The Relic (1997) User Reviews (239)

An Enjoyable "Creature Feature"

[dfa120374 · 6/10 · 8 May 2016]

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.

Read the book...

[jason_tasse · 6/10 · 29 June 2005]

On it's own the movie is pretty good... I liked it so much it made me want to read the book - which was exponentially better! The movie changed the location from New York to Chicago and dumped most the the main characters and central storyline and added some that don't have anything to do with the storyline (like D'Agosta's supersticious nature)... they really dumbed it down. There is a fantastic character, Agent Aloysius Pendergast who was completely omitted from the film - what a shame... If you liked the movie then read the series by Douglas Preston & Lincoln Child: Relic, Reliquary, Thunderhead, Cabinet of Curiosities, Still Life with Crows, Brimstone and Dance with Death. -Enjoy!!

Not bad for its type

[SKG-2 · 7/10 · 1 December 1999]

I am not a big fan of these types of movies, but I have to say I was reasonably entertained for the most part(Admittedly, I watched this on TV, which could increase my tolerance level, but then again I saw JADE on TV as well). It sets things up nicely before the chase, it doesn't throw in a romantic angle just for the sake of throwing it in, the two leads, Penelope Ann Miller(remember when she was in big movies?) and Tom Sizemore, are both good, and once the chase starts, it's gripping. Admittedly, there are some flaws; having read the novel first, I knew how the creature came to be, which robbed some suspense(and while I appreciate that they had to take a shortcut to explain things, this was a little TOO short), while the photography needed to be dark, it was too dark at times, and Miller's colleague Greg(I forget the actor's name) veered uncomfortably close to stereotype. Still, this was an entertaining time-waster.

Plausible behavior makes this an attractive sci fi

[mrarchiegoodwin · 16 June 2001]

Overall I liked this movie until I read half the reviews--done before, simplistic, not realistic, etc. It is not a GREAT sci fi movie, but it is not as ridiculous as most of the genre. Best feature is that none of the major characters behave idiotically to further the plot. One never feels compelled to yell "Turn around, stupid!" or "No. Don't go into the basement alone!" or "Please turn on the lights!" or (to the heroine) "Don't you remember it's invulnerable to bullets?" The heroine is afraid throughout the movie (shouldn't she be?), but is she irrational at any time? The curmudgeonly, wheelchair-bound senior researcher is trapped on an upper floor, but does he emerge at the end from his place of hiding behind the computer console? The detective is disbelieving at first, but does he obstruct and endanger in the end? The science may be unbelievable (it's like finding a mummy curse) and that prevents this from being a great sci fi, but the behavior of the characters seems authentic (researchers who know their environment) and that is this movie's major strength.

new breed

[murrydan98 · 6/10 · 14 March 2009]

The monster movie bites back in this suspenseful thriller. All the elements are there fore the build up. Artefacts are brought from South America which unbeknown are carrying ancient religious powers. Its a cliché from other films including th e start of 'Exorcist' but here its done beautifully.

With the archaeological find now in Chicago and no one getting suspicious by the dead bodies that came with it- they can't be too bright otherwise they would dump the find in the harbour and that would be the end of the film.

Politics overrules those that start to worry that they may be dealing with something more that what appears to be on the surface. And then all hell does break loose.

Relic is a good introducing to suspenseful films for those that don't normally see them.

Good old-fashioned head-ripping monster fun.

[BA_Harrison · 7/10 · 19 September 2014]

A massive, mutated, hybrid monster with a taste for human brains is on the rampage in Chicago's Museum of Natural History, and with the guests at a fancy gala evening trapped inside the building, there's no shortage of juicy grey matter for the creature to feast upon. Tough cop Lt. Vincent D'Agosta (Tom Sizemore) and beautiful evolutionary biologist Dr. Margo Green (Penelope Ann Miller) risk their thalami and hypothalami to do battle with the beast.

The Relic is a formulaic monster-on-the-loose movie full of stereotypical characters, predictable plot developments, and scientific gobbledygook (the exposition might have made sense in the novel, but it is rather sketchy here), but despite the over familiarity of the material, the film still has enough going for it to make it a blast for avid creature feature fans. Peter Hyams handles the direction in his usual technically proficient manner, making good use of his creepy setting (some reviewers complain that the film is poorly lit, but I had no problem with that), delivering plenty of atmosphere, tension, excitement, and well staged scares along the way. Top notch effects also add immensely to the overall enjoyment factor: designed by Stan Winston, the creature is an impressive creation brought to life with practical models and limited use of CGI (which still holds up pretty well), and, once the film kicks into top gear, the gore is graphic and frequent, not a lot of time going by without someone having their head ripped from their body. It might not be all that sophisticated, but it sure is fun.

Monster on the loose in a Chicago museum, but it's too dark (literally)

[Wuchakk · 5/10 · 11 December 2015]

Released in 1997, "The Relic" stars Penelope Ann Miller and Tom Sizemore as a biologist and detective in Chicago who team up after a series of brutal deaths at the Chicago museum where the former works. James Whitmore, Linda Hunt and Chi Muoi Lo co-star as scientists at the museum.

This is a gory monster movie made with a whopping budget and an intriguing sci-fi concept concerning the creature, but it's hindered by bad lighting and bland characters. As far as the former goes, this is one of the darkest movies I've ever seen that doesn't take place in a cave. Regarding the latter, Sizemore is good, but Miller is only serviceable with the rest of the characters being merely okay. I suppose it doesn't help that the story lacks dramatic drive. People laud the film for not throwing in a romantic subplot between the protagonists, but SOMETHING needed done to make it more compelling. How about throwing in some teens visiting the museum – something! Nevertheless, there are some legitimate scares, the kills are utterly savage and the monster, location and sets are good.

The film runs 110 minutes and was shot at the awesome Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, with interior/studio work done in Los Angeles.

GRADE: C+

This movie is far from perfect but is unique and a lot of fun

[kevin_robbins · 7/10 · 22 September 2022]

The Relic (1997) is a movie that I recently watched on HBOMAX. The storyline follows a Chicago museum who receives a South American relic that houses a mythical god. The night of a gala at the museum the God decides to show its more real than mythical and goes on a killing spree. Unfortunately for the gala participants the museum thinks it's being robbed during the carnage and goes on lockdown. As local law enforcement tries to get into the museum those inside become the main course. A detective and scientist try to stop the god.

This movie is directed by Peter Hyams (Timecop) and stars Tom Sizemore (Strange Days), Penelope Ann Miller (Carlito's Way), Linda Hunt (Kindergarten Cop), James Whitmore (The Shawshank Redemption) and Audra Lindley (Three's Company).

This movie has an excellent cast and takes place in a unique setting. Sizemore is a lot of fun in this and the museum gave it a fun location, much like the cruise ship in Deep Rising. The storyline and premise are also very good and keeps your interest. The creature is well done, especially for the 90s. The movie is slow to reveal exactly what the god looks like but once they do it is very entertaining and clever. The kills are good and intense and you feel like the humans are being constantly hunted and have no hope. The last 30 minutes is a sprint of killing and mutilation.

Overall, this movie is far from perfect but is unique and a lot of fun. I would score this a solid 7-7.5/10 and strongly recommend it.

Most of the film is shot in the dark n the creature mayhem happens only in the last 30 mins.

[Fella_shibby · 5/10 · 4 November 2020]

I first saw this in the late 90s. Revisited it recently. Fast forwarded most scenes as i found the film to be not gripping n in fact annoying with those darkly shot scenes.

A detective is puzzled after recent spate of deaths involving decapitations. He visits a museum when a new victim is found murdered in the same way. In the museum, he encounters an evolutionary biologist who herself is puzzled after discovering a mutated beetle that possesses both insect and reptilian DNA. The detective finds a common link between the murders, hypothalamus missing from the brains of the victims. Together they both try to defeat a monster/killer who is on a killing spree. Most of the film is shot in the dark n to top it all, they added the annoying flickering flashlights. The action happens only in the last 30 mins. The design of the creature is very well done.

A Relic From Old Time Eighties Monster Cinema

[Bogmeister · 6/10 · 25 April 2006]

The title misled me when I first heard of this and saw it back in '97. To me, a relic is some old artifact, and I figured this had something to do with a curse, such as bringing something dead back to life. In, uh, reality, this is about re-arranging existing life, remolding it through wicked biological mutation inside a very basic 'monster-on-the-loose' plot. A very basic drawback for me has to do with visuals, but not the FX, as one might expect. Hyams, the director, also functioned as director of photography (as is usual for him) and I believe he might have been aiming for some extra spookiness in all the scenes taking place in the dark (or, over half the film). But he over extended himself here - the scenes are just too dark, or else the transfers of this film to video and DVD failed to follow someone's instructions. Instead of jumping at the scares, a viewer may instead find himself straining to figure out what's going on. Some of the basic plot turns are clumsy: early on, we are shown the results of a massacre on board a ship, yet the ship docked without problems (?). So, the massacre happened right after it docked (?). No one at the port noticed anything going on...?

However, the cast is good: Sizemore has the wiseguy veteran cop role down pat; Miller is sexy in that coltish brainy redhead way; Hunt is always interesting; and Whitmore never gave a bad performance in his 50+ year career. The main innovation in this creature feature is that the main action takes place in a huge museum (in Chicago). There's also more mention of the 'hypothalamus' - a section of the brain - than in most movies. Otherwise, it follows the old standard formula of political expediency versus common sense law enforcement. Everyone thinks the killer is, of course, the human serial-style variety; the cop feels something ain't right; the politicians have their way for a gala event. This is where things take off, with the monster stalking the elites in the darkened museum. To the film's credit, once the tough guys (a SWAT team) show up, things don't fall neatly into place - the monster makes short work of some of these guys. Early use of digital FX was somewhat startling back then; when the thing grabs a hapless cop, there's no need for a cutaway to a different angle, as in the pre-digital days. Yuk.

Turn up the lights. Please?

[maxmednick-139-264555 · 1/10 · 19 August 2012]

I kept thinking my monitor settings were off, so I streamed it on 2 other systems (via Netflix), and still had the same results: DARK and IMPOSSIBLE to discern what the heck was going on most of the time. Oh, and in between the shadow-play, the lit scenes were just awful, making me long for the dark scenes again. What a turd of a movie. The CGI effects were sort of reminiscent of the effects in the original Predator, but every time the Klathagor (or whatever its called) beast would enter the scene, the scene lights flickered, flashed, dimmed, strobed or just went out entirely, leaving you guessing at what the gurgling screams and crunching sounds were about. Further, the camera angles were oblique at the critical moments and I kept looking at the wrong parts of the screen because the edits kept putting the beast at different locations and depths continuously. I hate chasing a movie around for 2 hours. Its an exhausting and irritating film. Did I mention that this was a turd of a movie?

A movie with multiple layers-

[Jordan_Haelend · 9/10 · 16 August 2005]

I really liked this film, as much for what went unsaid as for what was. The film gives us some odd ideas concerning characterizations.

For example, Detective Vincent D'Agosta (Tom Sizemore) is a VERY superstitious policeman. He obviously believes that old-fashioned good luck plays a major role in life- witness his response to the idea of stepping over a corpse ("Don't step over it! It's bad luck!") and the importance to which he attributes the position of a dropped penny (Face-up or Face-down.) And indeed, luck DOES play a major role for him: he enters the security control room just AFTER the two guards on duty have been killed and the monster has departed; when he runs after Brantley in the tunnels he finds the creature's lair and the decapitated body of Brantley just AFTER the Kathoga has headed upstairs for a snack.

I also like the characterization of the Kathoga. Unlike the Alien in ALIEN, the Kathoga doesn't seem interested in killing anything for the hell of it. It kills the humans for the hormones it needs to live, and it kills the first of two dogs (we don't see it, but obviously the dog attacked it, hence its response was quite normal.) When the other dog whimpers and cowers against a wall, the Kathoga stops momentarily to look at it, but since the dog doesn't possess the necessary hormones and isn't attacking, the creature moves on.

On to special effects. I liked them, too. The attack sequence in which the beast makes a standing leap at the SWAT man on the rappelling line, soars in a perfect arc through the air and brings the guy down is a great visual piece. The monster itself was very well animated.

One more thing: in most older horror films where someone ships something, the item sent causes some sort of havoc once it reaches its destination; in this film the item shipped provides the key to what the creature is and how it became what it was.

I think this is worth the time of anyone who likes a good, old-fashioned monster movie.

Nice effects, and Sizemore is good as always

[Frogfisher · 7/10 · 6 April 2003]

I've seen this movie a couple of times, mostly because i've read the book and loved it.

For a monster movie it is perhaps better than the most, but to bad that isn't saying that much, because most monster movies are awful.

This one isn't awful, but it isn't the best either.

Sizemore is the best part of the film, Miller is okay and Hunt is okay but the effects are the best part of the movie, mostly because it gave me a vision of the monster. In the book all I can imagine is the eyes in the dark.

It's okay and enjoyable for the main part, not too long and not too boring, but definitely rewritten a lot to make it a Hollywood flick, but it's all right, I'll just read the book again.

Seen it once...

[ovidnine · 5/10 · 21 August 2012]

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.

A recommendable monster movie for fans

[Samiam3 · 11 October 2009]

One of my favourite B-movies is Peter Hyam's the Relic. Although it isn't a terrific movie, It has several strengths. Firstly, it is atmospheric and quite suspenseful, both of which are generated by Hyam's exceptional photography skills (he is his own DP). Secondly, it is convincing as a monster movie, even with a slightly limited budget, the creature works well both as an animatronic and as a GG model. With many films, it is one or the other. Thirdly, although the story is not that original, it does a fairly good job of hiding the cliché. The Relic paces itself nicely, putting the pieces together one at a time getting more and more interesting until it is ready to unleash its energy.

It begins in the tropics of Brazil. Antropologist Dr. John Whitney works for the Chicago Natural History Museum, which is about to open an expensive new exhibit. They are very busy, so when Whitney's latest shipment of findings arrive, the crates are put aside for the moment. One scientist however Dr. Margo Green becomes intrigued with the packing leaves in the crates. They appear to contain a bizarre animal protein. Meanwhile on the other side of the city, Lt. Vincent D'Agosta of the Chicago PD is investigating a mass homicide. The crew of the cargo ship on which Dr. Whitney's crates were sent are all dead and in pieces. his search for answers takes him to the Museum. After a night guard is discovered dead and decapitated in the basement level, D'Augusta is convinced that the perp is hiding somewhere within the building. Is he right?, and will he be able to convince the museum to close on the night of their big gala opening? In addition, do all these gruesome murders have something to do with the protein that Dr. Green has discovered, a protein that can turn an insect into the size of a football! It is going to be one heck of a night, and it is up to Dr. Green and Leutenat D'Agosta to save the day.

If I were to write a paper on cinematography, I would for sure make the Relic one of my body points. Peter Hyams builds a very dark, frequently claustrophobic environment, and many of his tricks work perfectly. One of which is his decision to shoot the monster mostly in silhouette to avoid the chance of it looking fake.

Of course there are some area where the film is not so strong. I wouldn't say that the film offers intelligent acting or dialogue, but in truth, not many B-movies do, so if you are like me, you will let it slip and enjoy the film for what it is, a deliciously eerie, and slick monster flick.

A well-paced monster movie with a great cast and a fun premise.

[seanellis1971 · 7/10 · 16 August 2010]

The Relic is an entertaining, well-written and at times genuinely suspenseful monster movie. It doesn't pretend to be anything other than B grade in tone, but it does have an interesting and surprising plot twist, which is revealed late in the movie.

The Relic features a very impressive monster, both in design and execution. The 'Kathoga' is a full-scale 'physical effect', much like the Alien Queen in "Aliens" or the T-Rex in "Jurassic Park", and was created by the late, great, Stan Winston and his creature studio (he created the others mentioned, also). It is among some of the most convincing monsters ever created using physical effects, including those in "Alien", "An American Werewolf in London" and "Predator".

The film is directed by Peter Hyams, who has made some great 'popcorn movies' over the past thirty years, including thrillers ("Capricorn One", "Narrow Margin", "The Presidio"), science-fiction ("Outland", "2010: The Year We Make Contact", Timecop"), and action ("Sudden Death", "End of Days"). He is also a cinematographer, screenwriter and producer, with his own distinct lighting style. It is rare to see a film made this way nowadays, with heavy use of smoke, anamorphic lenses, and subdued, almost film-noir lighting. Since so much is in shadow, many details are lost on DVD, because the format lacks sufficient resolution. The results would be far better in High Definition (on Blu-Ray disk, for example), or on the big screen, as intended by the director.

The writing is solid and well-paced. Dialogue is snappy and never reveals too much, too soon. The cast is perfect, with some memorable supporting players among them. The score, by composer John Debney, works very well, adding greatly to the atmosphere of the film. The setting, The Chicago Museum of Natural History, is a major character in the film, and is used to full effect.

Movies of this kind, which combine a well-developed plot with humor, big production values and a cast of adults (not just teens with adults for support) are rare nowadays, sadly. The Relic is an underrated film that deserves to be seen by fans of the 'monster movie', or 'creature-feature' genre.

Movie ok, book a LOT better

[Dearra · 7/10 · 10 January 1999]

On its own, The Relic was a fairly decent movie (but it scared the heck out of me at the theater). Compared to the book, though, it falls short of its brilliance. I was disheartened that FBI Agent Pendergrast was not in the movie; he was the best character in the whole book. The monster was ugly, no question about that (my congrats to Stan Winston's team). But without Pendergrast, the story wasn't as terrifying as the book. And with the movie killing off Dr. Frock and Gregory, there's no way Reliquary (the sequel to Relic) can possible be made; since those characters are key to the story.

Very boring movie until the last 30 minutes, then it still wasn't worth watching

[PAW-2 · 1/10 · 23 February 1999]

I was disappointed, as I was expecting a good sci-fi horror movie, when all I ended up seeing was a bunch of people mingling around with no real plot. This movie was a waste of time to watch and only at the end did you see the monster, which could have been Godzilla for all I know because the lighting effects were very dark and you couldn't see the monster or the characters very well at times. I am glad that I only sacrificed $1 to rent the video, rather than waste $8 at the movies. Do yourself a favor and have a good dinner instead!

The title refers to the screenplay

[LoganPa · 6/10 · 9 April 2002]

Out of all the "Alien" spawn films, this one stands somewhere in the middle. It is not a great movie, nor it is an awful one either. It could have been better if it had more of a personality, but that is where Peter Hyams fails to step in. Hyams is not much of an auteur when it comes to filmmaking. He usually creates forgettable movies such as Sudden Death, Timecop and 2010, which are not REALLY bad, but unfortunately not good either. His movies are characterized by mediocrity and lack of passion, as many movies with "hired" directors are. All that was good in Outland seems to be lost in him now.

The movie is the definition of predictable, maybe if it had come out some fifteen years before it would have made and impact, but now all movies of this type are the same. The characters are typical and the dialogue is way too scripted. The story did seem to be original, but at the end it works out as any "monster loose in a closed/survival film".It does have action and does in a way entertain the audience. It is a great movie to rent whenever there isn't anything else or to watch on cable when you are bored.Hyams could be a great director if he only showed some interest in his work, and he shows potential as making higher standard films.

In a low standard film scale, I would give this movie a 6/10.

A typical monster movie, but everything is too dark to enjoy...

[aro-2 · 5/10 · 14 April 2001]

The opening of the film is incoherent, so I'll just skip to the meat of the story. A Chicago museum is planning a grand event to open their new exhibit(dubbed Superstition) when a security guard is ripped apart. The police shut down the museum to conduct an investigation. After finding and killing a crazy man in the museum's basement the town Mayor decides to let the grand opening go on despite the warnings of one Lt. Vincent D'Agosta, who believes there may be a connection to the mysterious deaths aboard a cargo ship that was recently brought to port only a few miles away. With the help of evolutionary biologist Margo Green, his suspicion is confirmed. It seems the ship was carrying a pair of crates from Brazil, sent to the museum by anthropologist John Whitney. D'Agosta and Green make this discovery a bit late; the gala has begun and there's something lurking in the coal tunnels beneath the museum.

That sounds like a recipe for a decent, derivative monster movie, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it doesn't work for one main reason, and his name is Peter Hyams. While a competent director, Hyams will most times act as his own DP(director of photography), and therein lies the problem. He seems to think that keeping the lights as low as possible is an acceptable way to build tension. It's one thing to use dim lighting on a film(shadows can be very effective), but entirely another to keep the lighting so minimal as to eliminate shadow detail. The Relic isn't dark, it's black. There are no shadows; outside of direct light there is no detail whatsoever. Even scenes set inside the museum offices are too dim(and that's before the electricity has been cut). There are too many scenes where, despite there being several people in frame, the only things you can see are the flashlights they're holding. I could go on about this forever, but you get the idea. All this darkness is a real shame, too, because the always reliable Stan Winston has created another terrific monster. Note to producers: stop allowing Hyams to be his own DP!

On the other hand, there's the story. The opening attempts to pass on some information about Whitney and how exactly the creature gets to the museum. Throughout the film there are more pieces of the puzzle, but only enough to figure out what happened, not why. Evidently, the novel supplied a reason for the tribe's(in the opening sequence) actions, but all you can deduce from the film is that Whitney was simply participating in the ritual for the purpose of research. From what little I've heard about the novel, they had an ulterior motive.

To be fair, the film does have some good scenes(even if you can't see much of what's happening). The effects during the final chase are superb, as is the creature in general(again, what you can see of it).

Overall, there's not much to be attracted to in The Relic. I've always found films like this to be better when the sets, characters, monsters, and mutilations thereof are visible. So, if you're in the mood for an old-fashioned, gory, B-grade monster movie I recommend trying its 1999 counterpart, Virus. There's little worth watching here.

Not a classic- but definitely watchable

[mr. vess · 7/10 · 4 March 1999]

This movie, like any I've ever seen by director Peter Hyams, isn't an always-to-be-remembered classic, but the ride is fun for the time you stay on it. It does what it sets out to do-it is slick and scary. And the creature FX (when you finally get to see the creature) are undoubtedly the work of Stan Winston's fertile imagination. He did a damn good job with the creature-even if it's facial feauures were a hell of a lot like the Predator's. As for Hyams's directing, he takes advantage of the fact that the creature is a genetic composite. The scene where the creature climbs onto the walls and ceiling of a room like a spider was really cool-I've gotta give Hyams's credit for putting that on screen-it was pretty scary. anyway, if you're looking for a well manufactured piece of moviemaking, I definitely recommend the Relic.

One of the worst adaptations the Universe has ever seen ...

[A_Different_Drummer · 5/10 · 25 July 2014]

... and I am talking about the IMDb universe, because I am not currently registered to do entertainment reviews on the other inhabited planets. Still, just a guess, I think this horrendous adaption of a Preston/Child novel would likely qualify as awful in those realms as well. In fact, I suspect that this single film was responsible for the fact that very little of Preston/Child's later works -- many of which were just brilliant -- ever caught another bid from Hollywood.

So what can we say about Peter Hyam's bizarre attempt to turn a wonderfully mature, adult, mystery novel into Jaws 36?

* IMDb rating is dead on. Thank you, IMDb reviewers

* an all-star cast is completely lost when competing with the CGI creature. Only Penelope Ann Miller shines. (This reviewer has always considered her an under-appreciated actress -- this was done just after she stole the show in Witch Hunt, one of the most obscure but entertaining movies ever. Tab to Amazon and order that!)

* the movie is so off-kilter that, by the climax, the audience is as likely to be rooting for the creature (single-minded, focused, acrobatic, athletic, all good and admirable qualities) as his prey.

Whatta waste.

A underrated, genuinely haunting monster movie.

[willywants · 10/10 · 10 February 2004]

A researcher at Chicago's National History Museum returns from South America with some crates containing his findings. When the crates arrive at the museum without the owner there appears to be very little inside. However, police discover gruesome murders on the cargo ship that brought the crates to the US and then another murder in the museum itself. Investigating the murders is Lt. Vincent D'Agosta who enlists the help of Dr. Margo Green at the museum - she has taken an interest in the contents of her colleague's crates. Unknown to both there is a large creature roaming the museum which is gearing itself up for a benefit reception which the city's mayor is to attend. A horrific monster, haunting the lower-levels of the museum, shows up uninvited. Peter Hyam's "The relic" is a atmospheric, sinister, dark horror movie that scared the hell out of me! I loved the book and the films just as good. There's lots of gory decapitations and the creature effects from Stan Winston studios are beautifully done. A dark work of art, not some crappy "Monster-on-the-loose" film many have called it. 10/10.

Great Cthulhu

[lordwhorfin · 6/10 · 3 March 2006]

*Warning of spoilers* It's like a herd of lobbyists on crack! Actually, what it is is better than one would hope. Basically, it's an updated Cthulhu Mythos story, now set in 'modern day' Chicago. The acting is not bad, and Hyams' script, while predictable, is fairly taught. I sure wish that SOMEONE had been able to save Tom Sizemore from himself in later years. And man, is Penelope Ann Miller easy on the eyes in this pulper.

Because that's the real key here: Hyams is attempting to create a 40s atmosphere in a current film setting. This reviewer thinks he largely succeeds, thanks in large part to Miller and Whitmore, who is wonderful. It's certainly an imperfect film, and not Hyams' best, but for Mythos freaks, it's required viewing. They just don't make very many films for our crowd.

Where is Pendergast?????

[kennethp-04322 · 1/10 · 26 April 2022]

I can't believe that they mention it's based on the book but Noone mentions that they left out the main character. Preston and Child's agent Pendergast is the main reason for the story. Without him it loses its reason for being.