Twentysomething decorator, Sean Crawley, isn't very good at painting. This hasn’t gone unnoticed by his boss, Duke, who offers him an alternative; an introduction to his boss in turn, Matthews, whose shady business interests may be threatened by a man he wants followed. When stalking turns to murder, the deal goes sour and Sean must take it upon himself to collect money owed to him for his completed side of the bargain. However, this decision not only carries heavy consequences, but is complicated by his attraction to the dead mans widow.
In one of the more bizarre cinematic pairings, King of the Ants sees the writing talents of Charlie 'Fast Show' Higson combined with the directing talents of Stuart 'Re-Animator' Gordon. Higson wrote the screenplay based on his novel of the same name (his only novel) apparently using his own early decorating days as literary fodder. George 'Cheers' Wendt (playing Duke) apparently gave Gordon the book, and so the bizarre partnership was born. Higson is best known to us as the Fast Show's smarmy Swiss Toni, whereas Gordon is mostly synonymous with the darker side of the screen, thanks to several adaptations of H.P. Lovecraft's works, most notably Re-Animator and most recently, Dagon. So, will this experience be like making love to a beautiful woman, or more akin to a wet humanoid flipper in the face?
I'm not really one for the handheld school of filmmaking, but it feels perfectly right in this instance; bleak, grubby and voyeuristic as this story is. Almost entirely bereft of any 'filmic' quality, bar the odd choppy edit and dream sequence, this is strictly over-the-shoulder stuff. Uncomplicated by style, this film really gets down to the nitty-gritty and is driven by action, characters and performances, which are all top-notch. George Wendt works well, nicely cast against type as a thoroughly nasty piece of work and Daniel Baldwin makes for a calmly menacing presence as tough-guy boss, Matthews. Kari Wuhrer is fine as the beautiful wife with growing suspicions, though her character isn't fleshed out enough to be anything more and, unfortunately, more (or should that be less?) has been made of her breast-baring scenes sans implants. Ron Livingston (Office Space, Sex and the City) performs similarly as the short-lived, ill-fated, nice guy husband, Eric.
However, it is Chris McKenna in the lead as Sean who really shines here, pulling off some amazing transitions from lovable and lost, though terrified, crazy and sinister, keeping our allegiance fluctuating throughout. It is these transitions which are the focal point of the film; his fall and rise from puppy-dog eyed innocent to maniacal manipulator is as fascinating as any you could see. Though the fascination of his character lies also, unusually, in his not ever really being ‘evil,’ it’s easy to see his motivations, even if they are misplaced. Unfortunately though, this doesn’t always work as well as it should, with parts of this film shining out above others.
It is definitely a film of three thirds, with the first the most gripping, brutal and simplistic. The second becomes more like a TV movie and the third is a slightly cliched, failed attempt to recapture the initial brutality of the first part. There are times when the TV movie 'intruder parts feel too generically 'Hollywood' and sits uncomfortably with the raw indie feel that makes this film the dubious and uncomfortable pleasure it is. You could say, then, that it can sometimes be a film of two halves. How many parts is that now? Anyway, just like my maths, King of the Ants never quite adds up to a satisfying whole.
However, although disappointing in that the initial high doesn't last, it's still well worth watching for that as it is so outstanding that the overwhelming feeling is of having liked the film. It is interesting to see a director such as Gordon, so synonymous with comedy/horror turning his hand to the more genuinely horrific associated with realism. The brutal violence suffered by Sean is so shocking, complex and fascinating that it at times made me catch my breath. The cruelty of the victimisation adds to the severity in a way rarely seen in or associated with cinematic violence; there is no glamourisation or humour to it and as a result is uncomfortably harrowing and yet strangely, complexly compelling. Though the character study never quite recaptures this high either (the move from a drifting 'nobody' to a 'somebody' who feels he's found his 'true vocation' is not as interesting as they try to make you believe) it is still an incredible and rather sad tale of a man who would be King. Absolutely not one for those of a sensitive disposition.
Outstanding in some respects but disappointing in others, this harrowingly brutal tale of an amoral ‘rise’ is still compelling viewing
