Too much of everything

the audience applauded

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

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.

"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.

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.

... 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.