BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay
Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.
Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.
Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.
Nazz86 Pretty bad, started decent, but the last 30-40 minutes are pretty awful.But yes, Penelope looks great in this movie, and that's basically it's only saving grace.
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.
Hitchcoc One of my guilty pleasures is the collaborative efforts of Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child. I chanced up a copy of "Cabinet of Curiosities," a book in the middle of their combined canon. I wondered what else they had written, and so in the middle of my more serious reading, I went back and read all their books, including the one this film is based on. It is a bit of a ripoff of the 1931 Karloff "The Mummy." Things are brought back by museum curators for a huge exhibit at the Museum of Natural History. Of course, it unleashes a horror that brings death and destruction. There is a lot of the "jump out of the shadows" stuff, but the special effects aren't bad and it is pretty engaging. The two principle characters who appear in most of the books begin a bit of a relationship here. It has the pat technique of the arrogant, self-centered, selfish people victimized first. The museum provides a neat backdrop (it has all kinds of secret places, underground heating systems, doors that haven't been opened for a long time). It's a great place for a murderous beast to ply its trade. There are several literary sequels; however, this wasn't a big money-maker and I wonder if anyone will put up the money or commitment to try again.
ovidnine I 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.
