The Resurrected (1991) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
47 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A hidden gem.
Bynovekka111 April 2001
Here's something you do not see everyday, a horror movie that actually remains faithful to book it was adapted from. Often film makers who alter the original product in the name of creativity needlessly dilute or destroy the story in the process. In 'The Resurrected' director Dan O'bannon wisely refrains from such tinkering. He takes H.P. Lovecraft's creepy classic, 'The strange case of Charles Dexter Ward', and places it amid late 20th century trappings. The result is a near perfect horror movie.

The film starts off like a cheap detective novel. A hard boiled trench coat clad private investagator sits in his office waiting for his next case to come along. Enter a beautiful blonde who hires him to discover why her scientist husband is spending all of his time in his secluded lab.

At first the P.I. believes the scientist, one Charles Dexter ward is having an affair. He soon finds Ward is involved not with a lover but a research partner. A mysterious fellow known only as Doctor Ash. The two are apparently engaged in highly secertive experiments involving tons of fresh meat.

Shortly after this revealation, strange things begin happen in and around the Ward estate. Doctor Ash vanishes. Wards begins to conversing in antiquated speech. Ward's neighbors become the victims of grisley killings.

As the case unfolds the detective follows these and other clues down a path that leads further and further into the preternatural.

This film is something rare. A horror movie that is actually scary. It is probably the best ever adaptation of a Lovecraft story. The reason for this is simple. Unlike most filmakers director O'bannon had the common sense to let Lovecraft's masterful writing speak for itself.
36 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Best adaptation of the Case of Charles Dexter Ward
otto413 May 2004
This movie is a must see, IF you've read the story and like it, and IF you've seen the other adaptation, "The Haunted Palace" with Vincent Price. Sure, this story is a bit different than the book. It's set in the modern day, and Charles Ward is a well-paid chemist at Belmar Cosmetics, not a young antiquarian débutante. And instead of Doctor Willet being the principle investigator, John Marsh P.I. is (nice nod to the Innsmouth stories with that last name).

Aside from those differences necessary to bring this into the modern day, and aside from a very slight difference in how Joseph Curwen is ultimately dealt with, this follows the story in the book. It's all there: the portrait, the neighbor Fenner, the house in Pawtucket, and of course the underground labs of J.C. Curwen. There are story sequences set in Colonial times to build the story as well, and they are nicely done. But the real crowning glory of this movie is the sets they built for Curwens underground lab. They are MARVELOUS. Everything is there: the sanity blasting carvings, the "mistakes and screw-ups" raised from Imperfect salts, and the jars of Materia.

I highly recommend this movie. I'm still treasuring my copy on Laser Disk and hoping that it someday comes out on DVD. Production is top notch, as is the music and of course the story.
34 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
You can almost smell the putrid flesh that fills this movie
Freakest9 March 1999
Here it is people! This is the best Lovecraft story adaptation for the big screen. It's also probably one of the best horror movies ever made, which makes it a must-see title for not only the genre fans, but to all of those who love this art. The story of a man who dared to fool around with death, finding a "cure" to it is certainly a tragic one. As in "Re-Animator", there are plenty of scary moments as well as extremely gory ones. It's always nice to watch movies that put the viewer "inside the action" to the point that at times, the smell of the action invades our homes. "The Resurrected" is certainly one of those movies!
26 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
An objective opinion
Mr_Ectoplasma22 July 2016
"The Resurrected," based on Lovecraft's story "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward," focuses on a Rhode Island P.I. who one day is contacted by the wife of a chemist. She expresses concern over her husband's erratic behavior, which has led to him isolating himself at his remote family estate, where he has been suspected by locals of grave robbing and performing disturbing experiments with human body parts. What they discover is all that and more.

Given that I am not familiar with H.P. Lovecraft, nor am I familiar with director Dan O'Bannon's work or other Lovecraft adaptations, I feel I have a fairly objective opinion to offer here. It seems that the user reviews largely reflect the reactions of (mostly) big Lovecraft fans. From my knowledge, "The Resurrected" essentially takes the premise of the Lovecraft story and situates it in the twentieth century, and more or less is consistent with the story's framework.

The film's beginning is rather dull, and I wondered what I was getting myself into; a drab, single-take shot of Jane Sibbett and John Terry in a very nineties-decor office gave the affect of a cheap television movie—and in all honesty, much of the film does in fact feel like that, from the unimaginative cinematography to the poor editing and sometimes awkward performances. That said, if you stick with the film, it does get progressively interesting and progressively weird.

The final thirty minutes are what really cemented my enjoyment of the film, where it becomes a sort of "Indiana Jones"-esque horror film, and the filmmakers seem to step up their game in terms of the camera-work and atmosphere. The special effects are in some respects dated, but in others look passable by today's standards. The acting, as I said, is a bit of a hodgepodge, with Chris Sarandon overacting at times; John Terry is only mildly likable as the lead detective, and Jane Sibbett ranges from bad to quite good. Robert Romanus has a memorable part as the P.I.'s chain-smoking sidekick. The final showdown is well-handled, though the voiceovers from Terry that conclude the film (and which are present throughout) leave a bit to be desired.

Overall, "The Resurrected" is a pretty decent horror flick. It definitely has the look and feel of a low-budget television movie at times, but it also manages to be atmospheric and quite a lot of fun once its wheels get turning. If the first twenty minutes of early-nineties aesthetic overload is too much, I'd urge you stick with it, as it really starts to demand one's attention about a quarter of the way through. It is not a flawless film by any stretch of the imagination, but it is commendably dark and compelling. 6/10.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
What's everyone talking about?
James Parsons2 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I'm really confused by other users comments. After reading them I ordered a copy from the states as fast as my fingers could click to Amazon. I'm a huge fan of Lovecraft and to be told that this is the best film adaption of his work and that I'd never even heard of it made me think I was about to get my slime covered tentacles on a forgotten gem. Then it arrived and I must ask the other users, are you all completely bonkers? This is a terrible, terrible film. It's badly lit, shot, edited, acted and scripted. When the femme non fetale first arrives at the PI's office it's this dreadful side shot which just sits there for about five minutes while the two of them fail to act in each others general direction from the opposite sides of the screen. The rest of the film seems to consist of either seen it all before POV's or more of these overly lit side shots, I thought Dan O'Bannon could shoot films? Thank god the flashbacks break up the boredom. In a voice over Ward's wife says something like "He just left the party and said he had to do some work that couldn't wait", at which point Ward in the flashback says "I have to leave the party to do some work that cannot wait." Brilliant! It goes on like that for an hour and forty tedious minutes with a couple of goofy and gooey effects don't liven up the proceedings one bit, until it ends with Chris Sarandon hamming it up for all he's worth while I considered hanging myself from the tedium of it all. Come on guys, us Lovecraft fans have to be forgiving occasionally by the general low quality and/or budgets of his related movies, but we shouldn't let this film off the hook just because it sticks fairly close to the original story. I mean, Dagon is rubbish but at least it's FUN rubbish, this is just plain dull.
21 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
An excellent adaptation of a classic Lovecraft tale!
The_Void8 June 2006
The nineties were a disappointing decade for the horror genre whichever way you look at it, so it's lucky that filmmakers like Stuart Gordon and Dan O'Bannon were on hand to adapt classic HP Lovecraft stories. Horror fans have got used to seeing a director's credit for the aforementioned Stuart Gordon and a starring role for the great Jeffrey Combs in Lovecraft films; but even though this one has neither, director Dan O'Bannon has succeeded in brining the classic "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward" to screen. Of course, this isn't the first screen adaptation of the classic story; as Roger Corman made a rather good one in 1963 with the classic 'The Haunted Palace'. The plot has shades of Re-Animator, and follows an investigation into a man who may have found a way to cheat death. The story starts when Charles Dexter Ward's wife visits a private detective, asking him to investigate her husband who has become a recluse; living in a house on their estate grounds. A strange smell of death permeates the air surrounding the retreat, and the neighbours are suspicious after seeing the amount of raw meat being delivered...

The film doesn't contain a great deal of suspense, but the director masks this nicely with a great aura of mystery and intrigue. The film builds up to finally discovering the mystery behind what Charles Dexter Ward has been doing, and although it takes a while to get there - the film never gets boring because O'Bannon keeps the mystery bubbling. The special effects are a little silly, but they actually work quite well in the context of the film, and O'Bannon gets to show his twisted imagination with abominations such as a still-living mauled torso and many other otherworldly creatures. There's a lot of blood and guts too, and even though the film appears to be trying to imitate A-class horror, O'Bannon doesn't completely veer away from B-movie cinema. The acting is decent enough, but one of the few weak links for me. John Terry is more than a little unenthusiastic, while Chris Sarandon never completely convinces in the Vincent Price role of the villain. That really isn't important, however, as it's the atmosphere and the story that are the stars of the show here - and The Resurrected is strong in both those areas. This film is indeed a lost gem and one that deserves to be more seen!
18 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
The Case of Charles Dexter Ward comes alive...again!
Matthew Janovic25 September 2005
This is probably one of the best commercial-adaptations of an H.P Lovecraft story I have seen yet, although Stuart Gordon's "Dagon" is probably equal in capturing the atmospherics of Lovecraft's stories. What I found most-amazing about this adaptation is that it comes-off as "clinical" as the original--kind-of like reading a Police-report or an affidavit from a cold-case. In-fact, it's to Dan O'Bannon's credit that he insisted on making this a contemporary detective-story on its surface. A Private Detective is more-familiar to audiences than a long-winded psychaitrist, and honestly, anchors the story more-firmly in a reality we're familiar-with. This ho-hum world is so familiar, the director really creates a greater sense-of-shock when that reality shatters. This is in-keeping with Lovecraft, who would often keep the reader waiting until the very-end of his tales for the horrible-revelations. It should also be said that it rains throughout the entire film, which goes a long-way in creating an East Coast atmosphere that is spot-on in the Lovecratian-sense. Add to this the extraordinary score by Richard Band (who scored "Reanimator" and "From Beyond"), the incredible makeup by Tom Masters, and some really great cinematography, and you get one of the finer-moments in horror. Recounting much of the plot line will only ruin the experience, so I will refrain from doing-so.

But there is even more: Chris Sarandon's performance as Charles Dexter Ward and Joseph Curwen is easily on-par with those of Lon Chaney or Boris Karloff--even Vincent Price at his best, a performance for the ages. You honestly believe that Sarandon is an individual who has somehow found a way to reach-across-time from the 18th Century to exist in our own. It is an enigmatic and chilling performance, and one of the greatest realizations of 18th Archaic English-dialect I have ever heard from any actor. Even Sarandon's countenance and movements strike one as a being from a foreign-land: the distant, colonial-past. Yes, the DVD is now available from Lion's Gate, and it is definitely passable. But, it really should have been released in O'Bannon's director's cut, and Widescreen and in 5.1 stereo. The cut still exists, but it appears that the studio is more-interested in milking this property with no investment in restoration or even a minimal-treatment for we-the-fans, who have been short-changed. All-said, the film is strong enough to overcome all of this, and I still recommend you find a copy for yourself. Not a film without imperfections, "The Resurrected" is still effective in its goal of conveying Lovecraft's "cosmic horror," and the depravity at-heart of the desire for immortality. This is how horror looks, sounds...and smells. Welcome to an alchemical-horror, with mankind at the center.

PS: When I saw this on cable 10+ years-ago, there was a scene (described in the book, the "Lurker in the Lobby") of the Detective overlaying a photo of Charles Dexter Ward with an image of Curwen's skull, and matching-exactly. Was this the director's cut?
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A light Lovecraft adaptation.
djangozelf-1235116 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
First of,Im not a real fan of Lovecrafts writing but other movies with mention his name are better than this like "re-animator" and "from beyond".

Problem with this one is,that not everything works and as a whole it has a strange way of storytelling and building up the movie.

The characters narrating over this movie was really annoying more so if some time later you see it played out in a scene.

Everything was moderate in this flick and it don't excel in any aspect of movie making.

It felt dull trying to put to much story in what is suppose to be a horror movie.

The reviews were some what of a surprise.

Now I'm rating this as low as possible.

It's just to make it fair.

This should be a 3 overall.

A bit of a decent thriller/horror.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Great horror film very loosely based on Lovecraft.
HumanoidOfFlesh26 April 2006
"The Resurrected" is very loosely based on H.P Lovecraft's "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward".Basically it tells the story of chemical engineer Charles Dexter Ward who gets mixed up in the supernatural when he inherits some books and papers from his dead relative.His wife begins noticing changes in him,so she hires a detective to find out what he has been up to."The Resurrected",whilst far from being perfect,is a surprisingly creepy little horror flick.Dan O'Bannon who made excellent "The Return of the Living Dead" delivers plenty of gore and grotesque special effects.The characters are uncomplicated and well defined and there is enough creepiness to satisfy fans of Lovecraft's macabre tales.Overall,"The Resurrected" is a creepy and bloody horror flick that packs a healthy dose of suspense and surprises.Give it a look.9 out of 10.
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
weak effort looks more like a TV movie
SnoopyStyle3 May 2015
Private investigator John March (John Terry) recounts the closed case of Charles Dexter Ward (Chris Sarandon) starting from 3 weeks ago in Providence. Ward's wife Claire (Jane Sibbett) hires March to investigate her chemical engineer husband and some strange smells. There is a mysterious Dr. Ash. Ward is researching the occult and raising the dead practiced by his ancestor Joseph Curwen.

Dan O'Bannon lacks a visual eye for directing. His legendary status has little to do with that. It's not his strong suit. This looks more like a weak TV movie shot by the second unit. The H.P. Lovecraft story has some potential but the script doesn't add much. The dialog is stale. John Terry is not a particularly good lead. There is nothing scary or too grotesque. The pacing is slow. There is little tension. It's not horrible but it's not good either.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This movie is WORTH SEEING.
otto49 December 2004
There is one other film I know of which is based on Lovecrafts "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward", and that is the old Roger Corman movie "Edgar Allen Poe's The Haunted Palace", with Vincent Price as Joseph Curwen and Charles Ward. But The Resurrected is by far the most accurate movie about this story, which is damning it with faint praise.

The Resurrected is set in the modern day and Charles Ward is the head chemist at Belmar Cosmetics. He's rich. He has a beautiful wife. He's Chris Sarandon. But his wife detects that Charles is having some problems and so enlists a detective from the Marsh Agency to investiate. If you like the Call of Cthulhu game as well as Lovecraft you'll recognise how this movie goes: the detective makes his Library Use roll, uses his paid source to get info, makes an initial foray into enemy territory, then eventually finds the deepest secrets of Charles Dexter Ward. Almost everything in the book is in the movie: the painting, the formula for re-animation, the essential saltes, the pits, the initial destruction of Curwen in Revolutionary War times. It's all here and with good acting, costuming, and set. Curwens secret abode is everything you'd expect after reading the book.

Simply put this movie is great. It and maybe one other movie are the reason I still have a Laserdisk player, as it's sadly not yet out on DVD.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
What a muddled mess....
lucky_dice_mgt10 February 2007
I am usually a big fan of most horror movies Dan O bannon is assoicated with { from Dead and Buried to Return of the Living Dead } and I had high expectations for this film. First off, this film is almost 2 hours long but the material contained within the film does not support that long of a time frame. In fact, it takes 56 minutes for the 1st real exciting visual scene to happen. The actor that portrays the investigator is quite amateurish while the lead that plays the female part is awful { take not of the beginning when she is in the detectives office and they are talking. Her performance is pathetic and she plays with her hands for 5 minutes} . The dialog leaves little to be desired and there's nothing inventive or unique about the camera-work. The soundtrack is very uneventful. I have no idea how people can rate movies like this a " 10" . In many ways this is a poor mans Reanimator. If you must see this film, just fast forward the 1st 55 minutes and start from there and even then you may feel very disastified.
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Faithful but Awful
RoyStead11 August 2007
This movie is exceedingly faithful to Lovecraft's original story, and I loved the original story ("The Case of Charles Dexter Ward"). So why did I dislike the film so much? Essentially, because it's NOT an "adaptation" of the source material: It's a straight line-by-line reconstruction of it, with no concessions of any note made to the adaptation process, to the differences in story telling technique which are required for film, as opposed to the written word.

In short, it's uncinematic and what works on the printed page does not - most definitely does NOT - work on the flickering screen unmodified. The end result is tedious in the extreme.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
H.P. Lovecraft's 'The Case Of Charles Dexter Ward' gets a well-made adaptation.
kclipper23 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
H.P. Lovecraft's remarkably odd stories are so disjointed and full of complex, dread-inducing imagery, that it is unarguably a difficult task to interpret his profound language and psychological impact and render it to the screen. Screenwriter, Dan O'Bannon, who's brilliant concepts were introduced in 'Alien', comes pretty close in identifying some of the more gruesome elements that make Lovecraft's tales so distinct and perverse in directing this film rendition of "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward".

Wife of Ward consults with private investigator, John Marsh (John Terry in the typical Lovecraft lead character) after her husband performs strange experiments in a remote graveyard to find out why he has become so obsessed and distant. Marsh agrees to help, unbeknown that he will soon embark on a strange, horrific journey into ancient demonic rites, hideous creatures, evocations of the dead, and a descent into an underground world of magic and archaic horror. Its your basic platform for Lovecraft lore, and gory special effects, desolate locations, a fantastic Richard Band musical score and good performances bring it to life. Chris Sarandon (who's fresh from his performance in 'Fright Night') brings a memorably macabre mysteriousness and intensity to the Charles Ward/Joseph Curwen character, especially during the terrifying climax that takes place in the confinement of an insane asylum, and there's an excellent flashback period scene involving the origins of the mythology. Fans of Lovecraft will approve. Anyone else will find it relentlessly gross and bizarre.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Decent Lovecraft Adaptation...
EVOL66621 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
It's been a long time since I read THE CASE OF CHARLES DEXTER WARD, but from what I remember, THE RESURRECTED seems to be a relatively faithful adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's short novella - albeit updated to more modern times, and with a few "artistic liberties" thrown in. Being that most Lovecraft stories are bastardized into weak and gory (yet often fun and enjoyable) horror/comedies - this one plays it pretty straight and even gets a bit of the Lovecraft "atmosphere" right...

Chris Sarandon plays a chemist, who after receiving a bunch of strange stuff from an inheritance, begins doing strange experiments. His wife becomes concerned and suspicious, and hires a private-dick to check it out. Research on behalf of the Dick and his go-fer (Mike Damone from FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH) uncovers a far more strange and sinister plan then any of them could have imagined. Seems the "doctor" is experimenting with the revival of expired flesh, and things that would unlock gateways to demons and other fun stuff. Of course the wife, with the help of the Dick and Damone, seeks to put an end to this nonsense...

THE RESURRECTED is a decent and entertaining film overall. There's a few decent splattery moments towards the end, and the basement/catacombs scenes are genuinely claustrophobic and tense. The acting is so-so by all but Sarandon, who shines in his multiple roles. This one has a sort of HELLRAISER-ish feel to it and is recommended for Lovecraft fans that would like to see a more "serious" adaptation...8/10
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
After having just read the book..
synthphase18 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
One of the cleverest and most suspense filled books I've ever read. I just had to see if there was a movie. Lovecraft drops barely enough information about the world he's creating to keep you hooked. By the end of the book you'll be aching to know more but be content with it's quick rise in revelations.

So after seeing all the totally unnecessary artistic license taken by the adaptation of the story - things that turn an epic and suspenseful story into an action-hero-vehicle and gore-fest - I wanted to invoke the cryptic invocation whose heading is the Dragon's Tail, sign of the descending node - OGTHROD AI'F GEB'L-EE'H YOG-SOTHOTH 'NGAH'NG AI'Y ZHRO! - reducing the movie to a fine powder.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Routine horror cheapie.
gridoon17 June 2004
Like another film based on H.P. Lovecraft's books ("From Beyond"), "The Resurrected" takes such high concepts as time, immortality and even the control of the universe and reduces them to a cataclysm of messy, jelly, gruesome special effects. The effects, even in their occasional clumsiness, do have a morbid fascination, but the movie is padded with long scenes of people investigating dark rooms/corridors/catacombs, and it tries your patience, because the ultimate nature of the "mysterious experiments" is not that hard to guess (ehm, look at the title). (**)
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
A good adaptation, but a disappointment.
Dadeus27 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I love Lovecraft stories. Living in Massachusetts and spending summers in Northern Vermont put my childhood smack dab in the middle of his world. All the creepy elements of his stories invoke moods that I already felt and saw. Like Hitchcock, Lovecraft makes use of the readers imagination instead of blatant descriptions that may or may not let down the reader. One cannot fault one's own imagination for coming up with gore and deep implications Lovecraft puts forth for consideration. Unfortunately, todays movies feel the need to put everything in your face, too weak for some, too strongly for others. I have been searching for a good film adaptation of a Lovecraft story for quite a while. I found the re-animator series cute, but without any serious bite. Likewise for From Beyond. The black and white (and silent) "Cthulhu" came verbatim from the book, and I couldn't even finish it, having reread the story a week before. The new "Cthulhu" was horrible. "Resurrected" captured the mood in many places and follows the original story somewhat, but fails to make the primary connection between Curwins centuries old bid for resurrection (using his great, great, great grandson Charles Ward as a catalyst) and his continued intention of raising an Old One. Marsh makes note of the urns in the laboratory containing the remains of wizards and practitioners of the black arts, but fails to relate that Curwin was resurrecting them for their knowledge and power. The flashback raiding party, instead of being the culmination of the Curwin attempt to bring forth the Great Old One Yog-Sothoth, merely marks the incident from the book. There is no link between how close Curwin got and the fact that his resurrected body in the guise of Charles Ward is currently attempting the same thing. This is a crucial part of the story and makes this movie version a less than complete letdown.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
"I should strip thy flesh from thy bones like a suckling pig."
Scott LeBrun24 October 2017
Modern day Rhode Island is the setting for this adaptation of the H.P. Lovecraft yarn "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward". John Terry ("Full Metal Jacket") stars as private eye John March, hired by comely young Claire Ward (Jane Sibbett, 'Friends') to find out what her husband Charles (Chris Sarandon, "Fright Night" and "Child's Play") is up to. Not that long ago, Charles had come into the possessions of an ancestor, and been awfully intrigued by what he found. He sets up a laboratory in a remote locale so he can work on a series of messy (and I do mean MESSY) experiments. Ones that involve a lot of blood and fresh meat.

One of only two feature length directorial efforts for the late screenwriter Dan O'Bannon (the other being, of course, "The Return of the Living Dead"), this picture does have some ominous atmosphere, a twisty story (there are flashbacks within flashbacks), a wonderful music score by Richard Band, and eye popping monster effects by Todd Masters and his company. The acting is variable. Terry is just okay, but he at least comes off better than the bland Sibbett. Sarandon, unsurprisingly, acts rings around them both, and gets to have some fun when he starts behaving even more strangely than before, and speaks using antiquated language. Laurie Briscoe is fine eye candy as March's miniskirt wearing secretary, and the ever amusing Robert Romanus ("Fast Times at Ridgemont High") is amiable as March's leg man Lonnie Peck.

O'Bannon proves himself to be at home in this sort of horror fare. Granted, the production company would tamper with it after he was done, apparently removing the element of humour that one might expect from the man who made RotLd. It's an entertaining story, that begins on a good note, but it's also a protracted one. One major "haunted house walk" set piece occurs a little past the one hour mark, and it could have used some tightening. The film does lead to a dazzling special effects-laden finale, and some horror fans are sure to be delighted by all the gore.

Not a great film, by any means, but reasonably compelling and worth comparing to the 1963 Roger Corman version, "The Haunted Palace".

Seven out of 10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
I have never read Lovecraft.
lingh0e15 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
... and if this abomination of a movie is a honestly true adaptation as the previous reviewers claim, I really don't ever plan on reading Lovecraft... ever.

I like to start out with the high points. The lighting was very well done... nicely atmospheric. The cinematography was well realized, considering the apparent lack of talent on the directors part. The set design was pretty nice as well.

Unfortunately, that is about the end of the positives. The acting was sub-par at best. The actors in this production have proved themselves to be competent in previous productions. Either the director of this movie had no control over his talent, or his talent gave him way too much control over their performances. Then there is the story. The person responsible for this awful, plodding adaptation needs to read a little more about plot and character development, not to mention the basics of suspension of disbelief. Okay, I understand that the story is about a 250 year old doctor who was brought back from the dead. I am willing to take that leap of faith. What I cannot understand are the little things. The main character, a private investigator, somehow is allowed to accompany police officers on a night-time raid of a dark farmhouse that reeks of death... then assumes the role of hostage negotiator while there is a half dozen armed police officers standing right behind him. And how many high security psych wards do you know of that will walk an unscheduled visitor into a criminally insane inmates padded cell (with it's own window btw) without searching the visitors large suitcase to see if might contain any weapons or drugs or human skeletons... It those little things that are the most insulting to the viewer. Even though it is a sci-fi/horror flick, we in the audience aren't retarded. We expect our fantasies to be somewhat grounded in reality.

If this movie ever comes on Cinemax, by all means it's worth a watch. I have seen worse in my time. But if you are thinking of renting this movie and you are not a die-hard Lovecraft fan, save your money... really.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What?
hef3stus7 May 2003
That's nothing like the book whatsoever! I agree that it's rare that they accurately adapt any decent horror novels (especially Lovecraft) but I see little correlation with the original piece except a loose basis at most. Personally my two favorite Lovecraft adaptions are Dagon and the Reanimator films (ok that's three so what).
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Takes too long to get going
Johan Louwet1 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The movie has certainly its good ideas and spends more than enough time to build-up. Unfortunately the build-up takes so long that I had more the feeling I was watching a drama than a horror movie and my patience was being severely tested. I like build-up and character development but still despite the long duration I still couldn't get much of a bond with the characters. Also a few plot lines ended up just dead such as the pregnancy of the blonde woman and the detective clearly having the hots for this woman. But after 70 minutes the viewer finally gets to know and to see what this big mystery was. The director has certainly taken well care of the effects and the gore and I must say I was rather surprised by its twist. However I also felt that why the need to show how the bad guy was disguised as a certain Dr. Ash in a flashback since we never got to see him before. The finale was OK a bit too flashy and Star Wars like at times with the lasers. It redeemed the movie a bit for me but it was mostly a case of too little too late. I suggest to watch Re-Animator instead.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Highly underrated effort
slayrrr66617 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"The Resurrected" is a really great film with only a few small flaws to it.

**SPOILERS**

Going to his investigation service, Claire Ward, (Jane Sibbett) meets up with John March, (John Terry) for help in trying to determine why her husband Charles Dexter Ward, (Chris Sarandon) moved out of their house to continue his chemical experiments. Taking up the case, he ventures out to find out what happened, he finds that a series of shipments to him concerning human bones are in his possession, even though he consistently claims otherwise. Further investigation reveals that he is studying black magic, like his ancestor Joseph Curwen, (Chris Sarandon) to whom he bares an almost uncanny resemblance and forcing him to believe that he has become by his spirit to carry on his work in modern times. Despite a raid on his house that puts him away, they are still convinced something is going on when a series of brutal slayings occurs around town, forcing them to delve deeper into the past to uncover the real nature of the experiments, and are soon plunged into a terrifying world that they won't be able to escape from easily.

The Good News: This here was a very impressive film with a lot right about it. One thing it gets right is that the house where it takes place in is pretty creepy. An old Victorian monstrosity that looms large over a gigantic graveyard, with old wooden frames, tattered windows and dead and dying plants and bushes laying around give an impressive atmosphere here, and the talk about the stench coming from a location which looks like that gives it a lot of credibility since it isn't out the question for such a place to be like that. The constant uses of thunderstorms or heavy rains makes for some wonderful atmosphere in here, and there's some fantastic scenes to come about because of them. The flashback to the ancestor's times is really great as well, being creepy, action-packed and wonderfully gory, setting up a lot of greatness to come. The best is the discovery of what was fished out of the river, which is one of the most memorable and iconic-looking faces around in here, and with first-rate make-up work that helps it out even more, this one is a fantastic scene that is entirely memorable. It's also nicely done that there's a healthy amount of work done in here that feels akin to the intent of the original stories, with the different topics, themes and interests that it brings up. It's all quite fun to see these all inside. Also fun is what is all in the last half hour. From the journey through the catacombs through to the confrontations in the mental asylum, this one here is just packed with goodness. Included in there is most of the gore and some fantastic creepy moments that are tense and just all-out fun. The last thing that works in here is the gore, as this is a pretty bloody tale that features a lot of goodness to come from it. There's more than a couple bodies that are melted down to a pile of flesh and blood in one huge heap, there's the discovery from the flashback which provides some more, one has their flesh peeled off in chunks and there's a large amount of mangled and incomplete bodies that are seen in many locations, giving this one a fantastic amount of bloodshed that really helps this one out. These here are the film's good points.

The Bad News: This one here has only a few flaws. The main one here is that it feels a little too long at times. This is due to the really long beginning before it gets to the great parts in the later half, and with the introduction being more about the mysterious disappearance more than the actual plot about the resurrection formulas that come into play later, and this derailment from, the true emphasis into the other area, makes for a slow-start to this one before it really hits it's stride, and by the time that it switches over to the good parts, it's pretty deep and it really feels much longer than it should be. The last flaw in here is that the film has a much more intellectual feeling to it, relying more on other tactics rather than just having stuff bounce out of the shadows to generate the scares, and for those who are into the more campy aspects of the genre will find a film like this to be a tad dull. Otherwise, this here had only a few flaws.

The Final Verdict: A really fun and underrated entry, with a lot of good stuff that helps it to overcome the few flaws in here. Give this a chance if you're in the mood for a film of this type, a fan of the authors work or just plain interested, but those who can't appreciate the intellectual side should seek caution.

Rated R: Graphic Violence and Graphic Language
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
H.P. Lovecraft gone wrong.
Kraemorr17 May 2001
When I found out that this a H.P. Lovecraft adaption, I couldn't wait to see it.Unfortunately though, the first half was weirdly dull and when it got some suspense, nothing happened and when it was supposed to have suspense,it didn't. Still, this film does boast some interesting visual effects but in no way stands up to the bizarre fun of Re-Animator.This film is passable entertainment,but quite simply this is H.P. Lovecraft gone wrong. Hopefully there will be a better adaption of this in the future, because the story definitely deserves it. 5.5/10
4 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
What a gem of a film
lcburnell14 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
A little bit of bad acting? Too bad.

A bit dated of wardrobes? Too bad.

Trying too hard at first? Too bad.

Outdated special effects? Too bad. So is The Mummy or Dracula in the 1930's.

Okay snobs. Eschew your pretentiousness and faked sophistication. Although new to Lovecraft I am not such an idiot to see a good adaptation when it presents itself regardless of the slight drawbacks.

This film is awesome. Dracula with Bela Lugosi did not go by the novel but it beats the Coppola film any day. No contrived plot of "Vampires Love Too." Like the teenage crap or Ann Rice crap. Dracula was EVIL and needed to go down. Louis Jordan was the best Dracula since Bela Lugosi BTW.

This is good vs. evil. And evil needs to go down.

Don't read plot spoilers on this. Just watch and enjoy the end.

If I was Chris Sarandon's agent? I'd be plugging him as the inheritor of Vincent Price's legacy. He rocks in this film.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews