The Resurrected (1991) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
64 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
An objective opinion
drownsoda9022 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.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"I should strip thy flesh from thy bones like a suckling pig."
Hey_Sweden24 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.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An engaging horror creature film that needs to come out of obscurity
sagniknath18 January 2019
This is a decent Lovecraftian movie, certainly demanding more attention. I think Dan o Bannon ( with whom I incidentally share my b'day) knows how to create tension, setting and atmosphere while maintaining a fast pace at the same time. Some of the creature shots are pretty good although it does suffer from some minute bad stop motion effects occasionally . I really liked the hero character as well( who had a hint of Sam o Neil) , very traditionally one dimensional but that's how they really should be in a story that leads specifically up to the conclusion of just one main mystery. You really don't need any unnecessary sub plots or character arcs in a Lovecraftian story. I would recommend watching this all tucked up and cozy on a winter's night before going to bed.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
57 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Reminds me of Lovecraft's mystery fantasy horror
dazhaun-1102114 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
You don't ever really figure out what the main bad guy is... you're lead to believe he's a vampire in the beginning, but it keeps changing, and this is why the movie is good.... The process that the main character goes through in discovering this guy's history and current story is the meat and bones of the story. And it works.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Pacing issues make this less enjoyable than it should have been
siderite14 July 2021
You can safely say that this film is a slow burn. You kind of get the gist of what is going on from the get go, but the details remain hidden until the ending. This means that the action scenes, the special effects (which are pretty gruesome) and the climax of the movie are all happening towards the end. I don't think that helps the film experience and even if it did, the beginning is too slow and the end too fast. I mean, it is so fast that they just abandon a very important character and friend because it would have taken too much film to try rescue him.

But that being said, this is a pretty good film. It's based on a Lovecraft story, but set in the 90s, it features the classic private investigator guy, rugged and resourceful, and the damsel in distress. It even has the scene that always gets on my nerves when the heroes discover the layer of knowledge of the villain and destroy it. To me, any destruction of knowledge makes you the villain, buddy! The gory special effects are not many, but they are very well done. The mood is oppressive and bleak.

I think from the many attempts to adapt Lovecraft for the screen, this is one of the more decent ones.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Effective H.P. Lovcraft adaptation.
poolandrews4 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The Resurrected starts as Claire Ward (Jane Sibbett) contacts private investigator John March (John Terry, no not the England & Chelsea football player & captain!) in regard to her husband Charles Ward (Chris Sarandon) who suddenly moved out of their house & into an old abandoned building to continue his mysterious experiments, he has also recently been in trouble with the local police for importing the remains of human skeletons. Claire wants to know what he's up to & John accepts the case, his investigations lead him to believe that something sinister is going on under the house where he makes a shocking discovery as the truth is finally revealed...

Directed by Dan O'Bannon & based on the story 'The Case of Charles Dexter Ward' by H.P. Lovecraft which I admit I have not read so I cannot compare the two this is actually a bit of a hidden gem that I would imagine many may have overlooked or quite simply never heard of before which is a shame & advocates what a good advertising campaign can do. The script by Brent V. Friedman has a 40's noir detective thriller feel about it as John narrates large parts of the story & lets us, the viewer, into his private thoughts & feelings as he digs deeper & deeper & uncovers some scary stuff. Then there's the horror element of the plot which isn't overplayed & developed as a mystery which isn't fully revealed until the end, while this makes for an intriguing film that has a certain hook I felt The Resurrected spent maybe a little too long building things up & even though I wouldn't want the film to reveal itself too early on there might have been a few more clues & a bit more action. However I still thought The Resurrected was a nice surprise, the character's are very good as is the dialogue, it's a bit slow but it's definitely gripping, there's some really nice horror scenes here & in a world where every horror film seems to a clone of another it's nice to have a story driven & original genre flick that's just that bit different & because it was that bit different that's the reason it was almost certainly overlooked &/or forgotten about. A surprisingly neat little horror film that deserves better treatment that it got.

Director O'Bannon whose only other directorial credit is The Return of the Living Dead (1985) & probably better know for his big budget Hollywood screenplays for films such as Alien (1979) & Total Recall (1990) does a good job here on this, there is definitely some creepy imagery in this especially towards the end in the dark dank catacombs. Apparently O'Bannon has said on record that The Resurrected was ruined during the editing stage so maybe this version isn't quite what he had originally intended. Gore wise there isn't much on show, there's a melted corpse, there are some bones, a decapitation & various mutated creatures which look pretty gross. There are also some ambitious special effects in The Resurrected including a fairly impressive Jason and the Argonauts (1963) style stop motion skeleton & some dated looking optical light effects.

Technically the film is fine with good production values & some decent special effects, it's well made & was shot in Vancouver in Canada even though it is meant to be set in Providence which was where H.P. Lovecraft was born & raised. The acting is good throughout by all involved although Sarandon overacts a bit at the end.

The Resurrected is a neat horror mystery type film which I actually really rather liked, perhaps it spends a bit too much time on heavy exposition but it's pretty interesting & has decent entertainment value. Definitely well worth a watch for any horror fans out there, if you can even find a copy...
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
What's everyone talking about?
Jim-3822 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.
36 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
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!
28 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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
5 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
17 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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!
36 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Welcome to the 1990's, Mr. Lovecraft.
Coventry20 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not entirely sure if H.P. Lovecraft would have liked this decade very much. I once read in a biography article that he was a terribly depressed human being and incredibly difficult (impossible, even) to please, so it's probably a good thing he never got to see any of the cinematic efforts that were based on his twisted work. The 90's film-adaptations that were inspired by Lovecraft vary from abominable ("Chtulu Mansion") over poor ("Lurking Fear") and mediocre ("Necronomicon", "Bleeders") to decent-at-best ("Castle Freak" and "The Resurrected"), but none of them resulted in genuine genre masterpieces like they did in the 80's, with "Re-Animator" and "From Beyond". With "The Resurrected", director Dan O'Bannon delivered a stylishly made and overall very atmospheric chiller, but the wholesome sadly is a little overlong and it sometimes lacks the obligatory panache to become an immortal favorite among horror fanatics. The plot neatly follows the structure of H.P's tale "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward", the same story Roger Corman used for "The Haunted Palace", and especially the transfer to the present day setting is adequately handled. The movie opens with a truly promising and sinister sequence inside a mental asylum, where panic and fear broke loose following the supposed escape of a dangerous patient named Charles Dexter Ward. Cut back to a period of time earlier, when a certain Mrs. Ward seeks contact with private detective John Marsh because her husbands behaves suspiciously and distant. The detective slowly discovers that Charles is involved in macabre occult experiments, together with the mysterious Doctor Ash, and that he may even has found a method to cheat death. The horribly shocking discoveries continue when Marsh and Mrs. Ward explore Charles' hideout place and laboratories. Although benefiting from a moody & absorbing atmosphere, the first half of "The Resurrected" is too talkative and yet thrifty when it comes to sharing useful information with the viewers. Slow tension building is good, preferably even, but it honestly takes too long before the first gruesome scene makes you jump up from your seat. The second half is much more eventful but occasionally suffers from unnecessary padding footage, like during the heroes' journey through the dark catacombs. The grand finale makes up for a lot, though, as it's inventive and pretty much impossible to predict even if you have seen the other movie-adaptations of the same Lovecraft story. There's a lot less gore and special effect than you'd expect, but the monstrous creations of FX-artist Todd Masters are engaging and effectively repulsive. Set pieces, lighting, camera-work and editing are all formidable, just the music is a little too obviously stolen from Christopher Young's theme for "Hellraiser". The acting performances are all fairly wooden, with the exception of the always-reliable Chris Sarandon whose portrayal of Charles Dexter Ward is stellar and genuinely menacing. Even though Dan O'Bannon only directed two movies, I'm convinced many horror fans (myself included) would be very interested in him making a comeback.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
13 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
43 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
O'Bannon Does Well, But Does Not Top Himself or Gordon
gavin694225 November 2006
Charles Dexter Ward (Chris Sarandon) has become a little strange lately. Some would say he is not quite himself. A private detective (John Terry) and Ward's wife (Jane Sibbett) try to get to the bottom of things as murders of a very grisly nature begin to occur in Ward's neighborhood.

After watching a few of Stuart Gordon's adaptations of Lovecraft tales, I grew very accustomed to his professional and serious approach. Now we have a Lovecraft classic told by Dan O'Bannon, who (as a director) only offered us one other thing: "Return of the Living Dead". That film is one of the best in horror history, but clearly stamps O'Bannon as a comedic director in my mind. (Yes, he was involved in "Dark Star", "Total Recall", "Alien" and even "Star Wars"... but not as a director.)

The filming techniques in "The Resurrected" mirror those from "Return" and you might recognize the same sorts of shots, particularly the opening reveal of the mansion. Also, the music, which is incredible, seems incongruous at times. It is a very epic music, and when the first body is shown we get what I found to be a very silly chord. (How Richard Band became involved in this project is beyond me, but probably a great story.) The whole idea of the story told from the point of view of a private eye is also really silly if you think about it, but the original story did not leave many options.

The gore is here. Not as much as I would like (though I hear there is an unedited version floating around), but the victims of the "animal attacks" have certainly seen better days and a flashback to the old days features a very nice creature that could have been Belial's brother.

The actors are great, the story well done... I would recommend this movie to others. Now, it is not the best Lovecraft movie (Stuart Gordon still holds the distinction of best adapter) and not the best O'Bannon film. And there were scenes I think could have been better and other parts I think could have been cropped to improve the pace. But you will not curse my children after seeing it, I promise...
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great atmosphere
parkerbcn31 May 2021
This is the second and last movie directed by O'Bannon and even when it's far from his previous and wonderful classic "The Return of the Living Dead", it's still a very interesting attempt to adapt a Lovecraft story to the screen. It also has an excellent atmosphere and mood and some very cool traditional effects.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
13 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Case of Charles Dexter Ward comes alive...again!
myboigie25 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?
19 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Chris Sarandon steals the show
dopefishie30 May 2020
Some of the special effects still hold up today. There's one in particular toward the middle of the film which is quite good! Some other effects look dated. But forget all that.. Chris Sarandon steals the show! This is straight hypnotic acting. You can't take your eyes off the guy. I wish he had more roles like this because he was born to play this part! The low side of the film is some long sequences of people wandering around and some bad dialogue.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
14 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Very Fun To Watch
mlafuenteny11 July 2014
A good performance by Chris Sarandon -one of the most underrated actors from that time. It isn't accurate with H.P. Lovecraft's "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward", but its works. The cast help it work because this is a b-movie. If you like detective stories you will like this.

Though it is easy to criticize a low-budget film, you can choose to take a step back from the drawbacks. The story does takes place in an interesting town (Providence). The picture also contains great narration and is put together well. The acting is also good enough to draw you into the plot -although it gets corny at times.

What makes the film work is that the main characters are -mostly- well-cast and also become actual storytellers themselves. By the storytelling you can imagine what the smell of the experiments must have been like, the catacomb scenes are pretty cool. The exchanges between Sarandon and Terry are intense. You can tell that the actors in this movie really tried to make the best with the material they had to work with.

The movie is like experiencing a good horror comic book. It seems to have its own unique momentum, and charm. Blending the historical colonial era with the little town.

Mr. Sarandon is probably the main star, along with Robert Romanus who plays Lonnie Peck. The gore might be a little too much and cheezy, but I think was effective enough. The special effects aren't great, but aren't amateur. To me even the soundtrack worked because it gave this movie its own signature.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Ugly and unsubtle
alibaba331712 October 2019
The Resurrected, from director Dan O'Bannon, writer of Alien, is a surprisingly amateurish looking movie. It has some of the most horrendous looking cinematography I've ever seen. The direct to video release does it well, since it looks like a 12 year old shot it. The framing is flat, dull and without life, it lacks any sense of flair or skill. The lighting is so one note and straight it's hurtful to look at.

What about the acting? Well, it's terrible, it's like watching somebody read from a teleprompter. Execution? Even worse. It has painfully unsubtle directing and editing, so rough Dan O'Bannon would've been better off letting his actors scream exposition at the camera.

Not even the writing is good. The dialogue is extremely basic and uninspired.

Only saving grace here is the creature design, it's disturbing and a little creepy. Unfortunately, it's presented like absolute garbage with terribly dated stop motion effects...

A more skillful director could probably have made something worthwhile with H. P. Lovecraft's story.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed