Leofwine_draca THE RELIC has to be one of the most disappointing monster movies ever made. I remember buying this on VHS when it first came out back in 1998 and feeling completely disappointed by it. The problem isn't the story, which is run-of-the-mill monster nonsense. It's a combination of the execution and the script, which combine to equal one of the most lacklustre monster flicks of all time. The movie takes an age to get going. Before anything in the region of 'interesting' happens, we're introduced to a bunch of particularly bland or detestable characters. When a slumming-it Tom Sizemore, playing a tired-looking cop, is the best character in the film, you know you're in trouble.Penelope Ann Miller is one of those actresses who just seemed to disappear from our screens around this time. It's easy to see why; she's neither photogenic nor a talented actress, and when you combine this with her interfering, irritating character it makes for a bad combination. Her 'frightened face' is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Look out for a couple of clichés at her workplace: the crotchety, gnarled old boss (Linda Hunt), the wheelchair bound genius (old timer James Whitmore, who deserves better), and the sinister, treacherous Asian (Lo Chi Muoi).Attempts are made to make things interesting by throwing in some gruesome crime scene shots of a severed head, but these do nothing to increase the entertainment value. Instead the movie plods on, cliché follows cliché, and finally we get a look at the beast: not Stan Winston's best work, it has to be said, the monster here looks like a primal rip-off of PREDATOR and is animated via some poor CGI (the laughable tongue scene is a real low point of the movie). In the last reel the film actually picks up, although by then it's too little, too late. We get a few cool scenes of the monster munching on party guests and taking apart a few SWAT guys (they even throw in the old 'severed guy' gag) before a ludicrous climax in which Miller manages to outrun a fireball that, in reality, would explode in about three milliseconds (but gets stretched out to a full 30 seconds here). Peter Hyams is one of my least favourite directors but even by his low standards he's slacking on this one. It's a crashing bore of a monster flick.

Predrag This just might be the best monster movie I have ever seen, with a believable and action-packed story, good acting and thrilling special effects - thrilling because they bring something thrilling to life; the monster. I think the strength of the movie is in the casting of Penelope Ann Miller in the lead role. She is a terrific actress, who should have lots more screen time than she's received - and she's not your typical scream queen. She starts out as a very believable forensic anthropologist and her reactions when she sees the carnage the creature has left are totally believable. And the ending, where she employs her scientific prowess to fight to the last, is great.This is one well-conceived and believable story featuring themes such as rapid evolution and mixed DNA. Furthermore, Penelope Ann Miller is superb in the leading role. While the good stuff doesn't begin until about 40 minutes to the end, it sure gets good, with the suspension, action and terror rising. Of course, the main attraction of The Relic is the monster. Similar to Jaws, the actual monster is hidden for much of the film. There, however, the similarities end. When the wait is over, The Relic reveals itself to be an excellent beast, aesthetic and even beautiful. It's stupendously brought to life with excellent animation. The scenes with the monster wouldn't look out-of-date on the screen today.Overall rating: 8 out of 10.

David Arnold I saw this film the other night for the first time in years and I have to say that I think I enjoyed it then just as much as I did when I saw it all those years ago in '97 when it was first released.The Relic is a very enjoyable "creature feature" with quite a few good tense moments, the odd occasion of dark humour, and some very nice practical effects some of which still hold up even in this day and age. Is it an amazingly original film? No, but it definitely doesn't deserve some of the criticism that I've seen some people give it.Up until recently I never even knew that this was actually based on a book, but after reading some reviews in regards to the book, I'm actually a wee bit surprised at how different the movie seems to be from it, most notably the character of FBI Agent Pendergast. Now I'm not naive enough to not know that a lot of movies can - and often do - drift away from the books (Stanley Kubrick's version of The Shining being a great example), but it seemed strange to leave out such a big character. In saying that, I've not read the book so I can't really compare one over the other, but as I mentioned earlier, the film is still enjoyable in it's own right.The cast do a decent job for the main part, but the only thing I didn't really like was that Tom Sizemore was a bit over-the-top for some of his scenes. He was still good, but it was just those few moments that stopped him from being that bit better.If you've never seen this film before don't expect a huge array of creature CGI effects either - or a huge array of CGI effects, period. There are CGI moments, but the vast majority of effects you see in the film are practical, which isn't altogether a bad thing because how many films get released these days where it's nothing but CGI to compensate for an anorexic story line (Pacific Rim anyone?). Here, story precedes effects.If you've not seen it before then The Relic is definitely worth a watch.

ovidnine I remember seeing this movie in the theaters when I was 17 and enjoying it. I saw it was on Netflix instant and gave it a whirl...I'm not going to rip into this movie because it was full of clichés, its a monster movie for goodness sake. As far as the "ancient idol/horrible monster/kill everyone around" genre goes, its not bad at all. I enjoy Tom Sizemore as an actor and while the script was what one would expect of 4 credited (and lord knows how many uncredited) screenwriters, I felt he did a good job as his character. Honestly for a movie of this type, the acting was just fine. They weren't required to do much, but that was OK.However, if you watch this movie, get used to entire scenes where you have no idea what is happening because its so dark. I understand, keep the settings dim to create fear (and realism, the power is out most of the time though why everyone in the museum works in near total darkness 99% of the time is a bit mind-boggling) but I can't be scared if I can't see what's happening when I'm supposed to!Dark, extremely dark shots keep the viewer in the (I can't do it), keep the viewer confused in many scenes. It was bad enough that a moderate length movie (109m) seemed MUCH longer and not in a good way. Much like gimmicky camera tricks or abuse of slow-motion (I'm looking at you John Woo) can ruin a movie, the overly dark nature of so many shots just leaves you sitting there wish you could tell what the hell was going on.I will say, possibly watching it on a larger screen, or a better quality television (mine is a 32" Sony LCD, nothing fancy) might mitigate lighting issues a bit, I don't know.Overall, its an OK movie for the genre that is partially ruined by not being able to tell what the hell is going on.