User reviews

"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.

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.

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.

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.

The Resurrected is a peculiar entry into the Lovecraftian horror genre, and it's a shame that this 1991 film hasn't garnered more attention from horror enthusiasts. It's an oddity, a slow-burn horror that blends neo-noir, science fiction, and supernatural elements, resulting in a somewhat confusing yet intriguing cinematic experience.

This film, directed by Dan O'Bannon of Alien and Return of the Living Dead fame, is a clear labor of love. O'Bannon's influence is evident throughout, with the film bearing the marks of a director passionate about crafting a unique and unsettling experience. Unfortunately, while the film has its merits, it also has its fair share of shortcomings, which may explain why it has flown under the radar for so long.

The Resurrected follows in the footsteps of its director's previous works, boasting impressive practical effects and a gripping, well-paced narrative. The screenplay, by Brent V. Friedman, is a standout feature, seamlessly blending three distinct genres. It's a refreshing change from the often poorly paced and vapid writing of late 80s and early 90s horror. The movie also benefits from strong performances, particularly from Chris Sarandon, who delivers an unhinged and memorable turn.

However, the film's slow pace may be off-putting to some viewers. It often feels more like a TV miniseries that has been condensed, which detracts from the overall impact. While the conclusion is spectacular and justifies the slow burn, with some truly impressive practical effects, the journey there may test the patience of viewers accustomed to faster-paced, more immediate horror thrills.

The Resurrected is a film that divides opinion. It has all the ingredients for a cult classic, but its slow pace and odd tone may deter some from seeing it through to the end. For those willing to embrace its peculiarities, there is much to admire, from the ambitious narrative to the impressive practical effects. However, with a pace that often drags and a story that feels more suited to a longer format, it is easy to see why this film has not achieved wider recognition.

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

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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...

Dan O'Bannon, after "The Return of the Living Dead", directs his second and last feature film, this one based on H. P. Lovecraft's story "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward".

Claire Ward (Jane Sibbett) hires the services of private detective John March (John Terry) in order to discover what her husband Charles Dexter Ward (Chris Sarandon), a chemical engineer, is doing always isolated in a remote house that he recently discovered to be property of his family for centuries.

The first half of the film already captivates the viewer with the unfolding of the investigation plot and already contains some disturbing images, but the tension increases in the second half when they enter the catacombs of the old house and discover macabre secrets.

But I won't reveal anything more so as not to spoil the story for potential viewers who haven't seen the movie yet. I just can't rank it higher because the final part has some questionable elements (in my opinion), including something that seems to me to go against the rules previously established, or did I miss something? I think I'm not wrong here, but watch it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

For fans of Lovecraft and body horror I highly recommend it. Very good, almost great. It is undoubtedly a movie that deserves more recognition.

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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.