User reviews

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?"

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

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")

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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).

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I never heard about this movie until today, and I watched it casualy, this movie reminds me of those ninety's made to tv movies and series based on Stephen King's novels . It was like a throw back to me, it's far from a great movie but it has that kind of nostalgic feeling ,and for that I can't give it less than a five. Aside from that, the movie is actually watchable and entertaining as long you don't think too much, and just go with the flow. The acting is good and for a direct to video movie from 99, the effects are quite good, just don't expect to be much scare. If you grew up in the nineties, you would probably like it more than if you don't. Either way I've seen way worse, it's acceptable

Based on a lesser-known story by Bram Stoker, the film follows the classic occult or satanic horror narrative, where a demon is unleashed and threatens a rural town, filled with religious references to give it authenticity. Father Vassey (Michael Rooker) is a supernatural hunter who must face a dark entity that takes the form of a shadow (hence the title of the story and the film) but gradually takes shape as it absorbs human souls. While the film presents interesting reflections on light and darkness and contains some chilling moments, the plot is hindered by an overabundance of secondary characters and unnecessary twists, diluting the film's central focus. Nevertheless, the performances of Rooker and Tony Todd stand out, though the ending may provoke more laughter than tension. Despite never reaching its full potential, it has enough interesting elements to make for an entertaining watch.

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.

Honest take on it, it's a ok movie. It didn't age like milk and ok in some parts. It's not the best horror/action movie but i like the concept, the actors ain't that bad and the villian, the Demon is pretty ok.

The demon is pretty well written, same as the bad ass 90s father with a horrible past and trying to redeem himself.

Scenes are ok, acting is ok, actors are ok. Too bad Tony Todd got some strange role as some crazy with no real character interaction exception from that he likes light. His character could have been more then what we got, but whatever - all in all all this movie is OK, it doesn't deserve less then 5, to give it a 7 is to exaggerate a bit but looking back at this movie (just watched it again after like 7 years of not watching it) i feel that it's a ok movie which is a hell of a lot better then most modern action/horror movies.

It got it's depth, but shows poorly but it's there.

Like said, i liked the priest character and the demon. Specially the demon which can make good scenes.

90s Computer effects are pretty cringe as well but it's good that they kept it to an minimum.

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