The Resurrected is based on the H.P. Lovecraft story “The Case of Charles Dexter Ward“. It is directed by Dan O’Bannon and written by Brent Friedman. The pair had been independently working on adaptations to the story for years before their eventual team up. The Lovecraft story is sort of an unusual one in that the author himself didn’t like it and refused to release it during his lifetime. However, it was printed posthumously and is regard by some as among his finest work. Lovecraft usually works best as an inspiration rather than directly adapting his work and as a result there are few examples of successful. Usually those that were successful (Such as “The Re-Animator”), barely resemble the source material. Lovecraft it turns out is hard to adapt faithfully. But here it is attempted.
The story follows detective John March (John Terry), who has been hired by Claire Ward (Jane Sibbett) to investigate her the increasingly bizarre activities of her husband Charles (Chris Sarandon). Claire reveals the catalyst for this behaviour seems to be the sudden uncovering of his family history and their visitation to an abandoned ancestral farmhouse near Pawtuxet. In the farmhouse Charles found a painting of a man called Joseph Curwen who bares an uncanny resemblance to Charles. John’s investigation reveals that there may be something unnatural going on, perhaps something supernatural.
Comparisons
This movie is based on the same Lovecraft story as Roger Corman’s “The Haunted Palace” (1963). Since I’ve reviewed both I may as well compare. First thing to note is that this is a more faithful adaptation. Not a surprise given Corman marketed his version as an Edgar Allan Poe story (The only thing Poe in the story was the title). However, low budget horror is Corman’s specialty and his movie had the benefit of Vincent Price as the antagonist. As a result it still managed a 6/10 from me. Not earth shattering but solid. O’Bannon’s version is more faithful and certainly has the better effects. Dan is no slouch when it comes to gory visuals as he demonstrated with his brilliant “Return of the Living Dead” in 1985. Now these have aged in the 33 years since release, but for the budget and era they were great.
It’s important to note when it comes to Dan O’Bannon is that while he was fine as a director his real claims to fame comes from his writing. His biggest credit being on the sci-fi horror masterpiece “Alien” (1979). So the fact this story was written by Friedman and not O’Bannon leaves me wondering what could have been had O’Bannon had completely creative control. This is especially true given the studio had the final cut here. That said Friedman’s approach was to basically make as few changes from the source material as possible, so not a terrible idea. The movies opening is not especially strong, but things do pick up after. The gradual unraveling of the mystery is played out well and as we reach the final act O’Bannon breaks out the effects in a big way. The ending though is a little disappointing, but is at least visually memorable.
Final Notes
Where this loses points to Corman’s version is with the acting. Chris Sarandon is excellent but the rest of the cast are average at best. The cinematography is somewhat lackluster too. When we’re not seeing something monstrous, we’re not seeing much at all. The movie definitely feels made for video. The plot though is solid and works better than the simplified Corman version. The ending switches out the heroic save of the damsel in distress for a much darker confrontation. It may lack the excitement but it fits the tone of the story. Overall this just about warrants a 6/10. Not the best horror, but a decent one that remains very faithful to it’s Lovecraft roots. It’s narrow, but this is the better version of the story.
You must be logged in to post a comment.