"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.

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.

i didn't really like this movie.i found it boring for two thirds.not a lot happens.and then,once things start happening,the movie gets pretty sickening at times.i don't mean that in the "Saw"series kind of way.this is much different than that.to me,it was just too much.you'll have to watch it to see what i mean.i also thought the movie was kind of confusing at times,but that may be just me.i thought the acting was good,especially by Chris Sarandon as the main character/villain in the movie.i don't think the movie was badly done.the makeup effects,i thought were pretty good,just too disgusting.if you have a lot of patience too get through the slow parts,and you have a really strong stomach,you might like this movie.or maybe you won't find it slow or even very disgusting and you might still like it.i can watch most slasher/horror movies with no problem.but like i said this movie is a whole new category of disgust.by the way,i haven't mentioned anything about the general plot line but you can probably use your imagination,based on the title.although i didn't like this movie on the whole,i will give the filmmakers credit for making a movie that comes very close to exceeding my disgust threshold,something i thought would never happen.as a result,i give "The Resurrected" 5/10

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...