DeuceWild_77
Coming from the videoclips' world to the unexpected success of "Highlander" ('86) made the Melbourne native, Russell Mulcahy, a promising director that earned his '15 minutes of fame' until "Highlander II - The Quickening" ('91) was released to theaters and was destroyed by both critics and audiences.
It wasn't entirely Mulcahy's fault, but due to the troubled production in Argentina and the producers' ultimate cut which made the film halfway to the obnoxious' territory (thankfully that was corrected in the director's cut called "The Renegade Version").That misstep did not affect the friendship between the director and his lead star, and a couple years later, both started the concept for a 'crime / thriller' film, written by Lambert himself with the collaboration of Brad Mirman, and the result was "Resurrection", a well-crafted addition to the 'serial-killer' sub-genre.
The obviously comparisons to "Se7en" ('95) started to flow, even if the David Fincher's directed film was only made due to the resurgence of the genre with the 5 Academy Awards' winner, "The Silence of the Lambs" ('91) and even prior to "Se7en", Christopher Lambert was the lead star and producer of a largely underrated 'mystery / crime / thriller' film, set in the wicked world of a 'serial-killer' called "Knight Moves" ('92), also starred by his then wife, Diane Lane with Tom Skerritt, Daniel Baldwin & Ferdinand Mayne in supporting roles, which served as a forerunner to films like "Se7en"; "The Bone Collector" ('99); the french film, "The Crimson Rivers" ("Les rivières pourpres", '00) or "Taking Lives" ('04).The only major difference between the two productions is that in "Knight Moves" did not star the ladies' boy toy from the early 90's, Brad Pitt, and Tom Skerritt never had the star power of Morgan Freeman, who only had his breakthrough in the industry when he was pushing 50 and the late director Carl Schenkel wasn't a MTV protégée like David Fincher, the guy responsible for ruining the "Alien" franchise, but curiously still have a legion of devoted internet fanboys.Back to what really matters, "Resurrection" suffers from limitations within the budget ("Se7en" had much more money invested in it) and the team Lambert / Mirman, should had withdrawn some "Se7en"-ish elements from the screenplay, like the beginning of the film when Lambert is up to work or the constant raining or even the addition of Leland Orser as Lambert's partner (Orser was in "Se7en" playing one of the last victims, but he was also in "The Bone Collector", another similar film in its tone and screenplay, so...)Aside from that, and some less appropriate camera work that resembles TV shows, "Resurrection" fully engages the viewer into the mistery due to a clever writing, featuring some great, creative & unexpected plot twists and a competent notion of characters' development / motivations and last but not the least, a great visual impact provided by the director Mulcahy who never lost his touch.The movie makes use of far more interior shots (due to the budgetary reasons above mentioned), but the team behind the décors, props and make-up / special effects did a great job here (once again better than "Se7en"), except for the baby part which looked so fake that almost ruined the climax (they should have edited better that sequence or made the doll looking more realistic, but in that way it could have shocked the audience even more...)The sense of grotesque and 'body horror' are well patent and ironically, the master of that sub-genre, the director David Cronenberg appears in a two scenes' extended cameo as the obviously 'red herring', playing an eerie looking catholic priest named Father Rousell.In terms of performances, Christopher Lambert delivers a way better performance than Brad Pitt, who acted in "Se7en" like he was in a training mode for the cuckoo's nest in "12 Monkeys", filmed just after "Se7en" wrapped production.
Unlike Brad's David Mills, Lambert's John Prudhomme does serious detective work here (more like Morgan Freeman) and he have far more relevant character's arc due to the writing than Mills, whose only purpose in that movie was living up to the climax.In short, forget the "poor man's Se7en" comparisions written here by the other reviewers, "Resurrection" is far more interesting and works so much better as a 'detective thriller / mystery' with plot twists along the way that keeps the viewer envolved and not just building for the final reveal, acomplishing nothing more throughout the film than the "let's go from crime scene from another crime scene" like "Se7en" did.As a final note, thank you Christopher Lambert (also for "Knight Moves" which i will review it here very soon), Brad Mirman & Russell Mulcahy for one of the best films ever produced in this genre. Recommended !!
Peter Grunbaum
They have not even tried to hide that this is a Se7en rip-off. You can almost hear the conversations of the producers: "Movies with serial killers sell tickets." The whole story is based on the same nonsense as Se7en. That is not to say that "Resurrection" is not a good movie. It is a very exciting and fine movie which has David Cronenberg in a funny and creepy role as a minister which I guess is supposed to be a suspect in the movie. Anyway, this film is quite well made, for example how do you make a man with one leg in 1999 before CGI became normal? I don't understand how something like that can be done. Anyway, if you are a fan of serial killer movies you might like this one, although it is a bit stupid and the research into serial homicide is not very good.
dragster-2
I saw this movie on TV for the first time. Right from the beginning, I had a strange feeling of sickness and disgust and the top scenes were not even on yet. It is compared to Se7en, but I feel it has more action in it while the gore is the same in both movies. The serial killer is very disturbing and has no pity towards his victims like most "respected" SKs. I don't remember the soundtrack to the movie, but I think it does give that eerie touch to a movie that is in itself disturbing all along. The killer doesn't give himself away that easily and he is seriously involved in what he's doing. The final scene is one of the best in horror movies, but can be quite sickening for many light-hearted viewers.
