Shadow Builder (1998) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
38 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
"Hell will no longer be denied"
lost-in-limbo22 May 2012
Get the ingredients for a little made b-film and throw Bram Stocker in as inspiration for the story. A demonic force is summoned to take the soul of a young boy who could become a saint and if done it could open a doorway to hell. However this entity can only travel through shadows and needs to collect souls to complete this task. But on its trail is Father Vassey, who's heading to this sleepy rural town to find the boy first. The occult horror "Shadow Builder" is an adaptation of a Stocker story and the screenplay only seems to muddled it up with half-baked theories, as it leans towards its cheesy special effects, nasty shocks and poignant performances led by Michael Rooker's grizzled renegade priest who gets around with pistols than say a bible and Tony Todd as some loony giggling Jamaican hermit that kids are afraid of. Actually "Shadow Builder" isn't all that bad, but in parts it's fairly amusing and surprisingly dark in its atmospherics. The opening scenes are actually quite fun. Over-the-top and silly, but fun especially seeing Rooker at work in his choice of repenting sinners. The demonic entity has some striking facial details, but basically it's black CGI smoke and like most villainous horror characters has something cleverly smart to say. With this last point, I thought it would have been better suited if it said nothing at all. The direction is rather stylised for its low- budget, but the plot doesn't meander much and it has enough thrills in its formulaic patterns of good vs. evil… or light vs. darkness. A young Kevin Zegers stars as the kid caught in the middle of it all.

"Are you truly repentant?"
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Fight between Light and Darkness
claudio_carvalho8 October 2010
A cult of followers of the evil Shadowbuilder summons the demon using the picture of the son of the scumbag Vic Lambert (Eric Murphy). The group is surprised by Father Vassey (Michael Rooker) that kills the followers but Shadowbuilder escapes to Grand River, a town that will experience an eclipse on the next day. Father Vassey heads to the town and discovers that the demon's target is Chris Hatcher (Kevin Zegers), a boy that caused an stigmata in the image of Christ in his baptism that is raised by his aunt Jenny (Leslie Hope). Shadowbuilder brings chaos to Grand River to collect souls and becomes power. Meanwhile, Father Vassey teams up with the local Sheriff Sam Logan (Shawn Thompson) that is Jenny's boyfriend and together they try to protect Chris and destroy the powerful demon.

I saw "Shadowbuilder" in the late 90's and today I have watched again on DVD. The storyline is great but the screenplay is only reasonable considering the potential of the story and the cast. The boy is Kevin Zegers in the beginning of his career. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Shadowbuilder - O Senhor das Sombras" ("Shadowbuilder – The Lord of the Darkness")
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Ironically, a bunch of things in this are tough to make out
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews30 April 2012
Father Vassey(a usually intense Rooker) is a mean, motherf-ing servant of god, dual-wielding 9mm pistols with laser sights that he sadly uses all too little, and he's one of the more enjoyable aspects of this. He is introduced gunning down a perverted(not like that! ...then again...) clan of Catholic higher-ups who have just summoned the original titular demon(created when light came about), and it's out to... I don't know, exactly, with all this theism-driven "horror"(this is not all that scary, if there are creepy and atmospheric portions here and there), it's just an alternative to their faith that is the evil, and this one is somewhat vague in that regard. Anyway, it needs to take over a human host to do... whatever, I don't know, maybe to stop chuckling, maybe air tickles it. It's sights are set on a pre-teen boy in a nearby small town, where it hides in a sewer(or, going by what it looks like from it's POV-shots, it's rushing down a lava water slide), and gradually drive the inhabitants to sin and chaos(whether you take it seriously or not, it's another memorable aspect). This is very much a B-movie, though it's not cheesy enough to be fun like that. Yes, there are some good moments but they are few and far between. There is a heavy reliance on CGI with it utilizing a ton of it, and, being the late 90's(and low budget), the FX(in fact, in general) are not of a very high quality(with some exceptions, some of the practical stuff). Also, many things are shown too briefly, where you barely have time to see what you're looking at before it moves on. I don't remember when I last had to rewind so often during one film. While the insidious being is in the shadow some(leaving it to us to imagine what exactly he looks like), he's way too chatty and when you do see some more of him, the design is strange and not that interesting. Acting varies. Characters are forgettable(even Tony Todd as the village idiot... well, he seemed to be entertained by it, himself). Pacing can be an issue, as this can really drag. At the end of the day, there are better camp flicks out there... Mother of Tears had far more going on, and End of the Line was genuinely chilling. There is some disturbing, violent and gory content and a little full female nudity in this. I recommend this to big fans of Christian fantasy with devils or the like. 5/10
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Atmospheric religious thriller delivers the goods and then some, but script lacks logic
millennia-210 November 2000
For a low budget Canadian film, 'Bram Stoker's Shadowbuilder' is pretty good. Though it doesn't get off to a very good start and takes a while to build up momentum, it's massively entertaining, and the production values are better than the gimmicky, error plagued box cover suggests (I'll get to that in a minute). It might not be the greatest horror film ever, but it avoids several pitfalls which most low budget horrors fall for, most namely there is almost no gore in the film, and the director/editor actually threw in some style and flash, rather than the suspense less "suspense" 99% of those B Horrors have (gotta love that effect when Chris first lays eyes on the priest).

The acting is mediocre for the most part, with only one of the characters played well. Michael Rooker, as the gun wielding priest, tries to do his best Donald Pleasance impression, but fails, and ultimately resembles Pleasance's Dr Loomis from the Halloween films much too closely. The rest of the supporting cast is made up pretty much of Canadian nobodies who get the job done, but just aren't all that great. The flicks' protagonist, Chris Hatcher, is played by 13 year old newcomer Kevin Zegers, who handles the part surprisingly well, not making Chris obnoxious or arrogant like most child stars would (and have done many, many times). Instead he goes the much harder route by creating a genuinely interesting character, subtle and low key, much like the film itself.

Even though the producers had access to the special effects wizards behind 'True Lies' and 'The Terminator', they opted instead for the more traditional style of special effects, utilizing lighting, shadows and a very spooky atmosphere rather than heaping on the CG (computer generated) effects. The CG that did end up making it into 'Shadowbuilder' is very impressive and much better than that of even the highest profile direct to video thrillers.

One subplot I really thought should have been expanded on and furthered was the friendship between Chris and his two friends. There was only one scene with the three together, and though it had a different 'feel' from the rest of the film (it would have seemed more at home in a drama than a horror film), that scene was probably the best up until the climax. His two friends do appear later in the movie after they had been possessed by the Shadowbuilder, and it seemed as though Chris had known them better than was explained in the story. I know I'm rambling, but it really does look like some heavy editing occurred before release that shouldn't have happened.

The biggest problem with the movie is the lackluster script. Much of the dialogue is cheesy and unrealistic, and the way that the Shadowbuilder came into being was never fully explained. How was it summoned? What did the bible (which is referred to often in the story) have to do with it? Why was Chris so special and why did he receive the stigmata when baptized? It are these questions that the audience asks themselves over and over again while viewing this film, and if they were properly answered, then I would be reviewing a much better film.

Another thing I wanted to point out was the awful, awful packaging that the VHS version comes in (not sure about the DVD edition, as it was released by a different distributor, Sterling Entertainment- VHS was done by Lion's Gate). Not only does it have a cheesy, holographic front cover ala Jack Frost (not the Michael Keaton version), and there is an obvious typo error on the back- millennium is shown there as millenium, but it looks as though the person who wrote the summary didn't even see the movie! There is a major error which stands out like a sore thumb after seeing 'Shadowbuilder', see if you can find it (hint: has to do with Leslie Hope's character)

An entertaining horror film with a bit of humor mixed in, though it does have its share of problems, a good pick for late Friday night... full moon... 13th of the month... solar eclipse... rent it if you can get a copy, otherwise don't bother.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Entertaining, though highly predictable
Comet-811 April 1999
Shadow Builder isn't more or less than an average horror-movie with average actors and average special FX. It is not especially bad but it isn't very good either. The story of an evil demon who needs to do something very bad (kill a young boy) to reach his goal (turn the world into hell)isn't exactly original but it's good for 97 minutes of entertainment. The story is highly predictable, though. You almost know exactly what will happen and when it will happen. Don't watch this movie if you expect to see a cool horror movie like Bram Stoker's Dracula only because the name Bram Stoker appears in the title. Watch this movie on a boring, rainy day when you have nothing else to do and you'll enjoy it. 6 out of 10 Stars.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Total eclipse of the brain cells...
Coventry18 October 2005
"Shadow Builder" doesn't only dispose of the ugliest VHS-cover in the history of cinema, it also is one of the most ineptly bizarre films I ever had the (mis)fortune of seeing. The film is a little bit based on a short story by Bram Stoker (you know, the guy who gained some fame with his vampire novel) but the scriptwriter obviously had a lot of fun adding insane stuff that comes from his own imagination, like a swearing priest who operates 9mm guns…with laser beams! Believe it or not, but there are many interesting ideas and ingenious details noticeable in "Shadow Builder", and with a slightly more coherent script, the film might have been very good. It introduces a quite original monster, in the shape of Darth Vader-resembling demon that can only reign in the shadows. He has been summoned by a bunch of freaks and now he's looking for 12-year-old Chris Hatcher. During the sun eclipse, demon-guy will use Chris to make the world come to an end because he was born with stigmata. Yes, very clever!! Michael Rooker stars as the troubled priest who stalks the demon all over the country and Tony "Candyman" Todd has an insignificant role as the town's nut. The film is actually quite enjoyable, but only during the moments when the plot doesn't necessarily have to make sense, like for example the neat sequences of the town in chaos or when the demon possesses random souls in order to gain power. Director Jamie Dixon tries to uphold a constant level of action and most cast members seem to fulfill their job with great devotion. I can't properly judge the use of special effects, though. Some visual gimmicks are quite well done whereas others are lousy and on the verge of pitiful. Definitely not a must-see, but if you're a fan of silly horror, it's worth watching when it comes on TV or something.
3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Total failure.
HumanoidOfFlesh5 June 2001
Recently I saw this piece of crap on the Polish TV and phew! what a stinker,I can't believe the good reviews people give it here.Michael Rooker,who gave us an incredible performance as Henry Lee Lucas in "Henry:Portrait of a Serial Killer" is totally wasted as a well-armed priest,yeah right!!!While a few effective sequences do exist(notably the beginning of the movie)the overall effect is lame.The film resembles me a TV movie and lacks any scares,gore and violence.The acting is alright,I suppose,but these CGI-effects are terrible and the plot is boring.So if you're looking for a good horror movie,then try to avoid this one at all costs.
3 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good, old fashioned horror film
eddie-328268 July 2019
This is a decent film. Sure, in modern standards with the top notch special effects, some may say its lacking, but I feel that sometimes its great to watch something with less cgi. The story is okay, and you do get to understand certain characters in the film. There are a couple of well known faces in there. Michael Rooker is the Father, and even better is that Tony Todd is playing the local crazy person. I say watch it, and don't compare to the films that have all well known cast members in. The idea is pretty interesting too. As for the Bram Stoker reference, back in 1881, Bram published some short stories. This wasn't very big, so hence the 'based on..' wording.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Horrible Than Hell!!
gazineo-17 January 2002
Preposterous terror movie based on a Bran Stoker (Dracula) short story. A demon tries to conquer the world through a good boy but a "Rambo" priest and a sheriff gets in his way. Incredibly dull and silly, even the violence here is just nonsense and the devil, played by Jackson, sometimes resembles old Gene (Kiss) Simmons or Bozo, The Clown. Escape from this one. I give this a 2(two).
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bram Stokers The Mumm - sorry Shadowbuilder
boo_4ever16 April 2005
As a direct to video release this isn't half bad.

Shadowbuilder is loosely based on a Bram Stoker short story. The first shadow created when God flooded the world with light is out to plunge it back into eternal darkness. I think.

This film reminded me very much of The Mummy in structure. Evil dude comes back to life drawing powers from souls he devours in the midst of an avalanche of CGI. The film relies a lot on CGI which I didn't like at first. But if you accept it as more of a fantasy film then horror you will recognise its actually pretty well done. The demon also isn't that bad. The garish pink monstrosity (yes it was pink) on the DVD cover led me to believe it would be a yawn inducing man mincing around in a horned rubber suit but I was pleasantly surprised. Good use too of shadow and darkness so what you see of the creature leaves most to your imagination. Just the way it should be.

Some parts of the film drag a lot and there aren't that many great moments. But that isn't to say there aren't any at all. Overrall though Shadowbuilder remains pretty average but still very enjoyable if you aren't looking for something that will blow you away. Unlike the Matrix wannabe priest with the twin 9mm's. The film needed a lot more of Neo shooting vainly at the afro toting bad guy.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Ridiculous! Lots more laughs than screams.
CabbageCustard2 June 2017
I would be the first one to admit that I am not a particular fan of horror movies, but I've sat few enough of them to know that some are genuinely frightening and keep you on the edge of your seat, maybe even watching through gaps in fingers held over your eyes. Sadly Shadow Builder is not, definitely not, one of those. I don't recall if I have ever encountered a movie which tries so hard to be scary but is so lacking in suspense and frightening moments. This movie is more likely to produce incredulous guffaws than squeals of terror. Full of both clichéd and ridiculous characters, chief among whom is the central character, the eponymous Shadow Builder, who floats around making ominous and serious pronouncements to the other protagonists in a basso profundo tones. Sadly, the makers of this movie did not understand the concept of 'less is more' and that subtlety can be very effective in evoking an atmosphere of menace. Subtlety is in short supply here.

All that being said though, I didn't hate this movie. My enjoyment however, was the type that comes from watching something so bad it was actually good. Well, maybe not good, but certainly amusing!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
About as good as direct-to-video gets.
hightide11 March 2002
With direct to video, you always have lowered expectations. So this one really grabs you. Good to see Michael Rooker playing a Good Guy. Thats part of what works. He has that capacity to turn evil at any moment. An as-kicking, devil-whomping priest!

Again with this type of movie you don't expect the best special effects, you have to appreciate the sense that people cared enough about this story to do it as well as they did it on a button buget.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A horror rental classic!
BandSAboutMovies30 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The first MVD Rewind release I've had the chance to watch is 1988's Bram Stoker's Shadowbuilder. It's all about an evil archbishop and his followers who have brought a demon to our world with the hopes of destroying it. It's able to turn anything to shadows which fade away in the light, but that very same demon is also afraid of light. Yet with each kill, it grows stronger and harder to kill, as well as gaining the power to control dogs.

Now, the demon has a young boy in its crosshairs, as that child has the potential to be a saint. Killing him will open the doorway to Hell and allow more demons loose into our realm of existence. Luckily, a renegade priest named Jacob Vassey (Michael Rooker from Guardians of the Galaxy, but I'm certain readers of this site can name many other films he's been in) is ready to battle the Shadowbuilder. And hey! There's Tony Todd with long hair and an eye patch (he's also amazing in the making of feature, with every word out of his mouth sounding like poetry)! There's also a really interesting section where actor Andrew Jackson, who played the Shadowbuilder, talks about how the voice of the villain came to be.

I'm certain that in 1988, having the Catholic Church be the bad guys felt pretty edgy. But today? I think today we can all accept that they're probably housing Shadowbuilders. Also, if you're guessing that this story has little to do with the original story, then you were renting movies in the 1980's too! That said, the making of feature explains exactly how the original tale inspired it, including writer Michael Stokes, who has gone on to write for the kid's show Paw Patrol!

Director Jamie Dixon keeps things moving. He only has one other directing credit to his name, the TV movie Bats: Human Harvest. However, he's been the visual effects supervisor for films such as Prometheus, The Chronicles of Riddick, Titanic and so many more.

It hits all the buttons here - Michael Rooker, occult horror, killer dogs, a cool looking bad guy...it's as if it was made for this site!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Bad. Really bad.
zefra13 December 1999
I just have to say that this movie SUCKS!!!!!! The storyline is stupid. The effects are bad. Bad. The 'scary' shadow looks like the spray paint you can use on the simple computer drawing program Microsoft Paint. Wow.... I don't particularly like scary movies, that's true. I was kind of nervous about seeing this, but it wasn't creepy at all!! I simply didn't believe in it for one second. Yes, the story is meant to be surreal, but it needs a certain credibility anyway! The only creepy part was actually 'hero' or whatever Vassey. Not the shadow builder or crazy man or anything.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
not "a failure", but not a Godfather either
Ali70915 June 2003
The movie is not a failure, it has a good story (because of the good writer). Visual Effects look good (I didn't like the eclipse ones tho, those were...shit!). It's still good as a only on video movie. The shadow builder and it's dogs look good. Very good acting by Michael Rooker. It can be noticed that Kevin Zeggers will look good when he's older, but anyways, he doesn't do a very good acting in this movie. The movie, however it is, it's familiar to all of us. It's another Devil , Light and a good priest movie. Like Posessed (altho posessed was much better than this). The movie is entertaining, but it isn't a piece of art. 6/10
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A mixed bag
Leofwine_draca24 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
BRAM STOKER'S SHADOWBUILDER is a typical B-flick action/horror from 1998, with absolutely no relation to the somewhat mystical Bram Stoker short story of the same title. This one features dependable Michael Rooker as a demon-slaying priest who's on the track of a sinister shadow demon summoned up by an evil archbishop in the film's OTT opening sequence. The demon has designs on a suburban kid, and the whole second half of the movie is a large set-piece sequence in which assorted heroes strive to protect the boy from the supernatural nasty. Generally this is a mixed bag of a movie, with some nice stylistic touches and okay CGI effects helping; the cast isn't too shabby either. But the demon in human form is just a guy in a Halloween mask and there's too little storyline and too much average direction to really make this zing.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
brief comments
melodywright26 October 1999
This film is not likely to satisfy fans of the horror genre(or Bram Stoker). Despite borrowing cliched plot elements e.g.demonic possessions, light versus darkness, etc. etc. from more popular films and tempering them with style, the whole movie still seems rather dull and derivative. This is not helped by the story's predictability and its lack of any intriguing, unique characters. To make matters worse, what transpires during and after the climax can be accurately guessed about twenty minutes before the film's conclusion. So- do not see "Shadow Builder" unless you are a fan of someone in the cast or need a 'fix' on a boring, rainy day.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Dreadful.
BA_Harrison10 May 2009
Michael Rooker plays Father Vassey, a troubled priest who seeks personal redemption by hunting down and destroying a demon before it can unleash Hell on Earth. Following a trail of death and destruction to the sleepy town of Grand River, home of stigmatic teenager Chris Hatcher (Kevin Zegers), whose pure soul is vital to the creature's success, the pistol packing priest teams up with a local sheriff (Shawn Thompson), a veterinarian (Leslie Hope), and a crazy hobo (Tony Todd) to try and foil the evil creature's plans.

But with the townsfolk succumbing to the demon's evil influence once the sun goes down, they have their work cut out for them...

The UK DVD of Shadowbuilder, directorial debut for CG FX artist Jamie Dixon, comes in a day-glo pink case with a poorly rendered image of a multi-horned creature on the cover; reasoning that the film couldn't possibly be as bad as the packaging, I decided to give it a watch.

Hoo boy, was I ever wrong!!! Dixon might be adept at manipulating pixels, but his directing skills are virtually non-existent, and this iffy demonic horror, based on a short story by Bram Stoker, is a joyless mess of botched ideas, incompetent storytelling, and ham-fisted editing that no amount of CG effects can save.

In short, it's utter garbage and definitely one to avoid.
0 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Went in hoping for Wishmaster, instead I got diet Warlock with a side of proto-End of Days
NightlySun28 January 2024
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't hate this movie, nor did I hate Warlock (which was actually good) or End of Days (which I enjoyed, despite its many flaws). But it was, overall, almost entirely unremarkable. Not good, not great, not horrible. Hard to even really call it "so bad it's good".

The opening scene was certainly a strong point, with the heretical sect summoning the titular demon only to get shot dead by the obligatory black clad brooding 90s anti-hero, who also happens to be a priest. Everything after that, though, is pretty much downhill and very much standard 90s fare, complete with shoddy CGI (still not as bad as Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, so it least has that going for it). There's mention of another potential cell of the aforementioned sect, but nothing's ever made of that.

The Shadowbuilder itself left a lot to be desired. Andrew Jackson seems to be riding on the coattails of the now-late Julian Sands with maybe a dose of Andrew Divoff, but has none of the charm or charisma of either. He doesn't even look like the creature on the cover art, who, no, does not appear in the movie. His face is made of VERY obvious CGI darkness with a few vaguely discernible features. He also takes his sweet time claiming that sixth soul he apparently needs to become invincible, despite having AMPLE opportunity to claim almost any soul of his choice. Speaking of which, the rules about what souls he can and can't reap seems to change. On one hand, he tells an old man who killed his wife that his soul is useless to him, but also tells Father Vassey that his soul is ripe for claiming.

The sad thing of it is, is that the Shadowbuilder is the only characters I found interesting. Weirdly enough, I was rooting for him to succeed. So many movies (especially from this time period) that have a demonic bad guy trying to unmake the world, and they never win, either because they're too overconfident or stupid or because the cavalry always arrives at the last minute. Father Vassey may be a badass gun-toting man of the cloth, but after seeing one priest going through a crisis of faith, I've seen them all. Not even Tony Todd in his small role - which I like to call "Candymon" (get it? Because Tony Todd played Candyman and he has dreads in this movie, like your stereotypical Rastafarian who says "ey mon!" complete with a slight stereotypical Jamaican accent okay I'll get back to the review) - is much of a show stealer, even though that really seems like it's exactly what they were doing for. None of our side protagonists are very interesting, either, they're just kind of there and their only duty is to protect Chris (who's also pretty boring, despite being, apparently, a saint in the making).

There are a few unintentionally hilarious moments that stand out to me. For starters, while everyone in town is rioting and killing each other, there's a random stripper grinding against a stone cross and taking her top off. Then. After the Shadowbuilder tricks the aformentioned old man who killed his own wife (who is heavily implied to have killed the stripper) into chopping down the power lines, the power line falls on him and crushes him like a macabre Looney Toons scene. I actually burst out laughing at this scene. Finally, the Shadowbuilder tries to unmake the world by reciting the Book of Genesis backwards. When I say "backwards", I mean he reads the verses of the first chapter in reverse order, with every other sentence ending with "and". Contrast that with Warlock, where Julian Sands has to speak the true name of God backwards to undo creation, and you can't NOT laugh.

Maybe I'm a little too harsh on this movie. It's a direct to video effort, so of course it's not going to have the same impressive practical effects that Wishmaster did, or even much in the way of good talent (although they did get Michael Rooker and Tony Todd). But despite the small cult status Shadow Builder has gained over the couple decades since its release, I find it to be a mostly non-essential viewing. Also, while I have not read the story it takes its name from, the source material sounds absolutely nothing like this movie. Alas, it did have a cool holographic VHS cover, but it seems like those covers are oftentimes wasted on the movies they contain within.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Michael Rooker is the best thing in this direct-to-video horror film
kclipper25 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This is an average-grade horror film based on the more primitive 1881 short story by Bram Stoker originally appearing in his collection entitled "Under The Sunset". Jamie Dixon, who's most prominent contributions were the visual effects on the James Cameron films of the 90's, takes a shot at directing this low budget effort featuring the intense acting ability of Michael "Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer" Rooker as a gun-toting Catholic priest on the hunt for a cult-leader turned demon wrecking havoc on a quiet town in the form of a shape-shifting shadow entity. Sure enough, the demon needs the soul sacrifice of a prophetic young boy (terribly portrayed by child actor Kevin Zegers.) It just so happens that the shadow demon is susceptible to the effects of bright light. (What a coincidence), and all this evil causes the town to go bonkers. Just about every plot device is predicable and contrived as typically dumb, hunky sheriff, Shawn Alex Thompson tries to piece it all together, and Tony Todd is just plain stupid as the wise-cracking town crazy, complete with phony "Pirates of the Caribbean" wig and eye-patch who is conveniently obsessed with artificial light. The visual effects and thinly crafted script are average at best as well as the demon creature itself. Overall, this has a lively pace, and Michael Rooker's pistol packing priest is a hoot. This little horror/action flick came around just when this type of genre was dying out, and the VHS craze was being replaced with the DVD revolution, so it is considered by many to be a "transitional rarity". You could do worse...considering.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Demon tries to bring apocalypse with potential saint.
Gothbert28 September 1998
Overall the movie seemed to have potential that was never fully expressed. The plot was not typically original, and reminded me heavily of an X-Files episode. In fact I think the same child was cast in that X-Files episode. The part of the assassin priest was an interesting idea, but just did not seem to be fully explored. Most acting and plot details seemed to rather cardboard giving the movie a bland taste in the end. The effects were one of the nice parts of the movie, but were not actually anything new in the business.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Shadowbuilder was a pretty good movie...
mrzx23 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Shadowbuilder may not be the best movie, but I really liked it. The effects were good and the acting was OK. I thought the story was good and it kept me in my seat. The Shadowbuilder was cool. I liked the way he took on the persona of his victims. When the town went postal I really had a good laugh at the man who wanted to use the ax on his wife's head again. LMAO! I would not consider it a true horror movie. It was more of a action/thriller with a little horror. There are no guts flying all over the place - which is what I consider horror. All of the victims are turned to a shadow which isn't horrific or gory. I would recommend Shadowbuilder. It deserved at least one look in my book. I have watched it numerous times.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
AVERAGE FILM!!
psycho_15327 December 1999
This isn't a great movie but not a waste of time. Some good things are in this movie, you have to love the gun wielding priest and the actual demon is cool as well. Not the best acting but there are some okay special effects. The story is about an evil Archbishop of the Catholic Church summons a demon to try and destroy the world. The summoners are killed, but the demon escapes to hunt down its needed victim. The victim soon turns out to be a child that has the potential to become a saint. After ravaging the town and turning its citizens upon themselves, the demon soon locates and captures his prey. This had the potential to be a great movie, it isn't totally bad in fact it's pretty good. Give it a go if you want some good special effects mixed with the supernatural theme. If you wants special effects and supernatural theme also check out The Frighteners which is a great movie.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Just another religious good vs. evil horror movie...
paul_haakonsen3 March 2021
Well, if you have a thing for late 1998s light horror movies with a supernatural or religious subplot, then I suppose "Shadow Builder" might be something for you. Initially I was lured in to watch "Shadow Builder" for the first time in 2021 given the fact it being a movie that I hadn't already seen and also because it brandished Bram Stoker on the movie's cover.

Granted, I haven't read the particular Stoker story that this movie is based upon, so I have no idea how true it was to the original story.

But for someone sitting down to watch this 1998s movie "Shadow Builder" for entertainment purposes, I must say that I was only mildly entertained. The movie was just way too bland and mundane for my liking. It failed to stand out amidst many other horror movies from the late 1990s, so it was just a 'meh' experience actually.

Sure, the movie had Michael Rooker in it, and that does count for something in itself. And yeah, he does deliver his usual mean and gruffy character performance, that he usually do, so if you enjoy that, then "Shadow Builder" has something for you to enjoy.

Visually then "Shadow Builder" was just a swing and a miss. The demonic entity was just laughable to look at today. Sure, back in 1998s then the effects would have been considered good, I get that. But by today's standards, then "Shadow Builder" haven't aged well, and it was somewhat of an eyesore to watch the creature on the screen.

Storywise then "Shadow Builder" was just another good vs. evil with a religious element to it. Seen that dozens of times before 1998 and after 1998. So nothing grand or innovative from writer Michael Stokes. And director Jamie Dixon just didn't manage to deliver an outstanding movie here.

I can now check "Shadow Builder" off the list of watched movies, and I can in all honesty say that this is not a movie that I will be returning to watch a second time, as the movie just doesn't have the contents for such an endeavor.

My rating of "Shadow Builder" lands on a less than mediocre four out of ten stars.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
outstanding movie
hellboundsyco18 December 2002
this movie is amazzing i found it in town yesterday and thought the case looked good so me being me i bought it obvouisly forgeting previous films i had bought with good cases like THE VAULT and HORROR VISION and SHE LIVES AT NIGHT which turned out to be so crap i wish i had never bought them but anyway i still bought this one remmembering that bram stokers dracula was good and i thought oh bram stokers shadow builder should be good boy was i correct the special effects for a non cinema release movie were outstanding the acting was good and the script got better and better i was deeply pleased with this movie and i think i will buy more imperial entertainment movies from now on 8/10
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed