Rating: 
Summary: The BEST HORROR MOVIE ON THIS PLANET
Review: Okay, I've read the book. It is my favorite book. It is ten times better than Jurassic Park so dont even start the comparison stuff. The movie is as good as Jurassic Park......better. The acting is great. The special effects are super impressive and realistsic........especially the victims left over body parts and the monster itself. The monster is so much more unique looking than any monster movie in recent memory. THIS MOVIE IS NOTHING LIKE "ALIEN"! What the ... are you all talking about? Alien deals with space and .....duh ...Aliens! Relic deals with scientists, murders, a detective, and a museum of natural history. Dont take all these other people's word for it. Watch it your self and make your own decision.
Rating:
Summary: Works in all the right ways.
Review: So there I was, beginning to watch "The Relic," and snoring at yet another movie with a beginning sequence of a tribal ritual involving an American observer who ends up finding himself in danger. And then, two minutes later, my interest was peaked, and stayed that way for the movie's running length. "The Relic," while not being the most original monster movie ever made, is certainly a good example for other movies to follow. The story is intelligent and involving, while the suspense keeps viewers involved in a way that is almost frightening by itself. The movie begins with the aforementioned tribal sequence, then takes us to Chicago, where a mysterious unmanned shipping vessel has made its way to port. On board, Lt. Vincent D'Agosta (Tom Sizemore) finds the mangled corpses of the crew, and does what any other cop would do: puts someone else in charge of getting the details. Days later, at the Museum of Natural History, boxes from the vessel arrive and get the attention of Dr. Margo Green (Penelope Ann Miller), who finds a mysterious growth she believes to be fungus on the leaves found in the box. Her examination takes a backseat to the story's main premise, which includes lots of gore and intensity. When a cop is found brutally mutilated in the men's bathroom at the museum, the establishment is closed for investigation, much to the dismay of curator Dr. Ann Cuthbert (Linda Hunt), whose worries about an expensive gala force D'Agosta to hurry his investigation. D'Agosta also stumbles across the fact that the victims found on the ship and the cop are found with a section of the brain removed, the section responsible for hormone release. The gala goes on according to plan, but soon, things begin to go awry. The museum's security mainframe goes down, enclosing our main characters and a few party attendees inside. Whether or not the creature is responsible for this is left unexplained, as is his intelligence. But he certainly knows his way around the museum, and as the bodies begin to drop, the movie builds itself to an intense climax that has suspense leading up to it all the way. Much of that suspense is due mostly to Peter Hyams, the director of photography as well as the director of the movie, whose use of shadow and light are a key element in bringing out the fear in all of us. There's nothing scarier than what we can hear but cannot see, and Hyams uses this to his advantage by supplying little light to the movie's most intense moments. Scenes in underground tunnels are lits by flashlights alone, while the museum's basement areas are dim and murky. Not only is this a fright factor, but it gives the movie a sense of style. That fright is also kept up to speed by keeping the creature's full appearance in the dark until much later in the film. Done in live action and CGI, the monster is authentic-looking and realistic, a very convincing achievement. Not until the last half hour to we get a full revelation of the creature in its entire, and even then, the suspense still keeps coming. The movie's story is intelligent, providing an explanation for almost every action and reaction seen on camera. The plot does more than just put its characters in dangerous situations, something that most movies of this genre are famous for. It gives the characters a chance to decipher the puzzle and figure out the monster's origins, and while those facts are somewhat laughable and contrived, they are convincing from the mouths of the actors, who do a stunning job on the film. The movie also seems to poke fun at the many horror tactics used along the years, but keeps up a serious demeanor while doing so. Scenes involving key characters going into dark rooms, hearing sounds and running away, only to find their fears were in vain, give us a sense of relief but also build up a false sense of security. I practically wanted to scream at some of the actions taken by certain people, who, if they've ever seen "Alien," should know better than to do what they do. I had a lot of fun with "The Relic," a movie that has been downed for its all-too-familiar similarities to other creature features. I found it to be a very refreshing film, one with suspense and thrills galore, providing a story we can actually believe with action and suspense that works us in all the right ways.
Rating: 
Summary: Mediocre At Best
Review: The Relic is supposed to be an intelligent thriller and horror film. Well one out of three isn't that bad. At least it's considered a horror. As far as intelligent, it lacks merit and it is no way a decent thriller. I've never read the book ( didn't know it came from one before ) but I would have read the book and skipped the film if I had known. The actors are likeable ( though Penelope Ann Miller gets on my nerves ). The writing is pretty good but the film is not scary at all. The effects look cheap. Instead of giving us an upstanding film with a monster, what we get is a B-movie horror that fizzles at the end. It's gory and full of plot holes. Avoid unless you're extremely bored.
Rating:
Summary: buy the book
Review: If you really want a good story, buy the book. There is so much more to the story than what the movie showed. The only thing the movie had in common with the book was that the story took place in a museum and there was a monster. Do yourself a favor; read don't screen.
Rating: 
Summary: a good argument for reading
Review: Workers and visitors at the NY Museum of Natural History are beginning to turn up torn to shreds, and a big exhibit opening is just days away, as the FBI, police and scientists try to figure out who, or what, is hunting people in the dark, labyrinthine corridors of the museum. I am in the camp that thinks this film is a travesty of the fine book by Preston and Child. As I was reading the book I was envisioning scenes and situations and even the monster and, upon seeing the film about a week later, was disappointed in every way but one. They had no business keeping the name of the book, since two of the four main characters are eviscerated -- FBI Special Agent Pendergast, the heart of the team, and Bill Smithback, reporter. Unbelievable. Also the monster was not as scary as the book, not even as scary as the drawing on the cover of the book, except in one scene. The movie did do a better job of having Margo battle the monster using her scientific skills, and one of the last sequences, where the creature is on fire and chasing Margo through the museum, is one of the best effects I've ever seen. It's spectacular. But there were also a lot of scenes that made me howl (with derision) whereas the book is fast, intelligent and scary as all getout. Too bad the filmmakers didn't have more respect for the book. I tried to view the film as independent from the book, wondering if I'd be afraid if I hadn't read the book first, but I honestly don't think I would. This was a real wasted opportunity. All the material was there for a wonderful scary film, and I hope someone else remakes it somewhere down the line.
Rating: 
Summary: It's a pretty good Monster movie that's not a critics Drama
Review: I have seen the bad reviews and I think they are missing the point. This is a B monster movie and they are comparing it to Aliens? To me "The Thing" and "An American Werewolf in London" are some of the best monster movies of all time and I see this below them, but fun.
The big question is whether or not you like to watch a monster movie for just being a monster that causes fictionaly mayhem. I grew up watching "Creature Double Feature" with all of those old monster movies. Fact is most Monster Movies are the pits and there has not been too many that are very good at all since now a days they rely on so much CG. Also I find most people do not like the concept of a Monster to begin with; out side of the Vampire; which there has been more than a hundred titles with "Vampire" in it. Oh dear god now there is "Van Helsing" killing Vampires.
So buy it for the pleasure of seeing people attacked for fun and not because you need a masterpiece every time you start up your DVD player because you will quickly find most movies do not hold up to scrutiny. If you feel this way then it is time to start reading the Classics again like Poe since you have raised yourself above this monotony
Rating:
Summary: Above Average Monster Movie
Review: I saw this movie before I read the book it was based upon and there are some changes, mostly in the names of the characters and who gets killed. What is implied in the film (which apparently went over the heads of those who gave this movie a negative review) but given some attention in the book was that the Amazonian Indians fed the genetic altering substance to the museum guy because they wanted the monster to destroy civilization and therefore save their rainforest homeland from destruction and development. Okay, enough insight. I found The Relic to be a very entertaining thriller. I liked Tom Sizemore as Detective D'Agosta and I have always been a fan of Penelope Ann Miller. Like all well paced horror films, The Relic starts out with a small body count and works its way up to a grand finale. The creature, called the Kothoga, is pretty hideous looking. My main problem with the gory climax is that the monster seems to be in more places at once, one minute it kills someone in the sewers below the museum and the next minute it is taking out a SWAT team inside the museum. If, like me, you are a fan of movies like ALIENS and DEEP RISING, The Relic will be right up your alley.
Rating:
Summary: It's a pretty good Monster movie that's not a critics Drama
Review: I have seen the bad reviews and I think they are missing the point. This is a B monster movie and they are comparing it to Aliens? To me "The Thing" and "An American Werewolf in London" are some of the best monster movies of all time and I see this below them, but fun.
The big question is whether or not you like to watch a monster movie for just being a monster that causes fictionaly mayhem. I grew up watching "Creature Double Feature" with all of those old monster movies. Fact is most Monster Movies are the pits and there has not been too many that are very good at all since now a days they rely on so much CG. Also I find most people do not like the concept of a Monster to begin with; out side of the Vampire; which there has been more than a hundred titles with "Vampire" in it. Oh dear god now there is "Van Helsing" killing Vampires.
So buy it for the pleasure of seeing people attacked for fun and not because you need a masterpiece every time you start up your DVD player because you will quickly find most movies do not hold up to scrutiny. If you feel this way then it is time to start reading the Classics again like Poe since you have raised yourself above this monotony
Rating: 
Summary: Hypothalumuses.
Review: The book was excellent (as is anything written by duo DOUG PRESTON and LINC CHILD), the film is a thrown-together mess. This is a textbook example of great book-bad movie. The central character on paper was left out on celluloid for who knows why, and the complex science in the plot is traded for Hollywood dribble. F. PAUL WILSON hasn't sold his work for screen since THE KEEP was butchered, the shame is that these terrific writers might wisely take the same route. Oh, well, PRESTON/CHILD's books are so cinematic anyway, who needs pictures?
Rating:
Summary: Horrible
Review: Don't see this movie if you've read the book. The only adaptation I've ever seen that was worse was The Bourne Identity. The book is FAR superior to the film, which takes out all of the things that make the book great, reducing this to a B horror movie. Two of the main sources of conflict in the book (the museum director and the FBI agent Coffey), and the lead hero, are completely left out. So you really have no one to root for. The cop D'Agosta, has a ridiculous trait in that he's superstitious to the point of absurdity in the movie. I guess they thought this was clever since the film revolves around the opening of an exhibit entitled "Superstition." They show him doing superstitious things over and over, like not stepping over bodies, carrying a good luck charm, worrying about black cats, etc. Okay, WE GET IT! The guy's superstitious! We don't need to be hit over the head with it. The ending of the film and the way they kill the creature is rehashed and boring. Margo, played by Penelope Ann Miller, is boring and whiny. You don't really care if she dies. If you like the standard "creature gets loose and kills everyone" horror movies, you might enjoy this. BUt if you're looking for something deeper and much more scary, I'd highly suggest reading the novel instead.
|
