Twisted, unusually vile,and very effective thriller!

[plpregent · 7/10 · 29 October 2011]

I rented this film a few years back, not knowing what to expect. I'll always be curious to watch a Stuart Gordon film, so I thought, meh, why not?

While King of the Ants kicks off smoothly, letting you know who the main character is, it unfolds without pulling any punches, neither morally, nor graphically. There are moments where your jaw is going to drop in disbelief, from how demented some plot twists happen to be. And visually, it does go pretty far. Be aware, when it comes to pure savagery, King of the Ants unleashes the heavy artillery.

That said, the real shocks result mostly from Sean Crawley's character, and the whole "hunted becomes the hunter" dynamic that he settles, after going through a psychological process that's delightfully built up through this nightmarish series of events and subplots. Without going too deep or pretending to be anyhow intellectual, it's actually an interesting behaviour study, paved with ever-growing, palpable tension.

There are a few silly moments, like the fight between Crawley and Kari Wurher's character, and Crawley's nightmares, but they're easily forgotten and don't affect the overall quality of the flick. In terms of directing, Gordon pulls it off, hands down. The cast delivers as well, especially newcomer Chris McKenna, who plays a progressively disturbed Sean Crawley.

This is not your typical, Oscar material type of film, don't get me wrong. This film didn't cost 200 million dollars, but you very rarely get the feeling that it's cheap, or that the budget was low. It's just a well-written, efficiently directed, sneaky little film that will take you by surprise with its downward spiral of events. You won't believe how disparate the ending is when compared to how the film begins. Pure craziness. And the way it's brought up, and with the "everyday feeling" that it provides, you'll find yourself thinking : "things like that probably really happen". It makes the whole experience even creepier.

You should appreciate King of the Ants if you're not too squeamish, and can enjoy a good old super-twisted thriller with a plot that takes unexpected turns. Think of a Shallow Grave type of tone, with the brutality and story elements from I Spit on Your Grave. But meaner, bloodier, maybe not as great cinematically speaking (even though it's very competent in every cinematic department), but satisfying nonetheless. Makes me want to read the Charlie Higson novel it's inspired from.

Awful

[PeterRoeder · 7/10 · 24 February 2005]

I've just seen this film. It is interesting I grant you that. However, it is so sickening and disturbing that it's really not worth it. I was amused until it got to the torture scene. Then I quite simply turned off my television. Now I've seen a lot of violent movies before (most of the classics) but this is really not worth it. At least the "torture"/rape scenes in Pulp Fiction were funny and stylish. This (In King of the Ants) it has been done 1000 of times and in this particular movie the torturers have absolutely no motive or any motivation to act like they do. None of the actors have acted in a way to make such brutal scenes credible in any way. I fast forwarded through the rest of the movie, and it really broke down there. I actually thought it was a good movie until the scene in the "shed". After that I think most people would lose interest.

The Evil that Men Do.

[Cinema_Fan · 6/10 · 27 January 2007]

What a great little movie King of the Ants turned out to be. This is no horror movie by any means, not a single mention or a single vampire, werewolf or zombie in sight, this movie is the story of human exploitation and retribution, in the most horrific sense.

Sean Crawley (Chris McKenna) is your typically average young man, working to make end's meet and getting through life with his head just above water, until one day he meets one Duke Wayne (George Wendt, noted for his career as Norm from the TV sitcom Cheers) and who in turn introduces him to the charismatic Ray Mathews (Daniel Baldwin). It is in this introduction that our young man's life is about to make a change for the worse. For just a small amount of money, he agrees to a special job for Mathews, his luck is about to sink into deeper pitfalls of human depravity, when his plans go astray and then taken to Matthews ranch where his head is constantly beaten to a pulp for withholding the whereabouts of certain papers on them. Human nature changes direction, madness and desperation take their course and Sean find's that at the bottom of the food chain the human spirit will rise to new atrocities in order to survive.

It is in this narrative that Charles Higson known for his acting and writing work on the BBC comedy shows The Fast Show, Swiss Toni, The Smell of Reeves and Mortimer, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased), Ted & Ralph and Harry Enfield's Television Programme has now turned around to face his demons with this horror of horrors.

King of the Ants does a very good job in disturbing our calm, and gives us unsettling reminders that there are certain peoples who are waiting in the wings, and at the right moment ready to pounce. This tiny little fly caught in the web that has also given us insight into the beast and the disturbing changes in both physical and mental development that can also have us cowering in the corner in shock, disgust and horror, not just at the world around us, but in what lies within.

Charles Higson's style here, for this genre, is somewhat slow and testing, with a constant pace that is only quickened during its violent episodes, and where the character development is on a shallow level. We don't need to know of any past records here; we are only concerned with these people's present and future lives to keep this story on its feet. This, with the assistance of Stuart Gordon, renowned for direction on Re-Animator (1985), Space Truckers (1996) and writing credits for The Dentist (1996) and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids (1989) have given us a mildly surprising insight into the viciousness of human nature and how the weakened mind and battered body deals with severe pain, suffering and torture.

King of the Ants is an out and out low-budget movie, with its cheap locations and its less than mild script that can also be forgiven, too, for its overall B-(minus)-Movie feel. However, this little nasty doesn't need high-end gloss, or mid-range drama, this story does a good job carrying itself off and projecting a side of human nature that most would have the sense to steer clear off in the first place. Not so, this naive and gullible young man, with his head in the clouds and his feet securely stuck in his cement shoes, metaphorically speaking. He is the weak and foolish, while his malicious human companions who in the execution of their dirty deeds are the masters of his destiny, or so it would seem, this tiny little ant has a sting, and bite, that can render any beast powerless. Beware.

A Waste of Film

[caspian1978 · 4/10 · 3 October 2003]

I'm sorry, but this film was God awful. For starters, for a film, it looked like it was shot on Mini-DV let alone 35mm. The big names in the cast did draw my attention, but once I got to see what it was all about, I had nothing good to say about it. For a horror movie.....where was the horror? For suspense....where was the suspense. And for character development, since you don't care whether any of the actors live or die, you don't care about any of their developments. Long story short, what a bad bad bad bad movie. The production could have spent the money spent on this film and feed a small village in Africa for a month. Money well spent down the toilet. Rest in Peace

Insignificant Man, Powerful Payback

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 28 September 2007]

The handyman Sean Crawler (Chris L. McKenna) meets the electrician Duke Wayne (George Wendt) while painting a house and they drink a couple of beers together and have a small talk. A couple of days later, Duke offers a job to Sean, and they meet the corrupt constructor Ray Matthews (Daniel Baldwyn) in a golf club. Ray proposes Sean to stalk the accountant from the City Hall Eric Gatley (Ron Livingston), who is investigating him, and report every movement of Eric to Ray. While chasing Eric, Sean sees his wife Susan (Kari Wuhrer) and has a crush on her. When Ray offers US$ 13,000.00 to Sean to kill Eric, he accepts, but steals Ray's dossier before leaving the crime scene. However Sean is double-crossed by Ray and is brutally tortured by the real estate mobster and his men in a lonely ranch, but he does not tell where the file is. Sean succeeds in escaping, but severely wounded, he goes to the mission where Susan works and four weeks later he is healed. He tries to start a new life with Susan, but when she finds the documents and the truth about him, he plots a powerful revenge against Ray and his men.

"The King of the Ants" is a great bizarre thriller, with a good amoral story of manipulation, crime, humiliation and payback supported e by excellent screenplay, direction and performances. The nightmares and daydreams of Sean in the period he is tortured with a club of golf is disturbing, disgusting and nasty in some moments, but absolutely original. It is weird to see the gorgeous and sexy Kari Wuhrer having a penis, but the scene is absolutely inside the context of the mental state of Sean. I liked very much the performances of Kari Wuhrer, Chris L. McKenna, George Wendt and the cynical character of Daniel Baldwyn. Ron Livingston has a minor but effective participation. The horror of this movie is related to the torture and the deaths, and I felt quite disturbed with the stupid torture that Sean is submitted. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Tratamento de Choque" ("Shock Treatment")

Not One of Gordon's Better Titles, But Enjoyable

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 23 November 2008]

A money-loving hit-man is hired by the mob to take out a powerful attorney who is closing in on them. After successfully completing the job, the mob turns their back on him... choosing to prefer him dead over paid. Things take an unusual twist when the hit-man must rely on the attorney's wife to help him recover.

This is a hard film to categorize. It has been called "horror" or at least explores "horror themes", but the connection is minimal. Certainly, the director is Stuart Gordon, one of my horror idols. And there is some imagery that is violent and supernaturally disturbing (including a demon woman with male genitalia). But it's more a story of crime, murder and revenge... not necessarily in the horror vein. So, if you're looking for a Gordon horror film, look for "Castle Freak" or another lesser-known film, as this may not satisfy your urges.

Other reviews have called "King of the Ants" one of the weaker films in Gordon's career, horror or otherwise. I would tend to agree with this assessment. While the film is enjoyable, the story itself is nothing particularly novel and the deeper themes don't manage to make it very deep -- the "ant" theme, for example, is rather forced in my opinion. George Wendt, who plays the mob boss, gives a strong performance, but it's lost in such a mediocre movie. Sorry, George, I love your work, but this isn't going to help plump your resume or detach you from "Cheers" (though it's far better than the colossal dump that "Bryan Loves You" was).

I do not regret watching this film or regret owning it. Upon my second viewing, should one occur, I will check out the commentary and special features, to get a fuller picture of the director's vision. There may be something I missed here. There's something mythological about a killer being aided by his victim's family, though it escapes me at the moment what the exact reference is. (Trained in classical Greek thought and I come up blank... thanks, college.) Stuart Gordon fans, check this out. All others, keep moving. Of the films I've seen this year -- and I see many -- this doesn't make the top ten percent by any means. You'd be better off watching pretty much any other Stuart Gordon creation, including his newest (as of this writing) "Stuck" or any of the classics. Heck, you could watch "re-Animator" for the hundredth time.

Unusual concoction

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 17 January 2014]

A very strange little gangster film, even stranger when you consider that it's written by Charlie Higson, best known as a British author and comedian who once starred in THE FAST SHOW. It's a story of murder and revenge with plenty of surreal elements, which is unsurprising given the presence of horror director Stuart Gordon. It's also a very low budget movie, but one that's fairly entertaining despite its shortcomings.

Chris McKenna works hard as the everyday Joe who finds himself caught up in events spiralling out of his control when he's introduced to slimy gangster Ray (played by the well-cast Daniel Baldwin). Driven to murder, he then ends up at the mercy of some slightly bumbling gangsters; one of the most interesting things about the film is the cast, which includes George Wendt and Vernon Wells (COMMANDO) as the bad guys. There's also time for a little romance with the lovely Kari Wuhrer until things take a turn for the very dark.

We end up with a traditional revenge plot, but along the way there are fresh touches of inspiration and surprise, including a very gruelling torture sequence which shows you don't have to be graphic to be deeply unpleasant. Come the end credits, I was left feeling that the total is less than the sum of its parts, but fans of bizarre B-movie outings might find something to savour here.

a great feel bad movie.

[savage2202001 · 8/10 · 17 February 2006]

Wow! Rarely have I seen a film show events this sensational while at the same time feeling this realistic. What would it be like to be a hit-man? Apparently, not very fun. This movie shows the development of Sean Crawley from a directionless nobody to an unfeeling killer, and boy, is that metamorphosis painful. Young Sean Crawley is working as a painter when he meets Wayne Duke, a gregarious "cowboy electrician" (George Wendt, in "I am not Norm" mode) who introduces him to a construction mogul (some Baldwin, not Stephen or Alec, thank god) who offers Sean the opportunity to make some extra cash following a city accountant (the guy from Office Space who was dating the chick from Friends). Things turn dark when the Baldwin offers Sean some real money if he offs the guy. Sean accepts, executes the murder, which is one of the most gut wrenching scenes I have ever seen. You REALLY feel the confusion, apprehension, pain and insanity of killing an innocent stranger (I assume). You also get to see Sean's reaction after the fact, he looks like a young girl who just turned her first trick (once again, I assume. J/K, pimpin ain't easy). Sean tries to get his money afterwards, but Baldwin backs out, and sends Wendt to make sure that Sean makes himself scarce. Sean tries to blackmail Baldwin, and Baldwin's response is dumb enough to seem like a real hoods mind at work. He decides to beat Sean around the head with a golf club until Sean's a vegetable, or at least forgets everything that happens. The next several minutes involve Sean in a shed alternately delirious and hallucinating and getting uglier. This sequence is most disturbing for the resignation of the parties involved. The hoods know their going to beat Sean retarded, and Sean knows he's powerless to do anything, to the point where he even wraps the piece of foam that the hoods have been using to prevent marks and fatal bleeding around his own head. Then Sean snaps. He dispatches Wendt in a very efficient manner, and is rescued by a friend, who, learning more about what is actually going on, ditches Sean. Sean makes his way to a mission where the wife of the accountant he killed works (Kari Wurher, she is nice). She nurses the disfigured him back to health, and even lets him stay at her house (yes, rather awkward) when he can no longer stay at the shelter. A romance eventually blooms, but is short lived, as she soon finds out Sean's background. He kills her (accidentally?), and then goes and kills the bad guys at the ranch where his torture took place. This last scene shows the final stage in Seans metamorphosis, and it is chilling. He kills the thugs in a heartless, inevitable manner. He is fulfilling his purpose, nothing more, nothing less. The existential themes he discusses in this scene are nihlistic and simplistic, but the logic does hold up, unfortunately. Overall, a well made thriller that leaves you feeling uneasy. Sean transforms so naturally. He still has the same personality on the surface that he displayed at the beginning of the film, charming and affable, but what he is capable of is so grisly and remorseless that he becomes a truly terrifying figure. The other characters in the film serve to enable that transformation, and they do so believably. This film is a great character study, and the actor portraying Sean does a great job at seeming like an everyman, so much so that it allows you to examine the films themes on a personal level. This is a thought provoking film, which I would highly recommend. Not for the squeamish, though.

Interesting, but average horror/thriller.

[lastliberal · 6/10 · 27 February 2009]

This is a hard film to categorize. Thriller? Not really, even though there is a murder, it was more comedy that thriller. Horror? It had some gory parts, but they were not terribly bad.

Chris McKenna was just your average loser, and he was used to do a nasty job. Those that used him (George Wendt and Daniel Baldwin) decided to abuse him rather than pay him. Big mistake. Despite some really horrific abuse, he managed to escape and start living a normal life with Kari Wuhrer until his secret gets out and he has to make things right.

More like Payback than a horror film, except the hero doesn't get to ride off into the sunset with the girl.

Kari Wuhrer still stuck in schlock

[smatysia · 4/10 · 12 December 2009]

I watched this film because I noticed that it had Kari Wuhrer in the cast. I have long had a theory about her, that she is a talented actress, but never seems to get to prove that, because she is always in this sort of low-budget B movie. She is still beautiful, and she is still trying to act over the unfortunate material I always see her in. This is no different. The film is often ugly and disturbing, but that doesn't make it good. George Wendt played against type, and that was so jarring that he gets recognition for his role. Another note about Ms. Wuhrer. Her breasts seem to have shrunk markedly since I saw her last. Perhaps reduction surgery, or (more likely) removal of implants. This NOT a bad thing. She still looks great. I would like to see her in a better movie.